Nussbaum vs. Lacopo

Nussbaum vs. Lacopo - Because of this the risk is allocated...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Econ 404 08:10:53 rmf34 Nussbaum vs. Lacopo Judge(s): Burke – Judge. Court: Court of Appeals of New York (Location, Date): December, 1970 Plaintiff : Wilber Nussbaum, hit by golf ball on his patio Case Summary : Nussbaum was hit by golf ball hit by trespasser Lacopo. Nussbaum’s property was off the golf course, but a golfer would know not to hit their balls in the direction of his house. There was also a line of trees blocking the way to some degree. There should not be recovery from the golf course as it was not at fault. The plaintiff was never warned, but he heard warnings (FORE!) all the time and probably ignored them. The shot hooked, this happens to all golfers, even professional ones from time to time.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Because of this the risk is allocated to the other people on the course and not to the golfer. It is expected that the golfer aligned his swing property before swinging. It is highly unlikely that the players shot could have caused harm. It was essentially a freak accident. Defense : Paul Lacopo, trespasser? hit the golf ball. Verdict : There was not enough proof to determine negligence or nuisance. This is supplemented by precedence. Lack of due care is not demonstrated. Such an act could not have been anticipated. The golfer is not guilty of negligence. Law and Economics Notes : Reasonable man. What is the trespasser part in the beginning?...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online