Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting case brief summary
F: TC ruled in favor of P (subcontractor)
D (felix contracting corporation) excavated a work site in the street. P, employee of a subcontractor was engaged in this work. Other D, Dickens, ran into the work site by his vehicle (intervening cause), and striked P, and P was injured accordingly.
Driver failed to take medicine (Driver’s negligence)
Dependent concurrent causation.
Driver’s negligence + leaving worksite w/o any effective barrier
Manner in which D is negligent is important for court’s consideration.
I: When D is capable of anticipating the precise manner of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening cause (running into the worksite by vehicle) is foreseeable, whether D is liable
R: When D is capable of anticipating the precise manner of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening cause (running into the worksite by vehicle) is foreseeable, D is liable
General danger was foreseeable, but the manner of injury was unforeseeable
A: D negligently failed to safeguard the excavation site. A prime hazard associated with such dereliction is the possibility that a driver will negligently enter the work site and cause injury to a worker. The foreseeable, normal and natural result of the risk created by D was the injury of a worker by a car entering the improperly protected work area. An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause.
C: affirmed
F: TC ruled in favor of P (subcontractor)
D (felix contracting corporation) excavated a work site in the street. P, employee of a subcontractor was engaged in this work. Other D, Dickens, ran into the work site by his vehicle (intervening cause), and striked P, and P was injured accordingly.
Driver failed to take medicine (Driver’s negligence)
Dependent concurrent causation.
Driver’s negligence + leaving worksite w/o any effective barrier
Manner in which D is negligent is important for court’s consideration.
I: When D is capable of anticipating the precise manner of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening cause (running into the worksite by vehicle) is foreseeable, whether D is liable
R: When D is capable of anticipating the precise manner of the accident or the exact extent of P’s injury because the intervening cause (running into the worksite by vehicle) is foreseeable, D is liable
General danger was foreseeable, but the manner of injury was unforeseeable
A: D negligently failed to safeguard the excavation site. A prime hazard associated with such dereliction is the possibility that a driver will negligently enter the work site and cause injury to a worker. The foreseeable, normal and natural result of the risk created by D was the injury of a worker by a car entering the improperly protected work area. An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause.
C: affirmed
No comments:
Post a Comment