Adams v. Bullock
125 N.E. 93 (N.Y. 1919)
FACTS
-In this case, a boy swung a wire off a bridge. The wire hit a trolley line that the D ran and, as a result, electrocuted the boy.
-The trial court ruled for the boy, and the appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling.
ISSUE
-Was the D negligent and, as a result, responsible for the boy being electrocuted?
HOLDING
-No, the D was not negligent.
ANALYSIS
-The D was lawfully using the trolley system.
-A duty only exists to adopt all reasonable precautions that will minimize the perils and there is no evidence in this case that this duty was ignored. Nobody standing on the bridge (or bending over it) would be able to reach the wire.
-No vigilance could have predicted the point upon the route where an accident of this type would occur.
-No similar accident had occurred before.
-Here the accident was not in the range of "prudent foresight."
-It would have been impossible to insulate the wires for the trolleys. The D would have had to put the wires underground and abandon the overhead system for this accident to not occur.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
125 N.E. 93 (N.Y. 1919)
FACTS
-In this case, a boy swung a wire off a bridge. The wire hit a trolley line that the D ran and, as a result, electrocuted the boy.
-The trial court ruled for the boy, and the appeals court affirmed the trial court's ruling.
ISSUE
-Was the D negligent and, as a result, responsible for the boy being electrocuted?
HOLDING
-No, the D was not negligent.
ANALYSIS
-The D was lawfully using the trolley system.
-A duty only exists to adopt all reasonable precautions that will minimize the perils and there is no evidence in this case that this duty was ignored. Nobody standing on the bridge (or bending over it) would be able to reach the wire.
-No vigilance could have predicted the point upon the route where an accident of this type would occur.
-No similar accident had occurred before.
-Here the accident was not in the range of "prudent foresight."
-It would have been impossible to insulate the wires for the trolleys. The D would have had to put the wires underground and abandon the overhead system for this accident to not occur.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
Learn More about personal injury & accident law, including dangerous drugs, toxic torts, defective products, and medical malpractice.. Visit: Arlington injury attorney
ReplyDelete