Negligence- Duty, Breach, Causation, Harm

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Name:

Vaughan v. MenloveFACTS:

The defendant built a hayrick near the plaintiff’s land. The hayrick caught fire andspread to the plaintiff’s land destroying his cottages. The plaintiff sought damages that thealleged 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 theruling is absolute unless the party to whom it applies can show why it should apply) requiring anew trial. The grant was reviewed by the court of common pleas.

ISSUE:

Whether applying the good faith standard as suppose to the reasonable person standardis justified.

RULE:

For the purpose of negligence, applying the good faith standard in this case would leavea 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 anintelligence proposition as a the rule of law.

APPLICATION:

Here, the defendant’s hayrick caused the fire that destroyed the plaintiff’scottages. In this case, has the defendant acted in a way a prudent man in similar situation wouldhave 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 rulewhich requires in all cases a regard to caution such as a man of ordinary prudence wouldobserve.

Name: Parrots v. Wells, Fargo & Co. (The Nitro-Glycerine Case)

FACTS:

The defendants were paid to ship a crate upon arriving at their destination discoveredthe contents were leaking. The leaking appeared to have stained another box, in accordance todefendant’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 proceededto open the case and thus engage the substance in the case resulting in an explosion. Theexplosion destroyed the properties and also caused injuries to the building occupied by thedefendant but owned by the plaintiff. The trial court held the defendants are not liable for thedamage 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 dosomething which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate theconduct of human affairs, would do, or something which a prudent and reasonable man wouldnot 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 andcaused injuries to the defendants’ leased building. It is not require for the defendant to know thecontents in which they are being asked to transport when there is no attendant circumstancesawakening suspicions to that character, there is no presumption of law that he had suchknowledge 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 avoidresponsibility, is that which a person of ordinary prudence and caution would use if his owninterests were to be affected, and the whole risks were his own.

Name:

McCarty v. Pheasant Run IncFACTS:

The plaintiff checked into the defendant’s hotel room equipped with a sliding door witha lock, a safety chain and the door leads to a walkway with stairs leading a lighted courtyardaccessible by the public. While the plaintiff was out, an intruder broke the safety chain, priedopen the unlocked sliding door from the outside, then attacked the plaintiff, beat and threatenedto rape her. She fought off the intruder and he fled. The defendant filed suit charges negligenceand bases federal jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship. The parties agree that Illinois lawgoverns 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 thatcould have prevented the mishap.

RULE:

For the purpose of negligence, the court applied the “Hand Formula” which states anactor conduct will be negligence if the burden of precaution is less than the magnitude of theaccident, 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 lessthan 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 mustdemonstrate 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.

of 00

Leave a Comment