Vaughan v pg.151 standard of care PDF

Preview

Summary

2020 Tort Law I Case Brief for VAUGHAN - Standard duty of care lecture...

Description

Standard of Care: Reasonable Prudent Person Vaughan v. Menlove Court of Common Pleas, 1837 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:  

The court found in favor of the plaintiff but a rule nisi (to show cause that the event didn’t happen the way it is ruled) was obtained A new trial because the jury didn’t decide on the right basis

FACTS:     

Defendant built a hay rick near the boundary line of his land and the plaintiff It was likely that the rick would ignite putting the plaintiff’s land in danger The defendant was said to have notice of this fact and was negligent in his care The rick did ignite and burned his barn and stables and then spread to the cottages of his neighbor did catch fire When warned of the danger repeatedly over 5 weeks the defendant said “he would chance it”

ISSUE: Whether the fire was the result of gross negligence on the part of the defendant and he did not proceed the way a reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under such circumstances? HOLDING: the defendant did not proceed with due care DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:   

Court should have been analyzing whether the defendant had acted to the best of his judgment, and if he did he would not be liable He was responsible for it because it is common knowledge that a rick will light on fire in the event the hay is not stacked correctly Mere faith cannot relieve liability

Delair v. McAdoo Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:   

Jury found in favor of plaintiff for $7500 The lower court granted the defendant a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive Refused his motion for a judgment n.o.v (where a judge can overturn the decision of the jury)

FACTS:     

Defendant was trying to pass the plaintiff on the road The left rear tire of his car blew out and the car swerved into the plaintiffs vehicle Plaintiff sue saying defendant was negligent in driving with defective tires A witness said that “was worn pretty well through. You could see the tread in the tire- the inside lining” Repair man said he could see “the breaker strip” which is under the fabric of the tire

Standard of Care: Reasonable Prudent Person ISSUE: Whether the defendant has as standard of care in regards to the condition of the vehicle he is driving for the safety of other on the highway? HOLDING: order affirmed DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  

Any reasonable person knows that using the tire to the point that the fabric is showing is dangerous and should not be used An operator cannot say they did not know, they must know, it is too serious a situation

Trimarco v. Klein Court of Appeals of New York, 1982 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:    

Plaintiff sued defendant for negligently not installing shatterproof glass shower door Plaintiff introduced evidence showing it was common practice among landlords to install such doors in apartment Trial court awarded plaintiff $240,000 Appellate division reversed and dismissed the case

FACTS:  

The plaintiff was sliding the door open on the shower it shattered and he incurred serious injuries Since the 1950’s using shatterproof glass is common and by 1976 the glass door no longer met safety standards o Showed this by showing that federal notices had gone out at the time in warning of the dangers that lurked when plain glass was utilized in “hazardous locations”

ISSUE: Whether or not the plaintiff made a case against the defendant showing his lack of standard of care as landlord? PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENTS Plaintiff: Defendant: 

Contends that the shower door was not within compass of section 78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law court found untrue

HOLDING: decision reversed for new trial because the General Business Law sections (concerning the statute) should have been excluded DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  

Tenants look to their landlords for safe maintenance of the household Reject defendants contention that the shower door was not within the compass of §78 of the Multiple Dwelling Law Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.

Standard of Care: Reasonable Prudent Person City Court of New York, New York County, 1941 PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 

Plaintiffs filed for negligence against the cab company

FACTS:  

the chauffeur driving a cab owned by the defendant jumped out of his vehicle while it was in motion after he was threatened by this passenger, who was a thief with a pistol who was fleeing the scene of his robbery the robber, although injured, jumped from the taxi as well and an unmanned vehicle injured the plaintiffs, a mother and her two children

 ISSUE: Whether a person can be held found guilty of negligence under life threatening circumstances that would not be considered their fault? HOLDING: found in favor of the defendant DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: 

 

