Exodus 21:18 “If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist and he does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.”
Torts described: Peaceful means of resolution to deter wrongful conduct and compensate for damages
tort: a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. A person who breaches a tort duty has committed a tort and may be liable to pay damages in a lawsuit brought a person injured b/c of that tort.
Anonymous (excerpt of legal document (1466)
King’s Bench, 1466. Y.B. 5 Edw. IV, folio 7, placitum 18.
Two examples:
· Erection of a home, during which time, construction materials fall and damage the home of a neighbor.
· Man lifts stick to defend himself against an attack. In the course of defending himself, man injures innocent person standing behind him.
Rule: A lawful and “not careless” act that still causes damages and harm to another does not excuse the defendant from fault/liability. Liability is strictly limited to the consequences of one’s actions, not the intent of the actor.
Weaver v. Ward
King’s Bench, 1616. Hobart 134, 80 Eng.Rep. 284.
Two parties belonging to the military were engaging in a military exercise and the gun of defendant accidentally discharged and wounded the plaintiff.
· Plaintiff says that even if everything that defendant says is true, that defendant is still negligent. (This is called a demurrer… decision based not on the evidence, but on the validity of the pleading in the case. Evidence is not at issue or in question).
· Court rules in favor or plaintiff.
Rule: An action that causes harm, whether intentional or unintentional is nonetheless grounds for negligence.
Exceptions to the rule: If it be determined that the defendant was completely and utterly without fault.
(Ex. 1) Someone takes another person’s hand and forcefully causes that hand to strike another person.
(Ex. 2) Someone was to run into the field of fire-running across the musket while it was being discharged.
Brown v. Kendall
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1850. 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292.
· Facts: Mr. Kendall tries to separate two dogs that were fighting by hitting them with a stick. In the course of trying to stop the dogs, he raised his stick over his shoulder and accidentally struck the plaintiff in the eye.
· Issue: Was beating the dogs necessary or unnecessary given the circumstances?
· Rule: If the act that resulted in harming the plaintiff is necessary, then ordinary care must be taken. If the act is unnecessary, then extra-ordinary care must be taken to prevent harm to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has the burden of proof to demonstrate lack of ordinary care taken by the defendant.
· Judgment: New trial order b/c jury didn’t have proper instruction.
Cohen v. Petty
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 1933. 62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820
Facts: Plaintiff and her sister were riding in the back seat of car driven by defendant. Defendant was driving at a speed of somewhere b/w 35 and 40 miles per hour. Plaintiff claims speed was “wreckless” and defendant maintains that the speed was somewhere b/w 35 and 40 miles per hour. Defendant feels sick and faints, losing control of the vehicle, and injuring the plaintiffs in the rear seat upon plowing into an embankment.
Issue: Was trial court justified in taking the case from the jury? Evaluation
Rule: If an individual cannot anticipate an illness or condition that may or may not render harm to others, the person is not negligent for the results of such an unanticipated
God.
Lesson: there are existing laws that the judge learns and ultimately conveys to the people. Thus, implication is for stability in the law. There are existing statutes that are universal.
Cohen v. Petty
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 1933. 62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820
Facts: Plaintiff and her sister were riding in the back seat of car driven by defendant. Defendant was driving at a speed of somewhere b/w 35 and 40 miles per hour. Plaintiff claims speed was “wreckless” and defendant maintains that the speed was somewhere b/w 35 and 40 miles per hour. Defendant feels sick and faints, losing control of the vehicle, and injuring the plaintiffs in the rear seat upon plowing into an embankment.
Issue: Was trial court justified in taking the case from the jury? Evaluation
Rule: If an individual cannot anticipate an illness or condition that may or may not render harm to others, the person is not negligent for the results of such an unanticipated action. One must act with volition in order to be negligent in such a case.
Rationale: First, plaintiff’s evidence does not contradict the evidence presented by defendant. Second, the harm done to plaintiff occurred solely on the basis that the vehicle left the road due to the illness of the driver as opposed to wreckless driving—something that would have been within the control of the defendant, had the events occurred within that context.
Judgment: Lower court ruling is upheld. Yes, it was justifiable for the judge to take the case away from the jury.
