Tedla v. Ellman - of a threat than high speed vehicles. The...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tedla v. Ellman 280 N.Y. 124 (1939) Fact: Operative Facts: A brother and sister were walking along side the highway, and the brother was carrying a lantern while walking too. A car came and struck them, killing the brother. The Driver of the car was negligent, however the brother and sister were walking on the wrong side of the highway lane. They were on the right side of the center lane, not the left side of the center lane. The court is seeing if there was contribution of negligence. Issue: Whether the brother and sister, in not following the law, is guilty of contribution of negligence. Rule: Negligence of the law can be used as a prima facie of the case of negligence if that law was intended to be used as to be viewed as a safety, to prevent damage to life, and limb. Rational: The law for pedestrians was made not to protect the life, and limb of a person, but rather to give guidance to how people should act in a certain manner. Also the courts noted that the law has not caught up to the times, because the law was made when horses and cargo wagons were used, and would pose less
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: of a threat than high speed vehicles. The brother and sister in this case was exercising more duty of care than what the law would have made them do. Therefore, the fact that they did not adhere by the law does not make the part of the contribution of negligence, because they were conducting in an act that was more safe then what the law would have made them do. Holding: Broad: When a law is not one that was enacted to preserve life and limb of a group, then that law cannot be used as a prima facie fact of the case. Narrow: When a pedestrian follows their common sense, and uses a duty of care to avoid danger, even if it is not following the codified law, that was enacted not to preserve life and limb, but to preserve a general tradition of the way things work, then it can not be used against them as a prima facie case of negligence. 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