Byrne v. Boadle - Case Brief - Quimbee PDF

Preview

Summary

Case brief for the first week of torts 1 class....

Description

Byrne v. Boadle Court of Exchequer 159 Eng. Rep. 299 (Ex. 1863) Rule of Law If injury of a type that does not typically occur without negligence negligence is presumed from the mere fact of the occurrence.

does occur,

Fac ts Byrne (plaintiff) alleged that as he was passing along a highway in front of a building owned by Boadle (defen dant), he was struck and badly injured by a barrel of our that was being lowered from a window above. Byrne brought suit against Boadle, a dealer of our, for negligence. The trial court found no evidence of Boadle’s n eglig ence, and granted judgment for Boadle . On appeal, Byrne argued that the presumption is that Boadle’s servants were handling the our when it fell and injured Byrne, and if they were not, Boadle has the burden of proving this. The court of appeals held for Byrne, and Boadle appealed.

Iss ssu ue Whether negligence may ever be presumed from the mere fact of an accident.

Holding and R Reasoning easoning (P ollllo oc k, C C.. B .) Yes. Barrels typically do not fall out of windows without some sort of accompanying negli gence. Thus, negligence on behalf of Boadle is presumed. Boadle presented no evidence rebutting this presumption, and the judgment for Byrne is af rmed. If injury of a type that does not typically occur without negligence does occur, negligence is presumed from the mere fact of the occurrence. The plaintiff does not have the initial burden of showing that the act could not occur without negligen ce. However, if any facts surrounding the incident occur that are inconsistent with neg ligence, it is the defendant’s responsibility to prove them. Barrels of our typically do not roll out of the top stories of warehouses without some sort of ne gligenc e. When something like this happens and injures s omeone, it is absurd to require the injured person to procure witnesses to testify that some type of negligence occurred. A barrel fell out of Boadle’s warehouse and injured Byrne. Negligence on the part of Boadle can be presumed without any additional testimony from Byrne. If any excu lpator y facts ex ist, Boadle has the burden of proving them at trial. The decision of the court of appeals is af rmed....