Hill v. Edmonds case brief summary
F: D, Edmonds, the driver of a truck parked with the lights out, on a night. The P claimed to have seen the truck some four car lengths ahead of her, and either swerved it.
P could not remember which b/c she was rendered unconscious.
TC dismissed complaint.
Two negligent (truck driver and woman) dependent concurrent causation
In case of dependent concurrent causation, you apply but for test
Both parties are subject to jointly and severely liability, each of them is entitled to liability for full damage.
I: Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury, whether each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.
R: Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury, each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.
A: Even if the driver of the vehicle P, were negligent, she would not be sole responsible for the accident.
The driver, D, of the truck allowed his unlighted vehicle to stand in the middle of the street and without which the accident would not have happened.
C: The complaint is reinstated and remanded for new trial.
Co: But for causation test fails, if it is concurrent causes.
Negligent action + non negligent action -> result
As long as negligent action is material of overall action, then there is but for causation
Substantial factor test
F: D, Edmonds, the driver of a truck parked with the lights out, on a night. The P claimed to have seen the truck some four car lengths ahead of her, and either swerved it.
P could not remember which b/c she was rendered unconscious.
TC dismissed complaint.
Two negligent (truck driver and woman) dependent concurrent causation
In case of dependent concurrent causation, you apply but for test
Both parties are subject to jointly and severely liability, each of them is entitled to liability for full damage.
I: Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury, whether each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.
R: Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury, each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.
A: Even if the driver of the vehicle P, were negligent, she would not be sole responsible for the accident.
The driver, D, of the truck allowed his unlighted vehicle to stand in the middle of the street and without which the accident would not have happened.
C: The complaint is reinstated and remanded for new trial.
Co: But for causation test fails, if it is concurrent causes.
Negligent action + non negligent action -> result
As long as negligent action is material of overall action, then there is but for causation
Substantial factor test
No comments:
Post a Comment