Judge and Jury Flashcards
a. Introduction
i. Notes
1) Typically the judge decides the law and the jury decides the fact, however in the case of NEG it could differ.
2) Questions of fact divided between judge and jury
3) The total Delegation of responsibility to the jury to decide the facts is wrong for two reasons:
a) Judges fear that the jury might abuse its unlimited power by deciding cases contrary to established principles of law
b) Judges believe unlimited jury discretion undermines central principle of distributive justice
4) TL kills Turia in a crash when he is drunk
a) Is it a question of law or a question of fact?
b) Could a reasonable person differ if the facts are undisputed?
i) If yes, it is a question of fact
If no it is a question of law.
Holmes the common law (judge and Jury)
i. Notes TL on holms judge and jury
1) Steel stair corner/nosing has worn down, on a set of stairs, Jaimie runs down the stair and slips on it becoming seriously injured. Can she sew? No thousands have run down before her without there being an issue.
a) could reasonable people disagree with respect to NEG in this case?
b) What if jury decides the same way for 10 straight cases
i) The judge sees these cases all the time so therefore, the judge would probably see more and therefore, he probably knows more
c) What if the jury comes out with a lot of odd decisions?
i) Could the judge then say they don’t know what they are doing?
ii) Holmes said he should be able to take back the case and direct a better verdict.
d) Should the judge have power to get rid of a jury decision if he doesn’t like it?
i) Yes he should the judge is better qualified than the jury because he sees it more often.
The Holmes view of law has not prevailed
Crafter v. Metropolitan Railway
i. Holding
P tripped and fell over worn piece of stair, Court found the D not guilty, because they did everything they could have reasonably done in such a situation.
Baltimore and Ohio RR v. Goodman
i. 1927
ii. Facts
1) P’s descendent driving across tracks and killed by D’s rail car; P argued that situation was an emergency situation in which Descendent did all he could; D argues the P’s own NEG caused his death
iii. Issue
1) Are the facts in this case such that the jury should be charged with deciding whether the decedents own NEG caused his death?
iv. Holding
1) No
a) If the Standard of conduct is clear, the courts should lay that standard down
i) Decedent Familiar with the crossing, in the daylight should have stopped and exited his car to determine if it were safe to cross = Stop and Look as a matter of law
v. Notes
1) Can reasonable people differ on the law?
a) No they shouldn’t
2) Holmes says that the standard of conduct is clear and therefore, reasonable people should not differ on the standard of law. Therefore it is a question of law (not Fact)
3) This is a chicken manure case.
No its not tommy, he is setting a standard of conduct and making a clear law about an issue that could effect thousands.
Pokora v. Wabash Ry.
i. 1934
ii. Facts
1) P traveling across the D tracks when they were struck and injured by the D’s train cars; P did look and listen but heard no bell or whistle; and did not get out of the car
iii. Issue
1) Are the facts in this case such that the jury should be charged with deciding whether the decedents own NEG caused his injury?
iv. Holding
1) Cardozo
a) A Jury should decide customary conduct when ordinary safeguards fail a person ( the cases are different)
i) Need for caution in framing standards of behavior that amounts to rules of law
ii) Getting out of car to stop and look is uncommon and may very well be dangerous
Notes TL
Wilkerson v. McCarthy
i. Facts:
1) P employee of the D sued D for injuries sustained when they slipped on greasy board placed over a tire pit. The Utah Supreme court overturned the Jury verdict for the P and ruled for the D
ii. Holding
1) US supreme court reversed the Decision and reinstated the verdict for the P
a) Improper for courts to assume juries fall short of performance of their constitutional function
iii. Notes
1) Seemed as if the employee was NEG, but the juries would pity the individuals, but in this Utah decision, the juries are just acting in their normal pennies for the poor way. Judge Doesn’t believe the jurors could say they should recover, so the judge reverses their decision because she doesn’t like it. The supreme court overturns it
2) What was the purpose of the employee crossing the board?
a) He was taking a shortcut
b) It was easier to take the shortcut than it was not to.
Therefore contributory NEG
