Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CHAPTER 8 NEGLIGENCE AND  STRICT LIABILITY 1 ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS CHAPTER 8 1. A statute requiring railroads to fence their tracks is construed as intended solely to prevent animals that stray onto the right of way from being hit by trains. B & A Railroad Company fails to fence its tracks. Two of Calvin's cows wander onto the track. Nellie is hit by a train. Elsie is poisoned by weeds growing beside the track. For which cow(s), if any, is B & A Railroad liable to Calvin? Why? Answer: Violation of Statute . The railroad company is liable for Nellie, the cow that was hit by the train, and probably not for Elsie. For a statute to be adopted as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man, the intent of the statute must have been to protect the interest against that particular harm which occurred and against that hazard from which the harm resulted. The intent of this statute was to protect cows from the hazard of the trains, not from poisonous weeds. Restatement, Second, Torts, Section 286. With respect to Elsie, the facts do not indicate whether the railroad was otherwise negligent towards Elsie or whether Calvin is negligent for allowing his cows to roam freely. 2. Martha invites John to come to lunch. Though she knows that her private road is dangerous to travel, having been guttered by recent rains, Martha doesn't warn John of the condition, reasonably believing that he will notice the gutters and exercise sufficient care. While John is driving over, his attention is diverted from the road by the screaming of his child, who has been stung by a bee. He fails to notice the condition of the road, hits a gutter, and skids into a tree. If John is not contributorily negligent, is Martha liable to John? Answer: Duty to Invitees . No. A possessor of land who knows of dangerous conditions on his property and fails to warn licensees is liable only if he should expect that they will not discover the danger. Restatement, Second, Torts, Section 342. In this case, it appears that Martha reasonably expected John to notice the dangerous conditions. The situation may be different if he had been invited for dinner and had to travel the road at night. 3. Nathan is run over by a car and left lying in the street. Sam, seeing Nathan's helpless state, places him in his car for the purpose of taking him to the hospital. Sam drives negligently into a ditch, causing additional injury to Nathan. Is Sam liable to Nathan? Answer: Duty of Care . Yes, for the additional injuries. Once a person takes charge of another person in a helpless condition, even though he is not under a duty to do so, he is then under a duty to exercise reasonable care to secure that person’s safety, and is liable if he fails to do so. Restatement, Second, Torts, Section 324.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/16/2012 for the course BLAW 3201 taught by Professor Fry during the Fall '08 term at LSU.

Page1 / 7


This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online