Tieder v. Little case summary
502 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant, the parents of the decedent, challenged the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County (Florida) granting summary judgment to appellee architect and appellee university in appellants' wrongful death lawsuit brought when a brick wall collapsed after being struck by an out-of-control car and killed the decedent.
FACTS:
-Appellant parents sued, inter alia, appellee architect and appellee university, after a brick wall collapsed after being struck by a car and killed their daughter.
-Appellants argued that appellee architect had negligently designed the brick wall, and that appellee university negligently allowed the wall to be erected and maintained.
-The lower court granted summary judgment to both appellees, finding that the decedent's death was the result of such a bizarre accident that it was not foreseeable to appellees and thus there was no proximate cause. On appeal, the court reversed.
HOLDING:
The court held that it is not necessary that a negligence defendant foresee the exact sequence of events which led to the accident sued upon.
ANALYSIS:
Since appellants' allegations were such that it could be concluded that appellees should have foreseen that their wall could collapse on people if struck with sufficient force, proximate cause could be established.
RULES:
-It is not necessary, in a negligence case, that the defendant foresee the exact sequence of events which led to the accident sued upon; it is only necessary that the general type of accident which has occurred was within the scope of the danger created by the defendant's negligence, or, stated differently, it must be shown that the said general-type accident was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.
-Moreover, it has long been held that proximate cause issues are generally for juries to decide using their common sense upon appropriate instructions, although occasionally when reasonable people cannot differ, the issue has been said to be one of law for the court.
CONCLUSION: The circuit court's order granting summary judgment to appellees was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Appellants' claims stated a cause of action, including the fact that appellees should have foreseen that the brick wall could collapse onto passers-by if struck with sufficient force.
---
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?
502 So. 2d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)
Tort Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant, the parents of the decedent, challenged the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County (Florida) granting summary judgment to appellee architect and appellee university in appellants' wrongful death lawsuit brought when a brick wall collapsed after being struck by an out-of-control car and killed the decedent.
FACTS:
-Appellant parents sued, inter alia, appellee architect and appellee university, after a brick wall collapsed after being struck by a car and killed their daughter.
-Appellants argued that appellee architect had negligently designed the brick wall, and that appellee university negligently allowed the wall to be erected and maintained.
-The lower court granted summary judgment to both appellees, finding that the decedent's death was the result of such a bizarre accident that it was not foreseeable to appellees and thus there was no proximate cause. On appeal, the court reversed.
HOLDING:
The court held that it is not necessary that a negligence defendant foresee the exact sequence of events which led to the accident sued upon.
ANALYSIS:
Since appellants' allegations were such that it could be concluded that appellees should have foreseen that their wall could collapse on people if struck with sufficient force, proximate cause could be established.
RULES:
-It is not necessary, in a negligence case, that the defendant foresee the exact sequence of events which led to the accident sued upon; it is only necessary that the general type of accident which has occurred was within the scope of the danger created by the defendant's negligence, or, stated differently, it must be shown that the said general-type accident was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence.
-Moreover, it has long been held that proximate cause issues are generally for juries to decide using their common sense upon appropriate instructions, although occasionally when reasonable people cannot differ, the issue has been said to be one of law for the court.
CONCLUSION: The circuit court's order granting summary judgment to appellees was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. Appellants' claims stated a cause of action, including the fact that appellees should have foreseen that the brick wall could collapse onto passers-by if struck with sufficient force.
---
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment