Gulf Refining v Williams - duty to use cautious care to...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CASE: Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams Court: SC of Miss. 185 So. 234 (Miss. 1938) P242 Torts Facts a. Plaintiff/Williams Defendant/Gulf Refining Co. b. Plaintiff was injured when removing the cap from a tank of gas. While removing the cap a spark was caused by the threads on the cap injuring the plaintiff. c. (1) C/A: (2) relief requested: (3) defenses raised: the occurrence was unusual, extraordinary, and improbable. Procedural History: a. Lower court’s ruling(s): in favor of Williams (injured) b. Damages awarded: ? c. Appellant: Gulf Refining Issues: a. substantive issue (i) Whether a result which has never occurred in the past is sufficient to withhold liability? (ii) Possibility versus probability? b. procedural issue: ruling Disposition (judgment): Affirmed. Holding: (1) to bring the rule of liability into operation, it was not necessary that the chances that a damage would result were greater than the chances that no damage would occur; (2) the vendor of an inherently dangerous commodity was under a
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online