The term negligence as used in this instruction means the failure to use that

The term negligence as used in this instruction means

  • Brooklyn Law School
  • TORTS 101
  • Notes
  • charlenewarner
  • 87
  • 100% (2) 2 out of 2 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 56 - 58 out of 87 pages.

The term negligence as used in this instruction means the failure to use that degree of care…” Where the evidence is not conclusive, you can submit on either specific negligence or RIL negligence (although there’s a split in authority). If you have conclusive evidence, you have to submit on specific negligence. (Understand the difference between specific negligence and proof of general negligence by circumstantial evidence, i.e. RIL) Hypo: Boating rules say, “When two boats approach each other head-on, each should swerve to the right.” Accident: two boats collide head-on. Neither boat swerves. RIL? No. This is a specific negligence. Each driver failed to turn their boats to the right. Hypo: Car ran into boat is RIL case, because this normally doesn’t happen unless there was negligence on the part of the car. Causation in Fact – (Note: this applies across all torts; but we are studying CIF in the context of negligence cases) Sine Qua Non Causation in Fact Perkins v Texas and New Orleans R. Co. (LA, 1962) Facts : On September 1959, there was a collision between a 113-car freight train owned by D and a dodge automobile car drive by Joe Foreman with Tanner Perkins in the passenger seat. A warehouse obstructed the view of the train and the car approaching the railroad crossing. The railroad installed an automatic signal device, which was operating at the time of the accident. The train struck the right side of the automobile killing both occupants. It was conceded that Joe Foreman was negligent in driving upon the track in front of the train and that his negligence was the proximate cause of Perkins’ death. It was also conceded that the train was running 12 miles in excess of its self-imposed safety limit of 25 mph. (It was found the rule that the violation by Special rule of evidence (re: the train rulebook that says speed should be limited to 25 mph) – admission of a party opponent, which P introduced against D to evidence D’s negligence You have to prove a causal relationship between the negligence (driving over the speed limit) and the injury and if you can’t prove causation, P can’t recover. p. 274 connects but-for to the substantial factor test: but for the speed, the accident wouldn’t have happened. You have to prove that the negligent act caused the harm (not just any act) Hypo : Train and car; Car was first visible ½ mile away. The stopping distance was ¼ mile. Engineer failed to apply the breaks. HELD: The collision would not have occurred but for the failure to apply the breaks. Therefore, the train was 56
Image of page 56
Torts – David Fischer Charlene Warner, 0399112 trainmen of the railroad’s own speed regulations adopted in the interest of safety is evidence of negligence, applies in this case.) Issue : Whether the excessive speed of the train was a cause in fact of the fatal collision.
Image of page 57
Image of page 58

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 87 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture