Rowland v Christian
Relevant Facts: Pl was a guest in the apartment of the df. He asked to use the bathroom and while there was injured when a cracked handle on the basin broke, severing tendons and nerves on his hand. Df had known for two weeks and had notified the owner, but said nothing to her guest. Legal Issue(s): Whether the rules of trespasser, licensee, or invitees, apply when addressing liability for fault to either the owner or host? Court’s Holding: Negligence applies. Procedure: Pl appeals summary for df Christian. Reversed. Law or Rule(s): A man is liable for injuries caused by his carelessness or for a breach of a duty. Court Rationale: The common law imposes on owners and occupiers of land a single duty of reasonable care in all circumstances. Liability should not be based upon the status of whether the injured party is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. The factors involved with each do not reflect what factors should be used to determine liability . To focus on that status of the injured party in that matter to determine whether the landowner has a duty of care is contrary to our modern social mores and values. Failure to warn a guest or licensee of a potentially dangerous situation, whether landowner or possessor, is to subject that a party to an unreasonably risk of harm when the concealed condition is known or likely to be known by the landowner or possessor. Plaintiff’s Argument: The host breach a duty that a reasonably and prudent person would exercise in similar situations; failure to warn of a known dangerous condition. Defendant’s Argument: The injured party was either a licensee or invitee and as such different rules apply to determine the level if any liability. Butterfield v Forrester Defenses - Plaintiff’s Conduct; Contributory Negligence Relevant Facts: The pl was injured after striking an obstruction in the roadway. The df while making repairs to his house, put a pole across the road. The pl, who had just left a public house as it neared dark, while riding his horse violently through the streets of Derby, struck the pole and was seriously injured. A witness state if the pl had not been riding so he would have observed the pole. There was no evidence the pl was intoxicated at the time.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the pl has a duty of care to avoid the negligent acts of the df? Court’s Holding: yes Procedure: Jury trial for the df, Rule is refused. Law or Rule(s): If a man lays logs of wood across a highway, though a person may with care ride safely by, yet if by means thereof my horse stumble and fling me action ensues. Court Rationale: One person at fault will not dispense with the requirement that another person use ordinary car for himself. Riding a horse as fast as it could go through the streets, near dark is not the exercise of ordinary care. A person cannot ride upon a hazard and expect the other to be solely at fault when he shares in the fault. Plaintiff’s Argument: The pl should not have to look out for unknown obstructions negligently left in the path of an innocent traveler. Defendant’s Argument: If pl had used ordinary care, not riding the horse so fast, he would have seen the obstruction Davies v. Mann Facts: P had tied down his donkey’s feet to keep it from running away and the donkey was left by the side of the road. D was coming down in his wagon at high speed and hit the donkey and killed it. Procedure: The trial judge informed the jury that even though the act of P might be illegal, but if proximate cause is attributable to the want of proper conduct on the part of the D, the action was maintainable and P can recover. The jury ruled for P. Issue: Can P recover under the given facts? Holding: Yes Rationale: According to the court, even though there was negligence on part of the P, but D could have prevented the accident by use of ordinary care. “Were this not so, a man might justify the driving over goods left on public highway, or even over a man lying asleep there, or the purposely running against a carriage going on the wrong side of the road.” Introduced the “Last Clear Chance” rule.
McIntyre v Balentine
Defenses - Plaintiff’s Conduct; Comparative Negligence Relevant Facts: Pl and Df Balentine were involved in an auto accident. Df was traveling southbound in a Peterbuilt semi, and Pl was exiting a truckstop in his pickup truck. Shortly afterward the pickup was struck by the semi. Both parties had been drinking and df was traveling in excess of the speed limit. Legal Issue(s): Whether the common law doctrine of contributory negligence applies upon the pl in this case? Court’s Holding: No Procedure: Pl filed personal injury. Jury trial returned verdict equally liable, pl appealed. Ct of App affirmed. S. Ct. Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Law or Rule(s): So long as a pl negligence remains less than the df’s negligence the pl may recover; in such a case, pl’s damages are to be reduced in proportion to the percentage of the total negligence attributable to the pl. Court Rationale: The new rule makes the doctrines of remote contributory negl. and last clear chance obsolete. In cases involving multiple tortfeasors, the pl will be entitled to recover so long as pl’s fault is less than the combined fault of all tortfeasors. The new rule more closely links liability and fault. Joint and several liability fortuitously imposes a degree of liability that is out of proportion to fault. Df are now able to assert or claim as an affirmative df comparative negligence involving non-party causation. Plaintiff’s Argument: Contributory negligence unfairly penalizes the pl using antiquated doctrines. Defendant’s Argument: Under contributory negligence all of the dfs are unfairly penalized as a whole were liability is attached.