Negligence Blyth case brief and notes PDF

Preview

Summary

2020 Torts Law I Case Brief - Blyth - negligence law...

Description

Negligence Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. Court of Exchequer, 1856

FACTS Procedural History o o

Trial court left defendant’s negligence to the jury which returned a verdict for the plaintiff Defendant appealed

Relevant Facts: o o o o

Defendant (Birmingham waterworks) installed water mains in the street with fire plugs at various points One such plug opposite the plaintiff’s house sprung a leak due to the expanse of freezing water Large amount of water escaped through the earth and into plaintiff’s house causing damage Apparatus had been laid down 25 years ago

ISSUE: Whether the facts of the case showed negligence on the part of the defendant? PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff: Defendant: HOLDING: reversed and ruled in favor of the defendant DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: o o o o

A reasonable man would act with reference to reasonable temperatures in a typical year Their precautions were insufficient against the effects of extreme temperatures The winter of 1855 penetrated to the greater depth than any other winter The result was an accident

RULE OF LAW: o

Defendant cannot be liable for negligence when the event was a mere accident and their precautions worked under normal circumstances.

Pipher v. Parsell Supreme court of Delaware, 2007 FACTS Procedural History:  

superior court ruled in favor of the defendant (Parsell) plaintiff says court erred when it ruled defendant not negligent

Negligence 

judge said it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that the yanking of the wheel would not happen again and Parsell had no duty to do anything after the first instance o no negligence in failing to discharge the passenger o and this could “negligence” could not be considered a proximate cause of Pipher’s injuries

Facts:   

March 20, 2002: traveling in Delaware in Parsell’s pickup truck with Pipher (plaintiff) and Johnene Beisel another defendant Beisel grabbed the wheel causing the truck to veer off the road onto the shoulder  Parsell said that the conduct caused him shock and surprise Thirty seconds later he did it again causing the truck to veer of the road again and this time hit a tree plaintiff was injured as a result

ISSUE: Whether or not the driver was negligent in allowing the dangerous passenger to remain in the car, her actions resulting in an accident? PARTIES ARGUMENTS Plaintiff:  

Feels that Beisel grabbed the wheel the second time because Parsell laughed it off the first time After the wheel was touched a first time the driver was alerted of a dangerous situation since he was notified he was then responsible to protect his passengers from harm

Defendant:   

He could have told him not to touch the wheel again He could have pulled over to the side of the road and tell Beisel to get into the back seat He could have warned Beisel that he would put her out of the vehicle

HOLDING: reversed and remanded DISPOSITION OF THE COURT  

Can be found that Parsell breached the duty to protect his passanger bc the danger was foreseeable Alleged breach of duty, foreseeability of Beisel’s repeat conduct and proximate cause of Pipher’s injuries were all factual determinations that could have been submitted to the jury

Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl Supreme Court of Nebraska, 1902 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

Court held that the children were trespassing but that didn’t deprive them of the right to enforce defendant’s duty to use reasonable care to make area safe  ruled in favor of the plaintiff

Negligence FACTS    

Defendant rules that his employees should keep the turntable locked when not in use evidence that it is frequently disregarded and one of the staples was so loose it could be unfastened without difficulty plaintiff (a 4 year old child) along with other children found the turntable and began playing the motion of the turntable caught the plaintiff’s foot and severed her leg at the ankle joint

ISSUE: Whether the defendant can be found liable for not properly maintaining the safety mechanisms of his property? HOLDING judgment reversed due to error on the instructions given to the jury for improper comment on the evidence DISPOSITION OF THE COURT   

the public good demands the use of a lock determining negligence: must regard the location of premise, purpose for which it is used, probability of injury, the precautions necessary to prevent injury, and relationship of the benefits from using the premise pg. 142 found the defendant guilty of negligence burden of keeping it locked was so small the need for it outweighed the burden

Davison v. Snohomish County Supreme Court of Washington, 1928 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:     

plaintiff sued defendant responsded denying allegations and pleading contributory negligence on part of plaintiff court ruled in favor of plaintiff for $2,500 defendant moved for judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial court denied both motions and defendant appealed

FACTS:    

Plaintiff sues defendant (county) for the negligent construction and maintenance of the elevated approach to a bridge (Bascule bridge across Ebey slough) There is a right turn and it is substantially elevated above ground level Nov. 11, 1926: at night plaintiffs were driving and the car around this turn skidded, struck the railing and broke through the railing and plaintiffs fell to the ground Both suffered severe and painful injuries and the automobile was wrecked and all the damage the plaintiff’s paid for

ISSUE: whether or not the county was negligent for their construction of the bridge? PARTIES ARGUMENTS:

Negligence Plaintiff: 

felt the bridge was not safe because the railing was unable to prevent them and their automobile from skidding off the approach

Defendant: HOLDING: judgment reversed and action is dismissed DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  

railways worked well with carriage and people on foot but cars are moving at too fast a pace and towns cannot be required to put up railways on all roads pg. 144 found the plaintiffs testimony of the railings were rotted but this is not sufficient reason to take the county to court

United States v. Carroll Towing Co. United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1947 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:  

trial court divided damages according to admiralty rule found Conner Co. partly responsible for not having a handler on board at the time

FACTS:      

the Anna C. was owned by Conners Co. and had been chartered by PA Railroad Co. which loaded it with a cargo of flour that belonged to the US the charter required the Conners Co. to provide a bargee Carroll Towing Co (defendant) was the owner of the tug the bargee workers negligently shifted the mooring lines causing her to break free from the pier Anna C. drifted up against a tanker and the propeller of the tanker broke a hole in the Anna C The cargo was lost and the Anna C sank The US wants compensation for the flour and Conners Co. wants compensation for the barge

ISSUE: whether the absence of the bargee makes the owners of the Anna C. (Conners Co.) partly liable for the damages? PARTIES ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff: Defendant: 

They would have known the Anna C was sinking and could have saved the cargo if the barge handler had stayed on board and observed the leaking

HOLDING: Connors co. partly responsible for the damages

Negligence DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  



Every situation is different and must look at probability the boat will break away, gravity of resulting injury, and burden of precautions Must also look at the amount of time the bargee was away from the ship bc they are allowed to leave it is not their prison o 21 hours court found that his story was evidence that there was no excuse for his long absence o The water was a busy place and it is reasonable to assume the work wasn’t done with proper care pg. 147 Fair to require the Connors Co. have a bargee aboard during working daylight hours

Pg. 148-149 Restatements....