Hoyt v. Jeffers - Rule Although no one witness the incident...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Hoyt v. Jeffers 30 Mich. 181 (1874) Fact: Operative Facts: The “Sherman house” was located 233 ft. from a saw mill, which had a furnace and a chimney. The chimney emitted sparks, and the sparks would leave burn marks and had caused small fires in the past. One day, the Sherman house caught on fire. No one saw if it was a spark from the chimney that flew onto the roof and set it on fire, but it is the most plausible reason. The chimney had no spark catchers or butterfly valves, or a hole behind the boiler for sparks to fall into. Issue: Whether there was enough evidence to prove that the saw mill was responsible for the fire
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Rule: Although no one witness the incident occur, with enough evidence, a jury can infer whether or not it occurred Rational: The court held that they would allow past evidence as well as present evidence of this case, in combination to help the jury to see if the fire could have been inferred to be the saw mill’s fault. Holding: Broad: Narrow: If there is a event that periodically happens, and there is ineffective measures to prevent that event from happening, that event can be used, as evidence to a jury, of whether or not there was a actual causation. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/20/2011 for the course TORTS 131 taught by Professor Keller during the Fall '11 term at Western State Colorado University .

Ask a homework question - tutors are online