Está en la página 1de 9

Name: Vaughan v.

Menlove

FACTS: The defendant built a hayrick near the plaintiff’s land. The hayrick caught fire and
spread to the plaintiff’s land destroying his cottages. The plaintiff sought damages that the
alleged fire was caused by the defendant’s improper build of the hayrick. Following a verdict for
the plaintiff, the defendant won an order (Rule Nisi→ an order “to show cause”, meaning that the
ruling is absolute unless the party to whom it applies can show why it should apply) requiring a
new trial. The grant was reviewed by the court of common pleas.

ISSUE: Whether applying the good faith standard as suppose to the reasonable person standard
is justified.

RULE: For the purpose of negligence, applying the good faith standard in this case would leave
a vague line as to afford no rule at all, the degree of judgments belongings to each individual
being various: and though it has been urged that the care which a prudent man will take is not an
intelligence proposition as a the rule of law.

APPLICATION: Here, the defendant’s hayrick caused the fire that destroyed the plaintiff’s
cottages. In this case, has the defendant acted in a way a prudent man in similar situation would
have acted to prevent the spreading of the fire and if so not liable for negligence. ??????

CONCLUSION: Therefore, adhering to a rule that will required looking at each individual
judgment based on the liability of negligence is too vague and we ought to stick with a rule
which requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would
observe.
Name: Parrots v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (The Nitro-Glycerine Case)

FACTS: The defendants were paid to ship a crate upon arriving at their destination discovered
the contents were leaking. The leaking appeared to have stained another box, in accordance to
defendant’s business policy the content and stained box were taken to the defendants’ building to
be examined. In the present of the defendant and other people with a mallet and chisel proceeded
to open the case and thus engage the substance in the case resulting in an explosion. The
explosion destroyed the properties and also caused injuries to the building occupied by the
defendant but owned by the plaintiff. The trial court held the defendants are not liable for the
damage to other property than the one they leased.

ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover for the injuries caused by the explosion to his
buildings, outside of the portion leased by the defendants.

RULE: For the purpose of negligence, negligence has been defined as the omission to do
something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man would
not do. The law does not charge culpable negligence upon any one who takes the usual
precautions against accident, which careful and prudent men are accustomed to take under
similar circumstances.

APPLICATION: Here, the leaking content caused the explosion that destroyed properties and
caused injuries to the defendants’ leased building. It is not require for the defendant to know the
contents in which they are being asked to transport when there is no attendant circumstances
awakening suspicions to that character, there is no presumption of law that he had such
knowledge in any particular case of any kind, and cannot be held liable for negligence.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the measure of care against accident, which one must take to avoid
responsibility, is that which a person of ordinary prudence and caution would use if his own
interests were to be affected, and the whole risks were his own.
Name: McCarty v. Pheasant Run Inc

FACTS: The plaintiff checked into the defendant’s hotel room equipped with a sliding door with
a lock, a safety chain and the door leads to a walkway with stairs leading a lighted courtyard
accessible by the public. While the plaintiff was out, an intruder broke the safety chain, pried
open the unlocked sliding door from the outside, then attacked the plaintiff, beat and threatened
to rape her. She fought off the intruder and he fled. The defendant filed suit charges negligence
and bases federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. The parties agree that Illinois law
governs the substantive issues. The jury found verdict in favor of the defendant. Plaintiff
appeals…

ISSUE: Whether the defendant failed to take precautions of reasonable cost and efficacy that
could have prevented the mishap.

RULE: For the purpose of negligence, the court applied the “Hand Formula” which states an
actor conduct will be negligence if the burden of precaution is less than the magnitude of the
accident, if it occurs, multiplied by the probability of occurrence. If the burden is less, the
precaution should be taken. An actor is negligent if the burden of prevention or avoidance is less
than the probability of loss, multiplied by the magnitude of loss that would be avoided with the
possible prevention or avoidance.

APPLICATION: Here, the plaintiff was attacked, beat and threatened to be raped. However,
the burden of prove is on the plaintiff to show the defendant was negligent. She must
demonstrate that the burden of prevention and avoidance is less than the magnitude of risk
imposed by the defendant.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the defendant failed to show that the mishap could have been
prevented by precautions of reasonable cost and efficacy.
Stewart v. Motts

FACTS: The plaintiff stopped by the defendant auto repair shop and offered to help the
defendant in repairing a fuel tank. During the repair the car back fired, caused an explosion and
resulted in the plaintiff suffering severe burn injuries.
The Court of Common Pleas in Monroe County found verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The
defendant appeals from the order and memorandum opinion of the Superior Court affirming that
verdict.

ISSUE: Whether the trial court instruction to the jury to use a “higher degree of care” as oppose
to the “reasonable care” for the use of dangerous instrumentalities create a different standard?
Whether the defendant used reasonable care handling dangerous instrumentalities when he was
repairing the fuel tank that caused the car to backfired and exploded causing severe burn
injuries?

RULE: For the purpose of negligence, the standard of care applicable in negligence action
involving dangerous instrumentalities is that of “reasonable care” so when a reasonable person is
presented with circumstances involving the use of dangerous instrumentalities, he must
necessarily exercise a “higher” degree of care proportionate to the danger.

APPLICATION: Here, the trial court instructed the jury to decide whether the defendant
exercise a higher degree of care when he was repairing the automotive fuel tank. The trial court
instructions imply applying the reasonable care standard whether the word used was “higher
degree of care” instead of reasonable care. The use of the word is not inconsistent with what the
court considered to be reasonable care. The totality of the instruction adequately presents a clear
and concise instruction.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the trial court instruction as presented to the jury was adequate.
Myhaver v. Knutson

FACTS: The defendant was heading north on 43rd Avenue when another car existing from a
shopping center driveway pulled out and heading south on the defendant’s lane. Upon seeing the
car, the defendant accelerated and swerved left to avoid a head on collision but in doing so
crossed the double yellow line onto oncoming traffic and collided with the plaintiff’s car.
The jury found the defendant not liable and the plaintiff appeals claiming the trial judge
erred in giving the sudden emergency instruction to the jury.

ISSUE: Whether the “sudden emergency” instruction as applied confused the jury as to whether
the reasonable person standard of care in these circumstances is more applicable when the
defendant swerved and crossed the double yellow line onto oncoming traffic thereby colliding
with the plaintiff’s car to avoid a head on collision?

RULE: For the purpose of negligence, the “sudden emergency” instruction should be confined
to cases in which emergency is not the of the routine sort produced by the impending accident
but arises from the events the driver could not be expected to anticipate but explain that the
existence of a sudden emergency and reaction to it are only some factors to be considered in
determining what is reasonable conduct under the circumstances.

APPLICATION: Here, the defendant did swerved and collided with the plaintiff’s car to avoid
a head-on collision. Considering the facts, there was no evidence of negligence on the
defendant’s part. His reflexive reaction to the situation is simply that which a reasonable person
would have done to avoid an accident.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, given the facts, and the circumstances in which the accident
occurred, the trial court has discretion to instruct on the sudden emergency as a factor in the
determination of negligence.
Cervelli v. Graves

FACTS: The plaintiff was driving on a road that is icy and slick described as covered with black
ice while driving had difficulty controlling his vehicle, began to fishtail on the ice and eventually
loss control of the vehicle and started to slide. The defendant while driving behind the plaintiff
attempted to pass the plaintiff’s swerving first on the left and then the right, and he too
eventually lost control of his vehicle both vehicles collided. Based upon his own admission, the
defendant is an (1) experienced professional driver with ten years of truck driving experience (2)
possessed a class A driver license which entitled him to drive most vehicles including heavy
trucks (3) attended a Wyoming Highway Patrol’s defensive driver course and kept up-to-date
with various driving safety literature and (4) he was senior driver employed by his employer
The jury found no negligence for the defendant and judgment was entered on the verdict.
Plaintiff appeals to the district court for a new trial claiming the jury was not instructed properly.
Upon no action on the motion by the district court; it was deemed denied in sixty days.

ISSUE: Whether the district court in instructing the jury limits the circumstances necessary for
the jury to take into consideration the defendant knowledge and skills relevant to determine
negligence?

RULE: For the purpose of proving negligence, the jury must be allowed to consider all
circumstances surrounding an occurrence, including the characteristics of actors in reaching their
decision.
• In defining circumstances, “circumstances are the index to the reasonable man’s conduct.
His degree of diligence varies not only with standard of ordinary care, but also with his
ability to avoid injuries to others, as well as the consequences of his conduct.
• Although a reasonable man standard provides a minimum standard below which an
individual’s conduct will not be permitted to fall, the existence of knowledge, skill, or
even intelligence superior to that of an ordinary man will demand conduct consistent
therewith.
• Superior qualities of actor→ the standard of the reasonable man require only a minimum
of attention, perception, memory, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment in order to
recognize the existence of the risk. If the actor has in fact more than the minimum op
these qualities, he is required to exercise the superior qualities that he has in a manner
reasonable under the circumstances. The standard becomes, in other words, that of a
reasonable man with such superior attributes.

APPLICATION: Here, the defendant possesses superior attributes such as (1) experienced
professional driver with ten years of truck driving experience (2) possessed a class A driver
license which entitled him to drive most vehicles including heavy trucks (3) attended a Wyoming
Highway Patrol’s defensive driver course and kept up-to-date with various driving safety
literature and (4) he was senior driver employed by his employer. Those superior attributes are
characteristics relevant to the jury to determine whether he was liable.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the trial court instruction to the jury was an incorrect statement of
the law and more importantly capable of misleading. Decision reversed and remanded.
Robinson v. Lindsay

FACTS: The plaintiff, a 11 years old lost full use of a thumb in a snowmobile accident driven by
the plaintiff who was 13 years old at the time of the accident. Record shows the 13 years old
defendant had operated snowmobiles for about 2 years. When the injury occurred, the defendant
was operating a 30-horsepower snowmobile at speeds of 10-20 miles per hour and the
snowmobile was capable of operating at 65 miles per hour.

ISSUE: Whether the adult standard of care should be applicable to the defendant, a child
operating a powerful motorized vehicle capable of going 65 miles per hour as suppose to the
children special standard of care?

RULE: For the purpose of negligence, the children special standard of care is required of a child
is for the child to exercise the same care that a reasonably careful child of the same age,
intelligence, maturity, training and experience would exercise under the same or similar
circumstances except when the activity a child engages in is inherently dangerous, as is the
operation of powerful mechanized vehicles, the child should be held to an adult standard of care.

Exceptions to the reasonable standard are applicable when the individual whose conduct was
alleged to have been negligent suffered from physical impairment, such as blindness, deafness,
or lameness. Objective standard is also inapplicable in respect to children.

APPLICATION: Here, the 13 years old defendant was operating the snowmobile that caused
the 11 years old plaintiff injuries. The children standard of care is not applicable to the defendant
because he was operating a powerful motorized vehicle, an activity which is normally that of
adults only. Engaging in such dangerous activity is therefore been asked to be held to an adult
standard of care, which mandates engaging in that activity as a reasonable man would have done.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, because the defendant was operating a powerful motorized vehicle
normally consider adults only activity, he should be held to the standard of care and conduct
expected of an adult.
Peterson v. Taylor

FACTS: The plaintiff, a seven year old boy was returning from school when he stopped at his
neighbor’s house and when no one was home decided to gather some twigs and build a fire. The
plaintiff frustrated that the wind blew the fire out he then went to his neighbor’s storage shed,
removed a can of gasoline, smelled it to confirm that it was gasoline, threw a lighted match into
it and watched the fire burn out of the can. When the fire died out, he went back to the shed,
removed another can of gasoline and accidently spill some on his pant. The plaintiff either lit
another match or knocked over the first can with flame still inside; somehow the plaintiff’s
soaked pant caught on fire and he rolled on the floor to put out the fire but suffered serious burns.

The plaintiff brought suit of negligence but the jury returned verdict for the defendant and
the plaintiff appeals.

ISSUE: Whether the defendant contributory negligence lacks sufficient evidence that prove a
reasonable child in is age, intelligence, and experience under similar circumstances won’t have
acted similarly?

RULE: For the purpose of determining negligence, the jury must first apply a subjective test:
what was the capacity of the child−─given what the evidence shows about the age, intelligence,
and experience ─ to perceive and avoid the particular risk involved? And second, once the first
has been determined the focus becomes objective: How would a reasonable child of like capacity
have acted under similar circumstances? The child can be found negligent only if his actions fall
short of what may reasonably be expected of children similar capacity. And, no expert testimony
or any testimony is required to determine what a reasonable person will do in similar
circumstances and thus should be left to the jury to decide.

APPLICATION: Here, the defendant retrieved the can of gasoline, smelt it to confine it was
gasoline, lit and threw the matches into the cans, and when he gasoline soak pant ignited rolled
on the floor to put it out. Based on those facts, the defendant could be perceived as having the
capacity a reasonable person of his age, intelligent, and experience to understand the risk
involve.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, there was ample evidence to support the fact that the defendant
could be found capable of contributory negligence as a matter of law

También podría gustarte