Hudson-Connor v. Putney
192 Or. App. 488, 86 P.3d 106 (2004)
Facts: Defendant allowed an 11 year old boy to drive her golf cart. The boy made a mistake and hit the plaintiff, breaking her leg.
Procedure: Trial court found for the defendant.
Issue: Should the defendant be held to an adult standard of care?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: Since golf carts are not inherently dangerous and the operation of one by a minor is not an adult activity, the handing over of one to another minor is also not an adult activity.
Showing posts with label duty of care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label duty of care. Show all posts
Monday, September 15, 2008
Robinson v. Lindsay
Robinson v. Lindsay
92 Wash.2d 410, 598 P.2d 392 (1979)
Facts: Robinson got her thumb injured by Anderson while he was operating a snowmobile.
Procedure: Trial court found for Anderson; they then ordered a new trial since the jury instructions should have included something about adult standard of care. Appeal is over that decision.
Issue: Should a minor operating a snowmobile be held to an adult standard of care?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: When involved in dangerous activities, minors should be held to an adult standard of care. Though accidents can occur
92 Wash.2d 410, 598 P.2d 392 (1979)
Facts: Robinson got her thumb injured by Anderson while he was operating a snowmobile.
Procedure: Trial court found for Anderson; they then ordered a new trial since the jury instructions should have included something about adult standard of care. Appeal is over that decision.
Issue: Should a minor operating a snowmobile be held to an adult standard of care?
Holding: Yes.
Reasoning: When involved in dangerous activities, minors should be held to an adult standard of care. Though accidents can occur
Wilson v. Sibert
Wilson v. Sibert
535 P.ed 1034 (Alaska 1975)
Facts: Plaintiff, Wilson, pulled up behind defendant, Sibert, at a drive-in window. When the car in front of Sibert suddenly reversed, Sibert reacted by shifting into reverse and driving backwards, thus slamming into Wilson's car.
Procedure: Trial court found that Sibert was not negligent; Plaintiff appeals.
Issue: Did the court err in denying a motion for directed verdict? Did it err in adding the sudden emergency doctrine to the jury instructions (by prejudicing the jury)?
Holding: No and No.
Reasoning: The motion was correctly denied because the facts allowed for a reasonable diversity of opinions. Jury instructions are left up to the trial court unless there is evidence of an abuse of discretion.
535 P.ed 1034 (Alaska 1975)
Facts: Plaintiff, Wilson, pulled up behind defendant, Sibert, at a drive-in window. When the car in front of Sibert suddenly reversed, Sibert reacted by shifting into reverse and driving backwards, thus slamming into Wilson's car.
Procedure: Trial court found that Sibert was not negligent; Plaintiff appeals.
Issue: Did the court err in denying a motion for directed verdict? Did it err in adding the sudden emergency doctrine to the jury instructions (by prejudicing the jury)?
Holding: No and No.
Reasoning: The motion was correctly denied because the facts allowed for a reasonable diversity of opinions. Jury instructions are left up to the trial court unless there is evidence of an abuse of discretion.
Stewart v. Motts
Stewart v. Motts
539 Pa. 596, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)
Facts: Plaintiff, Stewart, stopped at defendant's auto shop and offered to help the defendant, Motts, repair an automobile fuel tank. The plaintiff suggested a course of action; the defendant agreed. The exact sequence of events is contested, but the car backfired and burned the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the judge should have instructed the jury that the circumstances required a "high degree of care."
Procedure: Trial court found for the defendant; plaintiff appeals.
Issue: Should the defendant have used a "high degree of care" in handling gasoline?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: The standard of "reasonable care" never varies; only what is reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable care is always proportionate to the danger of the act.
539 Pa. 596, 654 A.2d 535 (1995)
Facts: Plaintiff, Stewart, stopped at defendant's auto shop and offered to help the defendant, Motts, repair an automobile fuel tank. The plaintiff suggested a course of action; the defendant agreed. The exact sequence of events is contested, but the car backfired and burned the plaintiff. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the judge should have instructed the jury that the circumstances required a "high degree of care."
Procedure: Trial court found for the defendant; plaintiff appeals.
Issue: Should the defendant have used a "high degree of care" in handling gasoline?
Holding: No.
Reasoning: The standard of "reasonable care" never varies; only what is reasonable under the circumstances. Reasonable care is always proportionate to the danger of the act.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)