November 1 Case and Notes

November 1 Case and Notes - November 1, 2008 Chapter 9 1....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
November 1, 2008 Chapter 9 1. Outside the Premises Taylor v. Olsen Supreme Court of Oregon, 1978 Law: Facts: Ms. Taylor is traveling down a dark and windy road on a January evening. She strikes a splintered tree, which had shortly before fallen across said roadway. This roadway, a 2 lane blacktop highway, is said to have had a car travel past this particular spot about once every 2 minutes. Reasoning: Requiring an owner to inspect every roadside tree on an area of land such as the one present in this case would make property ownership an untenable burden. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the D did not exercise reasonable care of the tree in question. Issue: Is the owner or possessor of the tree required to pay such close attention to her roadside trees under a general standard of reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm? No. Procedure: TC enters a directed verdict for D Olsen. The high CT affirms. Holding: Notes from the Case: Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc. Superior Court of Delaware, 1950 Law: Facts: Mr. Salevan was a pedestrian on E. 30 th St. as he walked past the baseball park owned by the D. P brings a cause of action for personal injuries as he was struck in the back by a baseball. It was entered into testimony that an average of 16-18 foul balls reached E. 30 th St during the course of each game. Furthermore, an average of 2-3 fouls balls come out of the park over a 10 foot fence and land where the P was standing. Sixty eight games were played that year which would mean that 136-204 balls would have landed at the exact spot where P Salevan was standing. Reasoning: The very fact that the D undertook precautions in the first place point to their knowledge that such a problem might arise. They were aware that 2-3 balls per game, and between 136 and 204 balls per year, were circumventing their safety measure, yet took no further precautions. Their precautions were insufficient. Issue: Procedure: Holding: Judgment for P in the amount of $2500 in light of negligence. Notes from the Case: 2. On the Premises A. Trespassers
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
US Circuit Court of Appeals, 7 th Circuit, 1896 Law: The railway is not bound in service to trespassers. Those who enter on to tracks assume their
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/20/2009 for the course TORTS 106 taught by Professor Palmer during the Spring '08 term at McMaster University.

Page1 / 5

November 1 Case and Notes - November 1, 2008 Chapter 9 1....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online