Australia Higher court held the fire was a foreseeable consequence of the

Australia higher court held the fire was a

This preview shows page 17 - 19 out of 52 pages.

(Australia) Higher court held the fire was a foreseeable consequence of the furnace oil spill, and the spill should be deemed a proximate cause of the damage to the Corrimal. Wagon Mound I (Australia) Workers on the Wagon Mound carelessly released furnace oil into the harbor. Workers on the Corrimal ignited the oil while repairing their ship, which destroyed the Morts Dock and the Corrimal. The trial court applied Polemis and found Wagon Mound liable. The higher court overruled Polemis as bad law, and b/c no reasonable person could have foreseen the fire, Wagon Mound was not liable. Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council (England 2000) Boy being crushed by an abandoned boat is a foreseeable consequence for failure to remove the boat. It is foreseeable that children will mimic adult behavior and try to fix the boat. Ventricelli v. Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, Inc. (N.Y. 1978) D’s negligence in providing a car with a defective trunk would result in P’s trying to close the lid as reasonably foreseeable. What is not reasonably foreseeable is P getting injured while he was closing the lid by another car. 1. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co . ( N.Y. 1928) – breach must be of a duty to P, not to a third party. P standing on RR’s platform, a guard on the train tried to help a guy with a package on the train and his package fell and exploded; it threw scales at the other end of the platform down and hit P Prima Facie Case: 1. Injury: injured by falling scale 2. Duty: relation between P and D, what duty did D owe the P – people think Cardozo says that LIRR doesn’t owe Palsgraf a duty; Q is NOT whether or not LIRR owed a duty to Mrs. Palsgraf; the Q is whether LIRR breached one of the duties they owed to Mrs. Palsgraf 3. Breach: guards acted unreasonably when they helped him get on the train and injured P 4. 4a. Causation: careless on the part of the 3 rd party for not stopping because he was carrying explosives – but-for cause; LIRR – but-for the guard helping him up 5. 4b. Proximate cause: Cardozo says you don’t need to discuss what doesn’t matter Rule: D’s breach of duty to 3 rd party was not foreseeable harm to P; Must have been a breach of a duty, the non- breach of which would have averted the injury; The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed “the eye of ordinary vigilance”…. (the proximate cause is related to that particular duty and the breach of the duty ) Since the conductors would not have anticipated injury to her from their conduct, they owed no duty to avoid the injury and were not negligent in relation to her. She was an “unforeseen plaintiff” to whom no unreasonable risk was to be anticipated, Mrs. Palsgraf was denied recovery. Only those who have been wronged by D’s misconduct are entitled to sue for injuries caused by that wrong Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right Cardozo 2 Step Analysis: 1. AMOL, no breach “w/ reference” to P: RELATIONAL ASPECT OF BREACH OF DUTY 17
Image of page 17
Image of page 18
Image of page 19

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 52 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture