Unformatted text preview: duty to use cautious care to distribute the same in reasonably safe containers; and (3) the sellers were liable for the employee's injury because the proof was sufficient to show that a person of ordinary prudence should have known of the condition of the drum and should reasonably have anticipated that a sudden fire or explosion would be caused by the condition of disrepair. Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: An actor will be liable for all such harm as a reasonably prudent person would or should have anticipated as the natural and probable consequences of his act; and the act must be of such character and done in such a situation that the actor should reasonably have anticipated that some injury to another would probably result. Reasoning: The defendant had a duty to distribute safe containers to customers. The one received by plaintiff was in dispepair. Concurring/Dissenting Opinions: Additional Comments/Personal Impressions:...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/21/2009 for the course ??? Torts I taught by Professor Ragan during the Fall '09 term at Florida Coastal School of Law.
- Fall '09