Negligence Lecture Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Continued discussion notes on negligence - egg shell skull theory...

Description

Proof of Negligence

pg. 238-262

(A) COURT AND JURY: CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Goddard v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co. pg. 238 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1901 Facts: Parties:  Goddard, plaintiff/ Appellant  Boston & Maine R.R. Co., defendant/Appellee Basis for Dispute: -When P arrived at D's station, he slipped on a banana peel on the platform and fell. -Evidence showed there were many passengers on the platform. Procedural History: -P brought action for personal injuries. -Trial court directed a verdict for D, and P appeals. Issue: Whether a court must direct a verdict for a D when the evidence would not reasonably support a finding for the P? Holding: P has the burden to show existence of negligence, and that Ds actions were negligent. Court’s Reasoning: There was no evidence that D dropped the peel, or that D even knew peel was on platform. The peel could have been dropped by any passenger, within minutes of when P slipped on it. Verdict: affirmed (for D) Circumstantial Evidence: proof of one fact, or group of facts, that gives rise to an inference by reasoning that another fact must be true. Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. pg. 225 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1911 Facts: Parties:  Anjou, P/ Appellant  Boston Elevated Railway Co, D/ Appellee Basis for Dispute: -P arrived with numerous passengers on one of Ds cars. After the other passengers had left the platform, P asked a uniformed employee for directions to another car. While she was following behind him, P slipped on a banana peel and fell. The peel was gritty, dry, dirty, and black. Ds employee’s had a duty to observe and remove whatever was on the platform that could interfere with the safety of travelers. Procedural History:

Proof of Negligence

pg. 238-262

-P brought action against D for negligence. -Trial court directed a verdict for P, which P appealed. -D agreed to an entry of judgment against his client if he lost on appeal Issue: Whether a trial court can direct a verdict for D when there is a reasonable inference of Ds negligent behavior? Holding: When there is evidence of negligence on the past of the D, there should not be a direct verdict (it should have been submitted to the jury). Court’s Reasoning: One could reasonable infer from the condition of the banana peel that it had been on platform for a considerable period of time. Because it was employee’s obligation to remove possible dangers to passengers from the platform, D was negligent by not performing his duty. Since there is evidence that D did not use reasonable care in protecting passengers, the issue of negligence should have been submitted to the jury. Verdict: Judgment for P for $1,250 with costs. Joye v. Grate Atlantic Pacific Tea Co. United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, 1968 Facts: Parties:  Joye, P/Appellee, man who fell on banana  Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., D/ Appellant, owner of A & P Basis for Dispute: -P slipped and fell on a banana peel in Ds grocery store. -P offered no evidence as to how long peel was on floor, but circumstantial evidence shows that the floor might not have been swept within 35 min of Ps fall. -Banana was dark brown with sticky edges, and had dirt and sand on it. The floor was also dirty. Procedural History: -P brought (diversity) suit against D for negligence. -Jury in District court awarded P $10,000. -D appeals, and makes a 50(b) motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict Issue: Whether P has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence to establish Ds constructive notice to prove negligence? Holding: A P has the burden of presenting direct or circumstantial evidence to show D had knowledge of a dangerous condition. Court’s Reasoning: -there was no evidence that D put peel on the floor or that Dhad actual notice of its presence -There is no direct evidence to show how long banana was on the floor, and the circumstantial evidence in this case is uncertain.

Proof of Negligence

pg. 238-262

-The court states that because there was no evidence as to constructive notice, the ct reverses the judgment of the lower ct and remand the case to that court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of D. Ortega v. Kmart Corp. Supreme Court of California, 2001 Facts: While shopping at the Torrance Kmart store, the plaintiff, Ortega, slipped on a puddle of milk on the floor next to the refrigerator and suffered injuries to his knee, including ligament tears. The plaintiff did not notice whether the milk was fresh or odorous, warm or cold. Kmart’s former manager testified that Kmart employees were trained to look for and clean up spills or hazards although they did not keep written records. The manager also claimed that it is unlikely for something to be on the floor for more than 15 to 30 minutes but it is also possible that the milk could have been on the floor as long as 2 hours. The plaintiff sued Kmart for personal injuries. Procedural History: The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor and awarded him $47,200 in damages. The defendant appealed. Issue: Can the defendant be held liable for failing to meet the standard of reasonable care when the plaintiff does not present evidence showing how long the milk has been on the floor? Holding: The defendant is found liable for failing to keep the premise reasonably safe because it can be inferred that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient period of time. Rule: A plaintiff may demonstrate that the defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition by showing that the site has not been inspected within a reasonable period of time so that a reasonably prudent person would have discovered and corrected the hazard. Analysis: The plaintiff does not present evidence showing how long the milk has been on the floor. He did not notice whether the milk was fresh or odorous, warm or cold. However, he does show that an inspection was not made within a particular period of time prior to the accident. From this, it can be inferred that the condition did exist long enough for the defendant to have discovered it. Therefore, the defendant breached his duty of reasonable care Disposition: This court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

Jasko v F W Woolworth Co. Supreme Court of Colorado, 1972 Facts:  P was injured when she slipped on a piece of pizza that was on the terrazzo floor near the ”pizza-hoagie counter” in Ds store  P did not claim or show that D dropped or placed the pizza on the floor, or that they knew of its presence.  P contends that Ds method of selling pizza was one which leads inescapably to such mishaps as her own, and that in such a situational conventional notice requirements need not be met. We AGREE. Procedural History  The ruling of the Court of Appeals is Reversed and the cause remanded to it for further remand to the trial court and new trial.

Proof of Negligence

pg. 238-262

Courts Reasoning:  The dangerous condition was created by the stores method of sale. o Through the extensive selling of pizza slices on waxed paper to customers who consume it while standing creates the reasonable probability that food will drop to the floor. o It is shown that the store owner recognized the danger by the steps taken to constantly clean the floor.  The Basic Notice requirement springs form the thought that a dangerous condition, when it occurs, is somewhat out of the ordinary. o However when the operating methods of a proprietor are such that dangerous conditions are continuous or easily foreseeable, the logical basis for the notice requirement dissolves. Then actual or constructive notice of the specific condition need not be proved. H.E. Butt Groc. Co. v Resendez Supreme court of Texas, 1999 PH: The trial court rendered judgment on a jury verdict for Resendex. The court of appeals affirmed stating that HEB’s grape display allowing for customer sampling was some evidence of an unreasonable risk of harm to customers. FACTS: P while shopping in the D’s store slipped and fell near two grape displays. She sued D for negligence, alleging that the customer sampling display posed an unreasonable risk of harm that caused her injuries. The sampling bowl was sitting on ice and recessed about five inches below the table’s surface. Each display table had a three inch railing around its edges. The floor had non-skid surface and floor mats were in place around the table there were ALSO warning cones near the grape display ISSUE: Can a mere display of produce for customer sampling constitute an unreasonable risk of harm to customers? HOLDING: court of appeals decision reversed. Plaintiff takes nothing REASONING: SHE MUST PROVE: (1) HEB had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on premises (2) Condition posed unreasonable risk of harm (3) HEB did not exercise reasonable care to reduce /eliminate risk (4) Failure to do so caused such injuries She failed to prove it. RULE OF LAW: Plaintiff must prove that the defendants actions were the causation of the injuries for there to be negligence. (B) RES IPSA LOQUITUR Byrne v Boadle Court of Exchequer, 1863 Facts:  P was walking past the Ds shop on a public street and that a barrel of flour fell upon him from a window above the shop, knocked him down and seriously injured him Procedural History

Proof of Negligence

pg. 238-262

The assessor was of the opinion that there was no evidence of negligence for the jury, and nonsuited the P, reserving leave to him to move the court of Exchequer to enter the verdict for him for £50 damages. o P obtained a rule nisi (Having validity unless the adversely affected party appears and shows cause why it should be withdrawn. 2. It is apparent that the barrel was in the custody of the D who occupies the premises, and who is responsible for the acts of his servants who had control of it; And in my opinion the fact of its falling is prima facie evidence of negligence, and the P who was injured by it is not bound to show that it could not fall w/o negligence, but if there are any facts inconsistent with negligence it is for the Dto prove them. Reasoning: 1. there is no evidence to connect the Dor his servants with the occurrence 2. Assuming the facts to be brought home to the defendant or his servants, these facts do not disclose any evidence for the jury of negligence. 3. P was bound to give affirmative proof of negligence a. But still no evidence 4. There are certain cases of which it may be said res ipsa loquitur, and this seems to be one of them. a. “the thing speaks for itself” b. The doctrine providing that in some circumstances the mere fact of an accident’s occurrence raises an inference of negligence so as to establish a prima facie case. 

McDougald v Perry Supreme Court of Florida, 1998 Facts:  P– Petitioner – McDougald. D– Respondent – Perry and his employer C&S Chemical.  Pbrings suit for personal injuries sustained in a car accident.  Pwas driving behind a Tractor-trailer driven by Δ. The Trailer was leased by C&S from Ryder Truck Rentals.  As Ddrove over some RR tracks, the 130 LB spare tire fell to the ground, the trucks rear tires then ran over the spare causing it to bounce into the air and collide with the windshield of P’s Jeep.  Dstated that he had performed a pre-trip inspection of the trailer. This included an inspection of the chain that holds the Tire in place. Procedural History  The Judge instructed to jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The jury returned a verdict in the P’s favor. Dappeals  On appeal, the district court reversed with instructions that the trial court direct a verdict in D’s favor. o Trial court had erred by instructing the jury on res ipsa loquitur  Supreme Court: We sqash the decision below and approve the 5 th districts application of res ipsa loquitur to the circumstances of a wayward automobile wheel accident. Issue:  Is it proper for a court to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur? Holding:  Yes, a court should instruct the jury regarding res ipsa loquitur when circumstances deem it necessary. Reasoning:  Res Ipsa Loquitur is a rule of evidence that permits, but does not compel, an inference of negligence under certain circumstances.  Type of event:

Proof of Negligence



pg. 238-262

1. a basis of past experience which reasonably permits the conclusion that such events do not ordinarily occur unless someone has been negligent. Basis of Conclusion: 1. Some kinds of events need expert testimony or evidence to show that there was negligence… others need not. 2. for some actions of medical Malpractice there is no fund of common knowledge which may permit laymen reasonably to draw the conclusion. There are kinds of malpractice, as where a sponge is left in the abdomen after an operation, where no expert is needed to tell the jury that such events do not usually occur in the absence of negligence. Larson v St Francis Hotel District Court of Appeal CA (1948)

Facts:  Pwhile walking on the sidewalk just after stepping out from under the hotel marquee, was struck on the head by a heavy, over-stuffed arm chair. o She was knocked unconscious and received injuries for which she is asking damages from the owners of the hotel.  No one in the area saw where the chair came from, and only saw it when it was a few feet from the P’s head.  There was no identification on the chair as belonging to the hotel.  It is a reasonable inference that the chair came form some portion of the hotel. Procedural history  Trial Court o Prelied upon the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur. o Dmotioned for a nonsuit and court granted.  Appellate court o The judgment appealed from is affirmed Issue: o Whether under the circumstances shown, the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur applies. Holding: o The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies only where the cause of the injury is shown to be under the exclusive control and management of the Dand can have no application to a case having a divided responsibility where an unexplained accident may have been attributed to one of several causes, for some of which the Dis not responsible and when it appears that the injury was caused by on of two causes for on of which theDis responsible but not for the other, Pmust fail, if the evidence does not show that the injury was the result of the former cause, or leaves it as probable that it was caused by one or the other. Reasoning: o For a Pto make out a case entitling him to the benefits of res ipsa loquitur, he must prove: 1. there was an accident 2. that the thing or instrumentality which caused the accident was at the time of and prior thereto under the exclusive control and management of the Δ 3. That the accident was such that in the ordinary course of events, the Dusing ordinary care, the accident would not have happened.

Ybarra v Spangard Supreme Court of CA, 1944

Proof of Negligence

pg. 238-262

FACTS:  Ppatient Ybarra; D’s – Dr’s Tilley, Spangard, Swift. As well as several nurses (including Gisler and Thompson)  P was diagnosed w/ appendicitis and went for an appendectomy  After operation Pfelt a sharp pain in his right arm and shoulder. o Dr Tilley treated him for this while he was in the hospital, and after he left, he then wore a splint to work on the advice of Dr Spangard. Arguments:  P: the foregoing evidence presents a proper case for the application of res ipsa loquitur, and that the inference of negligence arising there from makes the granting of a nonsuit improper.  D: (1) there are several defendants and there is a division of responsibility in the use of an instrumentality causing the injury, and the injury might have resulted from the separate act of either 1 or 2 or more persons, res ipsa loquitur may not be invoked against any of them. (2) That where there are several instrumentalities and no showing is made as to which caused the injury or as to the particular Din control of it, the doctrine cannot apply. Procedural History  Trail Court: judgment of nonsuit, Pappeals  Supreme Court: Reversed Issue:  Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply when a patient is unconscious and is injured while in the care of hospital staff? Holding:  Yes one may use the doctrine where a Preceives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, all those D’s who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries may properly be called upon to meet the inference of negligence by giving an explanation of their conduct. Reasoning:  Without the aid of the doctrine a patient who received permanent injuries of a serious character, obviously the result of someone’s negligence would be entirely unable to recover unless the doctors and nurses in attendance voluntarily chose to disclose the identity of the negligent person and the facts establishing liability....