Torts I I. Heading ¢ Parrot v. Wells, Fargo & co. (The Nitro-Glycerine Case) ¢ 15 Wall. 524 ¢ 1872 II.

Facts ¢ Little was known ab nitroglycerine at the time and D opened the case w/ such in it w/ a mallet and chisel, causing it to explode. ¢ P sued for damages from the explosion. i) D should know what·s in its possession, esp when opening it. III. Procedural History ¢ Lower court found for D. IV. Issue(s) ¢ Is liability for negligence a bright-line standard? V. Judgment ¢ Lower court affirmed. VI. Holding ¢ No. VII. Rule ¢ The measure of care against accidents and negligence must be the amount a RP would take considering the circumstances and knowledge of the situation available. ¢ Basically, the entire situation must be taken in account when determining negligence. VIII. Reasoning/ Analysis ¢ Ds were ´innocently ignorantµ of the contents of the package. ¢ If the D took an ordinary amount of care when opening the package w/ the knowledge at the time, then he is not negligent. ¢ The D did a lawful act and exercised caution, then the consequences must be borne by the P unless he can prove want of due care. ¢ In this case, it was accidental and P cannot recover damages. IX. Additional Comments ¢

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful