Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry

Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry - considered and...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
191 Wis. 610 (1927) Fact: Operative Facts: There was 2 fires that started from 2 different ends, and converged on the same property. One of the fires was started by the sparks emitted from the defendant’s locomotive, and another was started with an unknown origin. Issue: Whether the defendant’s action was a proximate cause to the fire. Rule: “where two causes, each attributable to the negligence of a responsible person, concur in producing an injury to another, either of which causes would produce it regardless of the other, . . . because whether the concurrent be intentional, actual, or constructive, each wrongdoer, in effect, adopts the conduct of his co-actor, and for the further reason that it is impossible to apportion the damage or to say that either perpetrated any distinct injury that can be separated from the whole. The whole loss must necessarily be
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: considered and treated as an entirety.” (basically, if you cause one to happen, you’re responsible for the whole thing even if it wasn’t all your doing.) Rational: The two fires were of relatively equal size and destruction, and from the rule, a defendant is responsible for the whole damage if they contributed to a part of the overall damage. Court doesn’t want the defendant to escape liability and have the innocent suffer. Holding: Broad: Narrow: When 2 parties are negligent, and both of those negligent are equal in nature, and they’ve combined to make it indistinguishable from each other, then each of the party is liabile for the full amount of damage that both of the negligent acts damage did. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online