Negligence Chapter in Torts Law Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Negligence Tort Law Coursework and Lecture Notes - pages 209-238 of casebook...

Description

Negligence: Rules of Law pg. 208-238 Rules of Law Pokora v. Wabash Ry Co. Supreme Court of the United States, 1934 Facts:  P, driving a truck, came to a railroad crossing, looked both ways and listened before crossing, but neither saw nor hear anything.  Dhad boxcars standing on the first track, 5 or 10 feet to the north of the crossing, which blocked the P’s view of the tracks.  When he reached the track he was struck by a passenger train from the north, coming at a speed of about 30 mph Procedural History:  T1: directed a verdict for the D, claiming that P’s conduct was contributory negligence as a matter of law.  Circuit court of Appeals affirmed  USSC granted certiorari  T3: The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Issue: Whether a motorist upon approaching a train track is required to get out of his car and look, when their view is obstructed from the motorists automobile. Holding: A motorist does not have to get out of his car to satisfy the standard care when approaching a train crossing. Reasoning:  The remark that is the source of controversy is from B & O R Co v. Goodman which said “In such circumstances it seems ot us that if a driver cannot be sure otherwise whether a train is dangerously near he must stop and get out of his vehicle.  “Pennsylvania Rule” an unyielding duty to stop, as well as look and listen, no matter how clear the crossing or tracks on either side.

VIOLATION OF STATUTE Osborne v. McMasters Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889 Facts:  Downs drugstore, one of his employees sold the P’s intestate(one who dies without having made a will) a deadly poison w/o labeling it “poison” as required by statute.  “Poison” is required by statute must be labeled. Intestate by ignorance of its deadly qualities partook of the poison causing her death. Issue: Is it negligence when one violates a statute designed for the protection of others?

Negligence: Rules of Law pg. 208-238 Holding: It is Negligence Per Se when a statute is violated and harm is caused to an individual that the statute was designed to protect. Courts reasoning:  It is well settled in this state what where a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty he is liable to those for whose protection or benefit it was imposed for any injuries of the character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent and which were proximately produced by such neglect.  Violation of a statute constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence, or negligence per se

Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp SC of Oregon, 1971 Facts:  some American Indians(AI), in booth, and some white men (P’s) in an adjacent table.  One of P’s friends refused to allow one of the AI’s, who was drunk, to dance with one of friends wives.  AI’s started shouting threats  P told bartender, who warned him not to start trouble w/ those guys  There was as braw, started when an AI pushed someone talking to P’s table.  Cops came, AIs ran away  P was found outside the door with retrograde amnesia and a vicious head wound.  AI’s were drinking for about 2 ½ hours before brawl started.  Oregon Statute Reads (1) No person shall give or otherwise make available any alcoholic liquor to a person visibly intoxicated (2) no licensee shall permit or suffer any loud, noisy, disorderly or boisterous conduct, or any profane or abusive language in or upon his licensed premises, or permit any visibly intoxicated person to enter or remain upon his licenses premises. Procedural History  Trial court held that a violation of either the statute or regulation did not constitute negligence per se. It refused requested instructions and withdrew allegations of negligence which were based on that violation.  SC of Oregon: Reversed and remanded for a new trail. HOLDING: A violation of a statute or regulation constitutes negligence as a matter of law when the violation results in injury to a member of the class or persons intended to be protected by the legislation and when the harm is of the kind which the statute or regulation was enacted to prevent.

Negligence: Rules of Law pg. 208-238 Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. Illinois Supreme Court 1954 Facts:  One of the company's cabbies left his vehicle without first securing it. As a thief absconded with the cab, he collided with the motorist's vehicle and damaged it. The company's motion to dismiss was denied, and the company lost at trial. On the company's appeal, the court held that: (1) Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 95 1/2, para. 189 (1953), which required securing the vehicle, was a safety measure; (2) although violation of it was prima facie evidence of negligence, the motorist still had to show that the property damage which he suffered had a direct and proximate connection with the statutory breach before liability would attach; (3) whether the thief's conduct might reasonably be foreseen, and thereby preserve the chain of proximate cause, was an issue uniquely suited to a jury's determination; (4) to withdraw such questions from the jury and decide them as a matter of law was to usurp the jury's function; and (5) consequently, the trial court's judgment would not be disturbed. Procedural History  Appeal from the Third Division of the Appellate Court for the First District; -heard in that court on appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Raymond P. Drymalski, Judge, presiding.  Defendant Cab Company appealed a decision of the Third Division of the Appellate Court for the First District (Illinois), which affirmed a trial court judgment that denied the company's motion to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff motorist for failure to state a claim under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 95 1/2, para. 189 (1953). Issue  Is there a standard of care that should be held for emergency situations Holding:  The court affirmed the decision which upheld the jury's assessment of liability against the company Reasoning  The violation of a statute is prima facie evidence of negligence under the prevailing rule of this state. This in itself creates no liability. The injury must have a direct and proximate connection with the violation of the statute before liability will be held to exist. It is the existence of this cause and effect relationship which makes the negligence of the defendant actionable  Wrongful acts of independent third persons, not actually intended by the defendant, are not regarded by the law as natural consequences of his wrong, and he is not bound to anticipate the general probability of such acts, anymore than a particular act by this or that individual. The rule applies a fortiori to criminal acts. The intervention of a criminal act, however, does not necessarily interrupt the relation of cause and effect between negligence and an injury. If at the time of the negligence, the criminal act might reasonably be foreseen, the causal chain is not broken by the intervention of such act.

Negligence: Rules of Law pg. 208-238

Perry v. S.N and S.N. Texas Supreme Court, 1998 PH: Parents filed suit against Keller and three of their friends, Douglas Perry, Janise White, and Roul Quintero. Trial court granted defendants summary judgement nad severed plaintiff’s claims against those 3 defendats from their suit against eh kellers. The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment on the plaintiff’s common law negligence claims but reversed and remanded for trial on isues of negligence per se and gross negligence, holding that a violation of the Family Code’s child abuse reporting requirement is negligence per se. Facts: B.N and K.N. attended a day care center operated by Francis Keller and her husband Daniel Keller from March 25, 1991 to August 28, 1991. Their parents, S.N. and S.N., allege that during that period Daniel abused their kids at day care, physically and sexually. The plaintiffs claim that Francis Keller candied in White at an unspecified time that Daniel Keller had “abusive habits toward children” also on one occasion in August of 91 while visiting the kellers, defendants Perry, white, and quintero all saw Daniel Keller bring a number of children out of the day care center into their home and sexually abuse them. The defendants allegedly witnessed the abuse but didn’t report it in violation of a criminal statute. The plaintiffs sued for negligence per se based on violation of that statute, that states any person who believes that a child’s physical or metntal helath or welfare has been or may be affected or abused has to file a report to police or the Dept. of Protective and Regulatory Services. They also asserted gross negligence and common law negligence claims. They sought damages for pain, mental anguish and medical expenses as well as loss of income when they could not work outside the home because of B.N and K.N’s injuries. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. Issue: Does the Family Code section 261.109 establish establish a basis for tort liablity? Rule: The absence of an equivalent common law duty should be considered when decided whether negligence per se applies to the statute in question. Beyond this, there are a variety of factors a court may consider in deciding whether to create a new legal duty. Analysis: Some statutes merely codify common law duties. However, there is no common law duty to report child abuse. There are several possible factors in favor of recognizing negligence per se in this case: 1. The legislature has implicitly declared by passing criminal statutes that those statutes are practical to follow and socially desirable. However, this is true with every criminal statute and doesn’t help distinguish between those that should establish standards of conduct and those that should not.

Negligence: Rules of Law pg. 208-238 2. If a criminal statute is on the books, citizens will have notice of their duties. There are also several possible factors cited against establishing a new duty: 1. It is too ambiguous what conduct is required by the statute in many cases. 2. The statute could establish liability without fault. However, it is argued that this is not the case for this statute because the offense requires the mens rea that the person knowingly fails to report child abuse. 3. The statute could impose liability grossly out of proportion with the seriousness of their conduct. The legislature intended that failure to report be punished much less severely than actual child abuse. However, in tort, the person who fails to report could be held liable for all the damages of the abuser. 4. The injury caused by the offense is indirect. The court decides that the statute does not establish a standard of conduct. Thus, it finds that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action. Conclusion: The court renders judgment against the plaintiffs

EFFECT OF STATUTE Martin v. Herzog Court of Appeals of New York, 1920

PH: The jury found for the plaintiff, but the appeals court overturned the verdict. The plaintiff appealed. Facts: The plaintiff and her husband were driving in a buggy at night with their lights off and were hit by the defendant’s car coming from the opposite direction which had crossed the center line. The plaintiff’s husband died, and they sued for negligence. The defendant argued contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs husband in that he didn’t have their lights on. The plaintiffs contended that he did not keep to the right of the center of the highway. . Issue: Did the decedent’s conduct constitute contributory negligence? Rule: If a party violates a statute that applies to the facts of the case, without excuse, that violation is negligence per se. The court must declare the negligence rather than leaving it up to the jury. Analysis: Cardozo says that the plaintiff’s husband having his lights off at night was negligent. He says the jury should have been instructed that the plaintiff’s husband was culpable.

Negligence: Rules of Law pg. 208-238

Conclusion: The appellate court’s decision was affirmed.

Zeni v. Anderson Supreme Court of Michigan, 1976

PH: The jury found for the plaintiff but the verdict was reversed on appeal. The plaintiff appealed in turn. Facts: March 7, 1969, it was 11 degrees and the sky was clear and the snow was 21 inches deep. Plaintiff Eleanor Zeni, 56, was walking to work she walked along a wellused pedestrian snowpath, with her back to oncoming traffic. The defendant. Karen Anderson, a college student was driving within the speed limit in a steady stream of traffic on the same street. She said she had turned on the defroster in the car and her passenger said she had scraped the windshield. An eyewitness said the windshield was clouded and they were traveling too close to the curb. Defendant’s car struck the plaintiff on the driver’s right side. Her injuries were serious, intra-cerebral subdural hematoma requiring neurosurgery, also retrograde amnesia, still on permanent disability and couldn’t remember facts for the trial. The plaintiff sued, but the defendant claimed that the plaintiff’s conduct constituted contributory negligence because it was a violation of statute to fail to use the sidewalk or to walk in the street facing towards traffic. Issue: Was the jury right in finding the plaintiff negligent? Rule: Out of three possible rules, this court chooses the following: Violation of an applicable statute only makes a prima facie case for negligence that may be rebutted if it can be shown that the violation is excusable. Analysis: The court finds that the statute that is relevant to the current case gives the jury a clear guideline for determining whether the plaintiff was negligent and whether such negligence contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. The court concludes that the jury was correctly and adequately instructed. Conclusion: The court reverses the decision of the appellate court and affirms the jury verdict....