Torts Case Outline.pdf - LAW PREVIEW a BARBRI company CASE BRIEF Brown v Kendall IV UNDERSTANDING FAULT B Standard of Care 1 In Meeting My Duty What

Torts Case Outline.pdf - LAW PREVIEW a BARBRI company CASE...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 11 pages.

a BARBRI company LAW PREVIEW © 2013 BARBRI, INC. | PAGE 1 CASE BRIEF Brown v. Kendall IV. UNDERSTANDING FAULT. B. Standard of Care. 1. In Meeting My Duty, What Level of Care Do I Owe? NAME: Brown v. Kendall, Supreme Court of Massachusetts (1850). FACTS: 0 D was swinging a stick while attempting to separate two fighting dogs. 0 While D was hitting the dogs, P approached closer and was struck in the eye by the stick. 0 D’s action of beating the dogs to separate them was lawful. PROCEDURE: P sued D for injuries sustained by the blow. Jury verdict for P. D appealed claiming that the jury was given improper instructions. ISSUE: Whether a person be held liable for injuries to another if, while doing a lawful act, that person unintentionally hits and injures another? HOLDING: A person can be held liable for injuries to another if, while doing a lawful act, that person unintentionally hits and injures another, if the injured person proves that the actor did not use ordinary care and the actions of the injured person did not contribute to his injuries. REASONING: Rule: If, at the time of the injury, D was involved in a legal act and both P and D were exercising “ordinary care” (i.e., the degree and care that an ordinary person would use under those circumstances) then D would not be liable for an unintentional act which causes injury to D. Rule: If, at the time of the injury, D was involved in a legal act and both P and D were not exercising ordinary care, then D would not be liable for an unintentional act which causes injury to D. Thus, if P’s own negligence contributes to the cause of the accident, then P cannot recover for his injury. P has the burden of proving that D was negligent (i.e., failed to exercise ordinary care). DISPOSITION: Judgment for P reversed and a new trial ordered since lower court failed to give the correct instruction to the jury. DISSENT: None. CLASS NOTES:
Image of page 1
a BARBRI company LAW PREVIEW © 2013 BARBRI, INC. | PAGE 2 CASE BRIEF Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. V. CAUSATION. C. Proximate Cause. NAME: Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., New York Court of Appeals (1928). FACTS: 0 P was standing on D’s railroad platform. 0 Two men ran to catch a moving train. 0 D’s employees assisted one of the men (who was holding an unmarked package) in catching a moving train by pushing him into the open car. 0 Man dropped the package containing fireworks unbeknownst to D’s employees. 0 When the package hit the ground it exploded, causing scales at the other end of the train platform to fall over and injuring P, who was standing “many feet away.” PROCEDURE: P sued D for injuries and jury found D negligent. D appealed and Appellate Division affirmed. D appealed to the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: Whether a person who is injured by the breach of a duty to a third party (not the person injured) can maintain an action for negligence against the person who breached the duty to the third party?
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture