This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
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 .
- Fall '11