Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks CO.
Facts: The defendants installed a fire plug near the plaintiff’s house that leaked during a severe frost, causing water damage. The jury found the defendant negligent, and the defendant appealed. Issue: Was the resulting actions due to negligence or merely circumstances beyond what a reasonable man would do. Rule: The defendants are negligent only if they fail to do what a reasonable person would have done or do something a reasonable person would not have done. Analysis: The court found that the extreme frost that caused the damage in this case was not within the contemplation of the defendants and that the result of the frost was an accident. Conclusion: The court entered a verdict for the defendants.
Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams Facts: Appellants are the distributors of petroleum products, including gasoline. Appellants, sold and delivered to a planter in that vicinity a drum of gasoline for use in farm tractors. Appellee was the planter's employee and was engaged in operating a tractor. Appellee undertook to remove the bung-hole cap from the drum in order to replenish the fuel in the tractor, whereupon there was a sudden outburst of fire, caused, by a spark which was produced by the condition of disrepair in the threads of the bung cap Issue: Whether the vendor of an inherently dangerous product, must exercise a degree of care equal to the danger, extended to the Pl? Holding: Yes Procedure: Appeal from C Court, from a Jury judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed. Rule: An actor will be liable for all such harm as a reasonably prudent person would or should have anticipated as the natural and probable consequences of his act; and the act must be of such character and done in such a situation that the actor should reasonably have anticipated that some injury to another would probably result.
Ct. Rationale: But the proof is that the drum had been in use nine years; that the threads in the bung plug or bung cap were broken, bent and jagged; that this condition had been brought about by repeated hammering on the bung cap during the course of its use,--a condition which had attracted the attention of one of appellants' employees before the container was sent out on this occasion. A person of ordinary prudence, and mindful of the duty of cautious care with which appellants were charged, should have known of the condition and should reasonably have anticipated, that a sudden fire or explosion would be caused by the stated condition of disrepair; and hence appellants are liable for the injury to appellee which resulted. PL A: The vendor of an inherently dangerous commodity, such as gasoline, is under duty to use cautious care to distribute the same in reasonably safe containers, the degree of care to be commensurate with the danger, and the obligation of this duty extends to all who may lawfully use, or be in the vicinity of, the container. Def A: The proof shows that an explosion or fire in drawing gasoline from a drum when, or on account of, taking off the bung cap is an unusual, extraordinary, and improbable occurrence. Probability" in the law of negligence, as respects actor's liability for foreseeable results of his act, arises when viewed from the standpoint of the judgment of a reasonably prudent man, as a reasonable thing to be expected, while probability exists in the procedural law only when the proof is such that the alleged fact probably happened or existed in the past, in the sense of "probability" as commonly understood. The test as respects foreseeability is not the balance of probabilities, but the existence, in the situation in hand, of some real likelihood of some damage and the likelihood is of such appreciable weight and moment as to induce, or which reasonably should induce, action to avoid it on the part of a person of a reasonably prudent mind. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl United States v. Carroll Towing Co. Facts: Defendant’s barge broke lose and damaged some other barges. The bargee was away from the barge at the time the barge broke lose. Issue: Was the owner of the barge liable for the damage caused to other barges? Holding: Yes Rationale: Barges break from time to time and it cannot be ruled that every time a barge breaks, the owner is liable. So how is liability determined? The court came out with an algebraic equation. If P (probability of barge breaking away) x L (the gravity of resulting injury) > B (the burden of adequate precautions) = liability exists. There are social interests for the bargee to have some freedom of movement. But in the current case, the
bargee was away from the barge for about 24 hours. His fabricated story shows that he has no legitimate excuse for his absence. So in the current case, PL > B. Therefore, the court held: “that it was a fair requirement that the owner of the barge, should have a bargee abroad unless he had some excuse for his absence, during the working hours of daylight.”