Vaughan Trimarco Cordas Roberts Briefs

Vaughan v. Menlove Facts: Df built a hay rick near the boundary of his land not far from his neighbor’s cottages. Over a period of five weeks the df was warned of the danger that the rick would ignite. He made a chimney thereafter the rick ignited in flame from the spontaneous combustion within the materials. The flames communicated to the PL’s cottages, and df’s barn and stables. Issue: Whether the construction and subsequent molding of the rick constituted a standard of care that a reasonable prudent person would exercise? Holding: No Procedure: First impression case. Jury returned a verdict for PL. Affirmed. Rule: If an occupier burns near the boundary of his land that damage ensues to the property of his neighbor, his is liable to an action for the amount of injury done, unless the accident were occasioned by a sudden blast that was not foreseeable. Ct. Rationale: The df did not himself light the fire, yet mediately, he is as much the cause of it as if he himself put a candle to the rick; for it is well known that hay will ferment and take fire if it be not carefully stacked. The stacking of hay within a rick requires a regard of caution such as a man of ordinary prudence would observe. PL A: The df was warned that the hay would ignite several time prior to ignition, and the df modified the rick as a chimney. Def A: Df acted honestly and bona fide to the best of his own judgment, without fault, b/c df did not possess the highest intelligence. Trimarco v. Klein Facts: P a tenant and D his landlord. P was injured while he was taking a shower and the glass shower door shattered. P sued D for negligently not installing shatterproof glass shower door. P introduced evidence showing that it was common practice among landlords to install such doors in the apartments. Procedure: At trial, judgment for P. Ct. of Appeals reversed ruling that D had no duty to change door absent any notice of danger from P or from other similar accidents in the building. Issue: Can D be held liable for ignoring the customary practice among the landlords? Holding: Yes Rationale: According to the ct., customary practices can be used to determine whether D used due care or whether he was negligent. These customary practices need not be universal, and it is enough that these practices be fairly well defined and in the same calling or business so that the actor may be charged with knowledge of it or negligent ignorance. Furthermore, the jury has to determine whether these customary practices are reasonable. In the current case, P introduced evidence that shows that it was a customary practice among landlords to install shatterproof shower doors. [case still remanded on some other grounds] Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. Facts: Two men who had just robbed, at gunpoint, a man, were being chased. One of the pursued jumped into a cab. The pursuer, being partial clad, was running outside the cab giving chase. The cab driver was being persuaded by pistol to escape the scene or suffer the loss of his brains. The cab driver slammed on the brakes shortly thereafter, and exited the cab. The cab while still moving, and containing the now injured robber, rolled onto the sidewalk and struck a mother and her two children. Issue: Whether the chauffeur’s abandonment of the taxi when he faced the pistol of a fleeing felon constituted a standard of care an ordinary person would execute? Holding: Yes Procedure: Motion for reserved decision, Df dismissing Pl complaint granted. Exceptions Pl. Rule: Failure to exercise care and caution which a reasonable and prudent person ordinarily would exercise under the like conditions or circumstances. If under normal circumstances an act is considered negligent, then if performed by a person acting under an emergency, not of his making, is not negligence. Ct. Rationale: When acting under the belief that his life is in danger and by abandoning the taxi he will save his life is not negligence. The law places no emulation upon an ordinary man in this situation. He is not required to exercise unerring judgment, which would be expected of him, were he not confronted with an emergency requiring prompt attention. PL A: The value of the interest of the public at large to be immune from being injured by a dangerous instrumentality such as a car unattended while in motion, is superior to the driver’s right to abandon the same. Def A: When an emergency situation is thrust at a person, the ordinary standard of care shapes to that situation. Roberts v. State of Louisiana Facts: Around 12:45 p.m. Mr. Burson left his concession stand to go to the restroom within the U.S. Post Office-Louisiana. While walking down the hall he bumped into the PL who fell to the floor and injured his hip. Mr. Burson was totally blind and had operated the stand for three years. On the day of the injury Pl claims and Burson testified that Burson was not using his cane to get to the restroom, but relied on his facial senses. Issue: Whether Df Burson was acting as a reasonable prudent blind person would have acted? Holding: Yes Procedure: Trial court dismissed PL suit. Affirmed. Rule: A person, although blind, must take precautions, be they more or less, which the ordinary reasonable man would take if he were blind. Ct. Rationale: It is not uncommon for blind people to rely on other techniques when moving around in a familiar setting. Burson testified that he was familiar with his surroundings. He had specialized training for mobility, his use of facial sense to navigate is utilized by 9 out of 10 blind people in familiar settings, and testimony to the fact it was not unreasonable for him to do so. There was no evidence that Burson was walking too fast, not paying attention, et cetera. PL A: The election of Burson to not use his cane, was negligent and led to the injury. Def A: Burson exercised a standard of care that handicapped people exercise under the same circumstances.