Facts: Defendant had installed water mains in the street with fire plugs at various points. The plug opposite the plaintiffs house sprung a leak during a severe frost, because the plug was forced out by the expansion of the freezing water. As a result of the break the water leaked out flooding the plaintiffs property. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were negligent and owed them a duty of care to prevent the harm. The trial court ruled in favor of P and D appealed. Issue: Whether the defendant is liable for neg in not checking the pipes? Rule: Negligence requires (1) a duty (2) a breach (3) proximate cause (4) harm Holding: No, the defendants are not liable for negligence. Reasoning for holding: The court reasoned that the defendants did all they could to ensure that the pipes were being held to a standard of care that was reasonable within their profession. The defendants could not have anticipated that the ice would have gone so deep into the grown where it was forseeable that they would inevitably be damaged by the cold. The courts reasoned that the events were an accident that the defendants could not have been held liable for.
People involved: Pipher v. Parsell Year: 2007 Court: Supreme Court of DelawareProcedural History: Trial court ruled in favor of the defendant that there was no negligence and the plaintiff appealed. Facts: The Plaintiff was a passenger in the defendants vehicle with a third person. According to the plaintiff the person at the back of the vehicle started playing with the steering wheel and this caused the driver to lose control. The first time it happened the parties laughed it off but then ithappened again and this time the plaintiff lost complete control of the vehicle resulting in a crash. The trial court found no grounds for negligence and the defendant appealed. Issue: Whether the trial court erred in its ruling and the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence for a negligence action? Rule: Negligence requires a (1) duty (2) breach in that duty (3) proximate cause (4) harm. Holding: Yes, the defendant was negligent. Reasoning for holding: The court found that the plaintiff as the driver of the vehicle owed passengers a duty of care which he breached when he could and should have reprimanded the other passenger for playing with the wheel while he was driving the defendant however because he did not do this was negligent and liable to the plaintiff for damages incurred.
People involved: Chicago B & Q.R v. Krayenbaul Year: Court: Procedural History: Trial judge ruled that there was no negligence and the defendants appealed. Facts: Defendant owned and operated railroad equipment. Defendant had guidelines requiring that dangerous railroad equipment remain locked when not in use. The plaintiff’s child stumbled upon the blocks and began playing with it and was injured. The trial court ruled that there was no negligence and the defendant appealed.