Standard of Care, Applied Flashcards
Baltimore & Ohio RR Co v. Goodman
[Judge v. jury - Supreme Court held that a directed verdict should have been granted for the defendant because the plaintiff was negligent as a matter of law] If a driver cannot be sure otherwise whether a train is dangerously near he must stop and get out of his vehicle, although obviously he will not often be required to do more than to stop and look. If he relies upon not hearing the train or any signal and takes no further precaution he does so at his own risk.
Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co.
[Train crossing - judge v. jury - If a reasonable person/jury could find an issue with matter of fact, must go to a jury] An automobile driver who is crossing over railroad tracks does not, under all circumstances, have the absolute legal duty to stop the car to look for oncoming trains. EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS MAY NOT WISELY OR FAIRLY BE SUBJECTED TO LEGAL TESTS THAT ARE FITTING FOR THE COMMONPLACE OR NORMAL
Gordan v. Am. Museum of Nat. History
[Slip on paper - circumstantial evidence - the fact that a piece of paper was on stairs needs to be backed by something else (D had enough time, was visible enough ect.). Absent something further, not sufficient to charge D with notice] To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent, and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it.
Negri v. Stop & Shop
[Slip and fall in store - circumstantial evidence - P was able to establish that the condition had existed for a sufficient period of time for the store employees to have discovered and rectified the danger] Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Negri (P), it cannot be said as a matter of law that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to permit the jury to draw the necessary inference that a slippery condition was created by jars of baby food which had fallen and broken a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit Stop and Shop’s (D) employees to discover and remedy the condition.
Byrne v. Boadle
[Flour falling - RIL - The fact that the barrel fell was itself prima facie evidence of negligence, for a barrel could not possibly fall out of a window unless someone was careless] If an accident 1) Wouldn’t normally happen absent negligence, 2) Agency or instrumentality in exclusive control of D, then there was evidence of breach (the act is prima facie evidence of D’s breach of duty of care)
Ybarra v. Spangard
[Surgery injury while asleep - RIL - (1) the accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) P cannot be negligent - it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff] Where a plaintiff receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of their conduct.
McDougald v. Perry
[Tire comes lose from bottom of truck - RIL - Ordinarily, tires do not fall from beneath cars in the absence of carelessness] Plaintiff is not required to eliminate with certainty all other possible causes or inferences. . . . All that is required is evidence from which reasonable persons can say that overall it is more likely that there was negligence associated with the cause of the event than that there was not.
Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital
[Med Mal] Court moves away from the same or similar locality rule due to improvements in the medical profession and increasing national standards of care – this is exemplary of an effort by the courts to push the fault standard in a more objective direction
Behrendt v. Guld Underwriters Insurance Co
[Judge v. Jury - Where the facts alleged to give rise to a duty are agreed upon, the question of the existence of a duty is one of law] A defendant does not breach a duty of ordinary care owed under the particular circumstances if there is a lack of a foreseeable risk of harm to a plaintiff. Silvan was subject to a duty to exercise ordinary care to take precautions so that its scrapped pressurized tanks could not be used. Silvan did so by cutting holes in the scrapped tanks. It simply was not foreseeable that one of those tanks would then be modified and used in a manner likely to cause a risk of injury to Behrendt.
