Taylor v. Olsen case brief summary
Facts: While the plaintiff, Taylor, was traveling down a dark and windy road, she struck a splintered tree, which had shortly before fallen across the roadway.
This roadway is said to have had a car travel past this particular spot about once every 2 minutes.
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant
This case is concerning people who are outside of the land
Issue: Is the owner or possessor of the tree required to pay such close attention to her roadside trees with a reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm?
Distinction btw artificial and natural condition
Rules: Concerning most conditions on land that arise in the state of nature, most courts have held that there is no duty upon the landholder to protect persons outside the premises. (but there is one exception, that is tree)
•The more people that pass by: the higher standard of duty of care.
•The court states that he owns full duty of care to inspect.
•Usually, there is distinction between rural and urban, but here no distinction
Analysis: Requiring an owner to inspect every roadside tree on an area of land such as the one present in this case would make property ownership an untenable burden. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the D did not exercise reasonable care of the tree in question.
Conclusion: The ruling of the trial court was affirmed
Facts: While the plaintiff, Taylor, was traveling down a dark and windy road, she struck a splintered tree, which had shortly before fallen across the roadway.
This roadway is said to have had a car travel past this particular spot about once every 2 minutes.
The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant
This case is concerning people who are outside of the land
Issue: Is the owner or possessor of the tree required to pay such close attention to her roadside trees with a reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm?
Distinction btw artificial and natural condition
Rules: Concerning most conditions on land that arise in the state of nature, most courts have held that there is no duty upon the landholder to protect persons outside the premises. (but there is one exception, that is tree)
•The more people that pass by: the higher standard of duty of care.
•The court states that he owns full duty of care to inspect.
•Usually, there is distinction between rural and urban, but here no distinction
Analysis: Requiring an owner to inspect every roadside tree on an area of land such as the one present in this case would make property ownership an untenable burden. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the D did not exercise reasonable care of the tree in question.
Conclusion: The ruling of the trial court was affirmed
Support us by:
Checking out our store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com
No comments:
Post a Comment