Kingston v. Chicago - This could help those who are trying to understanding such cas PDF

Preview

Summary

This could help those who are trying to understanding such cas...

Description

Kingston vv.. Chicago & N.W N.W.. R Ry y.

1. Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry., (1927); pg. 386, briefed 11/20/94 Prepared by Roger Martin (http://people.qualcomm.com/rmartin/) 2. Facts: ∆ is a railroad who set a fire when sparks from its train ignited surrounding land. The fire set by ∆'s negligence eventually merged with another fire of unknown origin, and then the resulting fire destroyed the π's house. 3. Procedural Posture: The lower court found for π. ∆ appealed stating that if the other fire was of unknown origin, he could not be held as a joint tortfeasor, because he would not be liable if the other fire were of natural origin and would have caused the same damage anyway. 4. Judge's Rule: When two negligently started fires of human origin meet and become a single fire which causes damage, each of the negligent persons who started the individual fires is jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of damages. 5. Classical Holding: Same as judge's rule. 6. Reasoning: The court reasoned that under the circumstances, there was no reason to believe that the second fire was of natural causes. The ∆ would have had the burden of showing that it was not caused by humans. The damage caused by each of the individual fires could not have been separated. Thus, even though the person who started the other fire was unknown, the two negligent parties were each liable under joint and several liability. Notes: 1. If the other fire was of natural causes, the ∆ would not be liable because the damage would have happened anyway. If two fires are separate, the first to do the damage should be liable, even if the other was bearing down. [My opinion]. 2. Successive acts of negligence may be treated as a joint tort if the damages are not separable. This may result in one of the negligent parties paying more than his fair share for the damages accruing from a confused situation that he helped to create.

Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. case brief Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. case summary 211 N.W. 913 (Wis. 1927) Tort Law PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Defendant railroad sought review of an order of the Circuit Court for Shawano County (Wisconsin), which entered a judgment for plaintiff property owner in a suit to recover for fire damage to his property. FACTS: -After his property sustained fire damage, plaintiff property owner filed a suit against defendant railroad. -Plaintiff's property had been damaged when two fires united. -The lower court entered a judgment for plaintiff. ANALYSIS: -On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, holding that although only one of the fires was attributable to defendant, it was still liable to plaintiff for the damage caused by both fires. -The court further held that the fact that the other fire was of unknown origin did not affect defendant's liability because the fire attributable to defendant was of a greater magnitude. -Finally, the court held that the fire of unknown origin had not superseded the fire attributable to defendant. RULES: -Any one of two or more joint tortfeasors or one of two or more wrongdoers whose concurring acts of negligence result in injury, are each individually responsible for the entire damage resulting from their joint or concurrent acts of negligence. -This rule also obtains where two causes, each attributable to the negligence of a responsible person, concur in producing an injury to another, either of which causes would produce it regardless of the other, because, whether the concurrence be intentional, actual, or constructive, each wrongdoer, in effect, adopts the conduct of his co-actor, and for the further reason that it is impossible to apportion the damage or to say that either perpetrated any distinct injury that can be separated from the whole. The whole loss must necessarily be considered and treated as an entirety. CONCLUSION: The court affirmed an order of the lower court, which entered a judgment for plaintiff property owner in a suit against defendant railroad to recover for fire damage to his property. A fire attributed to defendant was not superseded by another fire of unknown origin.\...