___________
Case Summary for Alderman v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co.,
113 F. Supp. 881 (S. Dist. W.Va. 1953).
___________
Facts:
-Alderman (Plaintiff) was traveling the Baltimore
& Ohio Railroad (Defendant) using a free pass when he was injured due to a train
derailment.
-Alderman’s pass stated that B&O Railroad was free from all liability
arising from injury to passengers who did not pay a fare.
-Alderman sued B&O for wanton
or willful conduct.
-B&O moved for summary judgment under Rule 56.
-The
defect which caused the track to break would not have been visible upon an
inspection.
Issue: Is summary judgment in favor of the defendant appropriate where the plaintiff cannot meet his burden of proof?
Holding:Yes. Summary judgement in favor of the defendant is appropriate where the plaintiff can not plead his burden of proof.
-The court held that the affidavits of D showed that P could not
establish this part of his case. To prevail, P must show that D knew of
the defect in the rail, knew that the defect would break if a train went
over it, and was recklessly indifferent to the consequences. This type
of defect was not discoverable by visual examination. D did make a
visual examination the day before the accident. P had no evidence to
prove his case.
Rule:
Summary judgment is proper
when there are clear and undisputed facts, and when the other party’s
complaint or defense fails to establish a legal premise upon which
relief could be granted.
Analysis:
-The court stated that such a release protects a railroad against ordinary
negligence, but a railroad is always liable for wanton or willful acts.
-In order that one may be held liable for willful or wanton conduct, it
must be shown that he was conscious of his conduct, and conscious, from
his knowledge of existing conditions, that injury would likely or
probably result from his conduct, and that with reckless indifference to
consequences he consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or
omitted some known duty which produced the injurious result.
Conclusion:
Motion for summary judgment granted.
Notes: In this case, plaintiff must show that defendant was aware of
the defect in order to prevail and the plaintiff had no evidence. If there is any
dispute about the material facts of a case, a motion for summary judgment cannot be
granted. A judge must construe all evidence in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party.
---
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?
The best place for complete law school case briefs and law-related news. Want to advertise or post sponsored content? contact us at mrmetropolitan@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 Benefits of Studying Criminal Justice
Image Source Have you ever considered a career where each day offers a new challenge and the chance to make a real difference? Studying cr...

-
Class 1: Elements of Fundamental Value: Present Value, Future Value, Net Present Value: Elements of Fundamental Value (38) One year : ...
-
I can help you land in the top 10% of your law school class. Imagine, how your life would be different if you were in the top 10% o...
-
Corthell v. Summit Thread Company (1933) · Facts: Corthell is a salesman for Summit. He invents contraption that is bought b...
No comments:
Post a Comment