Negligence Cases Flashcards
Stone v. Bolton
Rule: No legal duty to prevent harm exists when the risk of damage to a person is so small that a reasonable man in the same position, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from corrective action.
Court held: No legal duty to prevent harm exists when the risk of damage to a person is so small that a reasonable man in the same position, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from corrective action.
Hammontree
Seizures while driving
Rule: No absolute liability for damages exists for a driver who experiences a sudden physical illness that renders him unconscious and causes an accident during that time.
Court holding: No absolute liability for damages exists for a driver who experiences a sudden physical illness that renders him unconscious and causes an accident during that time. Rather, the driver will only be held liable if proven to have acted negligently.
Driver must be on notice of seizures but hadn’t had a seizure in years. Was not on notice.
Prosecution tried to compare to a defective product, but failed…Not intentiaonl, not negligent, not a defective product.
Vaughn v. Menlove
Haystacks. Reasonable person standard. Created a risk when he should have used common sense.
Menlove is liable for damages to Vaughan because he failed to exercise the level of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person in preventing fire on his property. A person has a legal duty to use his or her property with the same level of ordinary care that would be exercised by a reasonable person. This is an objective standard that does not take into consideration the actual level of care exercised by a person.
Roberts v. Ring
There are exceptions to reasonable person standard. Age (children), mental disability, physical disability, superior knowledge (doctors, lawyers, etc)
Court held: Ring is liable for John Roberts’ injuries because he was driving his car in a negligent manner by failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to promptly stop his car. John Roberts is not liable for comparative negligence, as he was acting as a reasonable child of his age and maturity would.
Daniels v. Evans
Age is the exception to the reasonable person standard as long as you’re not engaged in an adult activity AND whether the person is acting in a reasonable manner
Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen
Rule: The standard of care required of a person with a disability is that of the level of care which a reasonable person under the same or similar disability would exercise under the circumstances.
Court held: The City is liable for the damage caused to Fletcher because it failed to provide warning to persons with Fletcher’s disability of the presence of a ditch. Fletcher is not liable for contributory negligence because he used the level of care that a reasonable person under the same or similar disability would exercise under the circumstances. s
Breunig v. American Family Insurance
Rule: Insanity is a defense but only if the person is not on notice of their disability. If they are on notice they will be liable for negligence.
Court held: Liable for negligently driving while on notice of delusions.
Carrol Towing
Rule: Liability for negligence due to failure to take safety precautions exists if the burden of taking such precautions is less than the probability of injury multiplied by the gravity of any resulting injury, symbolized by B < PL = negligence liability.
Court held: Connors is contributorily negligent for its failure to take safety precautions by having an employee aboard the barge during the daylight hours. Liability for negligence due to failure to take safety precautions exists if the burden of taking such precautions is less than the probability of injury multiplied by the gravity of any resulting injury. This formula may be symbolized mathematically by B < PL = negligence liability, where “B” is the burden of adequate precautions, “P” is the probability of injury, and “L” is the injury itself.
Eckert
Man jumped on railroad to save child
Rule: Negligence does not arise from an act or omission designed to preserve human life.
Court held: Eckert’s decedent is not liable for contributory negligence because he acted with the goal of preserving human life. Thus, R.R. is liable for damages resulting from his death. Negligence does not arise from an act or omission designed to preserve human life. Rather, negligence implies some act of commission or omission that is wrongful in itself.
United States v. Andrews
Rule: A common carrier owes a duty of utmost care and the vigilance of a very cautious person towards its passengers, and is required to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under all the circumstances.
Court held: A reasonable jury could find that United did not do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably could do under the circumstances. A common carrier owes a duty of utmost care and the vigilance of a very cautious person towards its passengers, and is required to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under all the circumstances
