Tedla v. Ellman
FACTS
Πs were walking down the road with traffic, when by statute they should have been going against the flow of traffic. But traffic was heavier in other direction so they thought they would be safer. They were hit by a car. Π found not to be negligent in disobeying statute because it imposed no additional duty of care, just a general guideline; and it would have been more dangerous to follow it.
FACTS
Πs were walking down the road with traffic, when by statute they should have been going against the flow of traffic. But traffic was heavier in other direction so they thought they would be safer. They were hit by a car. Π found not to be negligent in disobeying statute because it imposed no additional duty of care, just a general guideline; and it would have been more dangerous to follow it.
Excuses to Statutory Violations (from Abrams’ notes)
Assuming: (1) the result was a hazard sought to be avoided by the statute; (2) the breach of the statute was a cause in fact of the injury.
- The violation is reasonable because of the actor’s incapacity. (child)
- Actor neither knows, nor should know, of the occasion for compliance. (innocent ignorance of operative facts, e.g. sign hidden)
- Actor is unable, after reasonable diligence or care, to comply. (light burns out immediately before crash)
- Actor is confronted by an emergency not due to his own misconduct. (swerves to miss child)
- Compliance with the statute would involve a greater risk of harm to the actor or to others (Tedla).
No comments:
Post a Comment