Historical Background on Fault in Accident Law

Question 1

Pre-Classical Period

Answer 1

• before 1850 (prior to Brown v. Kendall)
• STRICT LIABILITY - generally powerful presence - notion that def acts at own peril, + between to innocents, whoever caused harm should pay (use your property so as not to injure others)

Question 2

Case of the Thorns

Answer 2

• 1466 (belongs w/in the pre-classical period)
• stands for the maxim that “he who is harmed ought to be recompensed”
• strict liability-style thinking (case says only in criminal law do you need a guilty mind in order to be guilty)
• “for though a man doth a lawful thing, yet if any damage do thereby befall another, he shall answer for it, if he could have avoided it”

Question 3

Weaver v. Ward

Answer 3

• 1616, also pre-classical
• def is liable for the pl’s damages, even though the harm resulted from an unintentional act (harm accidentally caused)

Would only be excused under three exceptions:

• if another person’s act caused the pl’s harm
• if the injured party was actually at fault (caused own injury)
• if accident was inevitable or caused by some unavoidable circumstance (vs. brought about by def’s negligence or carelessness)
• outline says niche midway between strict liability snd regular negligence

Question 4

Classical Period

Answer 4

• 1850-1930
• idea of fault dominated tort law

Basic rule: def has to be negligent in modern sense in order for pl to recover

• if pl hurt by fault of def, pl recovers
• if person hurt but no fault, pl does not recover

Question 5

Key Cases for Classical Period

Answer 5

• Brown v. Kendall (1850)
• Blyth v. Birmingham (1866)
• Nitro-Glycerin Case (1872)
• Losee v. Buchanan (1873)

Counterpoint to general trend: Rylands v. Fletcher (strict liability)

Question 6

Evolution of Negligence

Answer 6

• grew out of highway + ship collision cases - 2 agents at work, let the one who’s at fault pay for the harm; if both careless let the harm lie
• idea of fault generalized from the collision cases to others (Brown v. Kendall - big breakthrough)

Question 7

Brown v. Kendall

Answer 7

• 1850
• breakthrough case for classical period
• pl and def’s dog began to fight each other -> Kendall tried to use stick to separate them + accidentally hit Brown in eye

Question 8

Brown v. Kendall - Rule

Answer 8

• def cannot be held liable for injured pl’s damages if def acted w/ lawful intent + without fault

Question 9

Brown v. Kendall - Decision + Reasoning

Answer 9

• to recover, pl would need to show either def’s intention unlawful or def not using ordinary care (the level of care a prudent and cautious person would use to guard against danger under the circumstances of a given case)
• said Kendall acted lawfully + reasonably in trying to separate the dogs (right to separate b/c one of the dogs was his + he would’ve been liable for injury it caused, + acted reasonably in using the stick)

Question 10

Rylands v. Fletcher - Rule

Answer 10

• 1866
• a person who for his own purposes keeps on his land anything likely to do harm if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie liable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape
• ultimately inspires modern strict liability, though goes against its contemporaries

Question 11

Rylands v. Fletcher - Overview

Answer 11

• case w/ the reservoir + the mines - Rylands constructs a reservoir on own property -> water flows from reservoir into Fletcher’s mines + ruins them
• record showed Rylands took all necessary care to prevent harm
• court held Rylands acted neither unlawfully nor negligently, but found liable for damage done by the water (strict liability)

Question 12

Nitro-Glycerine Case

Answer 12

• def (Wells Fargo) received a package that did not appear suspect in any way -> package sent to San Francisco, where def’s employee tried to open it -> exploded + killed bystanders
• defs not guilty of negligence b/c they handled the package in the same manner as any package with the same outward appearance

Question 13

Nitro-Glycerine Case - Rule

Answer 13

• defendant should be judged through negligence rather than strict liability
• negligence must be determined in all cases by reference to situation and knowledge of the parties + the attendant circumstances

Question 14

Losee v. Buchanan

Answer 14

• pl sues def for explosion of steam boiler that caused damage to pl’s property (sues for trespass of the boiler parts onto Losee’s property)
• court says no evidence that Buchanan acted w/ malice or negligence, owners of Saratoga Paper Company had right to place steam boiler w/in their mill + explosion was purely accidental -> NO LIABILITY

Question 15

Reasoning Behind Losee v. Buchanan

Answer 15

• notion of industrial growth - some accidental damage bound to occur, + trying to establish some form of wrongdoing (importance of promoting social and economic harmony trumps individual right to enjoyment of property)
• utilitarian reasoning - civilization demands risk that is reasonable and productive
• fairness - position of parity - we each have the right to throw reasonable risk on each other -> we are all risk creators + risk sufferers

Question 16

Modern Period

Answer 16

• after 1930

- aware of mixed character of tort law (negligence and strict liability both recognized)