Court found in favor of the defendant saying the defendant was suddenly faced with patent danger, not of its own making, and the court presumed the defendant abandoned the car involuntarily o The court doesn’t hold one in an emergency situation to exercise the same standard of care typically required found defendant’s actions reasonable under the situation Refer to Kolanko v. Erie railroad Co. pg. 161 Found the defendant’s actions reasonable under the circumstances

Roberts v. State of Louisiana Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1981 PROCEDURAL HISTORY: 

Trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit

FACTS:    

Sept. 1, 1977 at about 12:45pm, Mike Burson left concession stand to go to the bathroom He bumped into the plaintiff who fell to the floor and injured his hip Plaintiff was 75 years old and was 5”6 weighing 100 pounds, Burson was 26, 6’, and 165 pounds Burson’s, although he is not involved in the lawsuit, his negligence is a serious issue in this case o Plaintiff contends that Burson did not use his cane therefore acting negligently

ISSUE: Whether a visually impaired person is acting negligently if they fail to use their cane while walking in a public place? HOLDING: affirmed trial court decision and all the costs of appeal are on the plaintiff DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:

Standard of Care: Reasonable Prudent Person 



Burson was using reasonable care under the circumstances o “… The conduct of the handicapped individual must be reasonable in the light of his knowledge of this infirmity, which is treated merely as one of the circumstances under which he acts… It is sometimes said that a blind man must use a greater degree of care than one who can see” pg. 164 It is not uncommon for blind people to rely on other techniques when moving around in a familiar setting o In a busy area a cane can be more a hazard than an asset

Robinson v. Lindsay Supreme Court of Washington, 1979 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:   

Plaintiff filed suit against Billy Anderson (age 13) and Lindsay the owner of the snow mobile Suit brought on behalf of Kelly Robinson who lost full use of her thumb in a snowmobile accident when she was 11 years old Jury verdict in favor of Anderson, the trial court ordered a new trial because they failed to inform the jury of that standard and believe the jury should have been instructed

FACTS    

Billy Anderson was driving a snowmobile belonging to Lindsay, pulling plaintiff Kelly Robinson in an inner tube Plaintiff’s thumb was severed when it was caught in the tow rope The thumb was reattached but still not fully functional Standard of care theory has its exceptions: o Those that suffer from physical impairment o Children’s behavior

ISSUE: Whether a minor operating a snowmobile is to be held to an adult standard of care in the event someone is injured as a result of his use of the snowmobile? HOLDING: order for a new trial is affirmed, should be held at an adult standard of care DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  

When a child engages in dangerous activity, as in operating a powerful mechanized vehicles, the child should be held to an adult standard of care Petitioner was operating a powerful motorized vehicle, he should be held to the standard of care and conduct expected of an adult

Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co. Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1970

Standard of Care: Reasonable Prudent Person PROCEDURAL HISTORY:  

Plaintiff brought suit against the violator’s ins. Company under Wisconsin procedure that permits direct action against a liability insurer Jury found in favor of the plaintiff and defendant appealed

FACTS:      



Plaintiff was driving his truck and was hit by Erma Veith, who was driving on the wrong side of the highway She said she was following a white light on the back of the car ahead of her after taking her husband to work and the next thing she remembers is after the accident A psychiatrist said that she believed God took control of the steering wheel and she stepped on the gas when she saw the car coming because she could fly bc batman can do it After the impact she found she was flying Psych, said she was suffering from “schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, acute” To hold an permanently insane person liable for torts: o Where one of two people suffer a loss it should be that the one who caused it to happen should pay o To induce those interested in the estate of the insane person to restrain and control him o The fear of insanity defense would lead to false claims of insanity to avoid liability Pg. 171 insanity defense

ISSUE: Whether or not a person can use insanity as a defense to negligence and under what circumstances it would apply? HOLDING: judgment affirmed DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:   

Sufficient evidence that Mrs. Veith in her past conduct has showed the jury that she believes to have a special relationship with God and was chosen to survive at the end of the world God would take over the direction of her life to the extent of driving her car She did not have any warning or knowledge that these hallucinations would occur...