The Formative Cases Flashcards
The Thorns Case
i. Facts
1) The D, came and cut some thorns near the 5 acre property line of the P, the timber fell onto the adjacent property, and the D broke the close with force (he walked on to his property) to retrieve them in doing so is accused of trespass on the P’s land
ii. Issues
1) Does the D have the privilege to cross the property line (trespass) of another to retrieve his own property that fell there against his will?
iii. Holdings
1) Catesby
a) Lawyer for the D
b) Supports Negligence
a) no punishment for damage that results from lawful acts (defendant’s cutting of his thorn bush was lawful
2) Fairfax
a) Lawyer for the P
b) An action of trespass does not have to be felonious to be actionable; Trespass is a CoA available to those who have been injured due to the intentional acts of others
c) Intentional in this case means they intended to do the act, not necessarily the injury
3) Pigot
a) Lawyer
b) Agrees with Fairfax
c) TL
a) Pigot says this is more of a property law case than a tort case
4) Yonge
a) Lawyer
b) Sides with Catesby
c) Where a man causes harm with no legal injury, the harmed shall have no reason to recover
d) TL
a) Damnum absque injura (Harm without Injury) Very important legal case, just because you are harmed does not mean you have legal recourse, there is not a legal remedy for every harm
b) There is a necessity to maintain his hedge and thus needs to access the other side
5) Brian
a) Lawyer
b) Agrees with Fairfax and Pigot
c) Subscribes to Strict Liability
d) Building a house in a reasonable way, a shingle falls up and hits someone, should that person be able to collect damages?
6) Justice Littleton
a) Associate Justice of the court
b) Sides with Fairfax, Pigot and Brian
c) Subscribes to Strict liability
a) He has a right to be compensated
b) Cattle who enter another mans property, that man has the right to recourse for damage done
7) Chief Justice Choke
a) Sides with Catesby and Yonge
a) If a thing is unlawful, (trees falling onto the others land) than the act that follows is also unlawful
b) He should have plead that it was an inevitable accident and that he could not have stopped the act from happening
c) The justice seems to be a little on the fence
iv. Notes (TL)
1) What is the difference between Strict liability and Negligence
a) SL means that if the actor did the act, and an injury occurs to the P then the P recovers
b) Negligence means actor does the act, and an injury occurs to the P, but the P recovers only if the D behaved in an unreasonable way.
2) Quare vi et armis clausum fregit
a) Whereby force of arms he broke into the P’s close
b) As to the coming Etc.
c) He is really just trying to save time.
d) The D conceded he came onto the land, so the rest of the charges written were no substantive.
3) Against his will
a) There was no intention/he didn’t want them to fall on his land
b) He retrieved them properly.
4) Butts
a) The but of the joke, means the target of the joke
The judges chosen for the court all come from the group of lawyers (almost like oral amici briefs) and therefore, the lawyers arguments might be valid.
Arnold Theory
i. “the inference to be drawn from all available evidence is that in fourteenth century tort actions civil liability was strict
1) Exception
a) No one is liable for injuries caused by an act of God
ii. The pleading rule and not abstractions in the law, lead to a dearth of negligence pleas and Defenses
1) Writ of trespass D had two choices
a) Deny the physical he has done; or
b) Had to admit them and assign a cause for them
What if the D had hit someone by accident? Then neither of the reasons would fit the rule.
Millen v. Fandrye
i. Facts:
1) D’s dog chases the P’s sheep off of his land afterword’s the P sues for damages
ii. Issues:
1) Is the D Liable for damages, even though the sheep were trespassing on his land
iii. Holding:
1) No liability exists because the D’s use of his dog was lawful and he did everything he could to recall his dog.
The law tolerates the use of excessive force when the D tries in good faith to minimize it.
Tithe Case
i. Facts:
1) Defendant trespassed the P’s land to move a bunch of corn to keep it from getting ruined, put it in the barn, but later the barn was destroyed
ii. Issues:
1) Does the D have the privilege to trespass onto the P’s land to move corn to keep it from being devoured from the beasts when moving it also causes damage?
iii. Holding:
1) Justice Kingsmill
a) Defendant is liable
b) Taking someone else’s property against his will is lawful for two reasons
a) If it is for the good of society
b) Or through a condition protected by law
c) Neither of these factors are met and thus he must be held liable
2) Justice Rede
a) Defendant is liable for damaging the P’s corn
b) Was not justified, because he had no license to do so
a) The corn was not flooding or on fire
c) P suffers no loss from damage by the animals, because he can recover from the owner of the animals
d) Logic
a) It is okay for A to enter B’s land to drive out A’s horses if C drove them there in the first place
b) B would have the right to recover against C not A for the horses causing damages
iv. Notes:
1) TL
a) Who owns the corn?
a) TL says that once set aside the corn is now owned by the church
b) Distraint
b) TL rents an apartment from whitney, doesn’t pay rent, can the she take Tommie’s stuff to make up for the rent?
Not now, but yes they can do that then.
Weaver v. Ward
i. Facts:
1) D and P are trained soldiers who are practicing military drills when the D’s rifle discharges in the midst of the exercise and Injures the P
ii. Issues:
1) Is the D liable for the injuries sustained from the P’s rifle, even though the accident was not intentional and could be seen as inevitable?
iii. Holding:
1) D is held liable for the injuries, because he intended do the act that caused the harm
a) Intent to do harm is important in criminal law but not Civil
b) D found not negligent
Inevitable Accident
i. Courts way of awarding tort damages, when there is no intent or negligence.
ii. Niche Midway point between strict liability and ordinary negligence
iii. Characterized by being without fault because they did all that was within their power to stop it from happening
iv. Question is not whether the D should have avoided the Accident, but whether he could have.
v. What is a Demur
1) It is a “so What plea”
a) Just as failure to state a claim is a “so what plea”
2) A demur forces the court to answer the question. Such as “if you injure someone when acting reasonable are you liable if you injure somebody?”
Smith v. Stone
i. Facts:
1) D carried by others onto the Ps land against his will, the D walks on the P’s land it an attempt to leave.
ii. Issues:
1) Is the D liable for trespass
iii. Holding:
The D is not liable for trespass, but the P can hold those who carried him on to his land liable for trespass
Gilbert v. Stone
i. Facts:
1) D broke into the P’s land and stole a Gelding(castrated horse) to escape the threatening’s of 12 armed men who wanted to kill him.
ii. Issues:
1) Does the D have the privilege to take what does not belong to him to escape from THREATS on his life?
iii. Holding:
1) The D may not trespass another for fear of threats from another
If that were the case the P would never have recourse from D.
Gibbons v. Pepper
i. Facts:
1) D riding a horse that bolted out from under him, he shouts at the P to move before he is struck but the P doesn’t move.
ii. Issues:
1) Is the D liable for damages against the P that resulted from failure to control a spooked horse?
iii. Holding:
1) The D is liable for the damages sustained because he was riding the horse when it became spooked
This assumes that the rider should be in control of the horse at all times.
Gibbons v. Pepper
i. Facts:
1) D riding a horse that bolted out from under him, he shouts at the P to move before he is struck but the P doesn’t move.
ii. Issues:
1) Is the D liable for damages against the P that resulted from failure to control a spooked horse?
iii. Holding:
1) The D is liable for the damages sustained because he was riding the horse when it became spooked
This assumes that the rider should be in control of the horse at all times.
Butigan v. Yellow Cab
i. Holding:
1) No D can be held to the unavoidable accident standard,
2) liable for damages except when;
a) a superior force exists that we have no control over; or
in the absence of exceptional care, which law does not expect of the ordinary prudent man
