Buch vs. Amory Manufacturing Co.

Buch vs. Amory Manufacturing Co. - care necessary to avoid...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 02:21:57 rmf34 Buch vs. Amory Manufacturing Co. Judge(s): Carpenter, C.J. Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire (Location, Date): March 1898. Plaintiff : Buch Case Summary : Buch, who was an 8 year old child, was trespassing in the defendant’s mill, where there was lots of weaving machinery. Overseer told him to leave; the defendant did not understand English. Overseer didn’t physically put him out of the building. The running machinery presented and obvious hazard to a child of Buch’s age. Buch had his hand crushed in a machine that his brother, an employee (age 13) was teaching him how to run. Assuming that the plaintiff was incapable of appreciated the danger or of exercising the
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: care necessary to avoid it, was he entitled to recover damages? He was a trespasser and the business was running as it should. Defendants are not liable unless they owed to the plaintiff a legal duty which they neglected to perform. With purely moral obligations, the law does not deal. Defense : Amory Manufacturing Company Verdict : The law doesn’t deal with this, sure it is always good to do the moral thing, but the child trespassed and he was wrong, he will not be hold for the trespass, but he cannot collect damages. Law and Economics Notes :...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/11/2007 for the course ECON 4040 taught by Professor Hay during the Fall '07 term at Cornell.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online