Ney v Yellow Cab Co P who bases his claim on a theory of negligence due to a Ds

Ney v yellow cab co p who bases his claim on a theory

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 37 pages.

Ney v. Yellow Cab Co . - P who bases his claim on a theory of negligence due to a D's violation of a statute has to prove that his injuries were directly and proximately caused by the violation. Facts: Cab driver left keys in cab. It was stolen and then hit P’s car Outcome: Purpose of the statute was to guard public (class) against theft (harm), negligence per se is found. Intervening force was of a kind within range of reasonable anticipation, and thus was not “superseding” (which would have precluded D’s liability) Dissent: Chain of causation was broken by thief - Criminal act intervenes between causation and original act of negligence. Failure to remove key is not proximate cause. Perry v. S.N. and S.N . - To sustain a cause of action for negligence per se, D must owe P a pre-existing duty of care in common law of which the violation of legislation is evidence of negligence. Facts: P says that D saw their children being abused at day care. A Texas statute requires any person having cause to believe a child is being abused to report the abuse to authorities, and makes the knowing failure to do so a misdemeanor. Outcome: No negligence per se because statute imposes a duty that does not correspond to any duty existing at common law. Liability would be too costly/unfair to bystanders. Martin v. Herzog (Negligence per se ) - An unexcused statutory violation is negligence per se and a jury may not relax the duty that one owes to another under a statute. Facts: P and husband were driving in buggy with no lights on at night and got hit by D. Husband was killed. 12
Image of page 12
13 Outcome: P precluded from damages because violation of statute contributed to incident. Trial court erred in telling the jury to make any inference of negligence here because no excuses. 236, Note 1: list of potential excuses for violation of statute Zeni v. Anderson (Rebuttable Presumption ) - Violation of the statute merely established a rebuttable presumption of negligence. The presumption may be rebutted by a showing an adequate excuse under the facts and circumstances of the case. Facts: P, pedestrian declines to walk on a snow-covered sidewalk, and instead uses a portion of street often used by pedestrians. D, a driver, hits P from the rear. Outcome: Prima facie case of negligence rebutted by showing that compliance would have involved a greater risk of harm. Proof of Negligence Goddard v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co.- No evidence about banana peel weighing against D. Facts: P fell on banana skin lying on railroad platform and sustained injuries. Outcome: D wins. Might have been dropped within a minute by any person leaving train. Would place too high a burden on D’s to pick up everything on their premises. Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. – Obligations rests upon D to keep premises reasonably safe when D has time to pick up a hazard and D would have done so if it was reasonably careful in performing its duties.
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 37 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture