Vaughan v. Menlove case brief summary
F: TC ruled in favor of P
P: Vaughan (Landlord)
D: Menlove (Tenant)
D rented the property from P. He placed buildings and a haystack on the property near P’s cottages. Seeing the haystacks, D neighbors began warning him that the hay created a fire hazard. While he was told the best course of action would be to remove it, D dismissed their warnings. He placed a chimney in the haystack believing that would lower the risk of fire. Notwithstanding D’s modification, they hay spontaneously caught fire, and it spread to D barn and then to P cottages, destroying them.
I: whether negligence determined objectively, or need D’s actual knowledge (individual judgment)
R: Negligence is determined objectively, based on the standard of care a reasonable person would use in similar circumstances
C: affirmed.
Co: warning -> evidence of common knowledge (ok)
But, in general, the fact that he was warned is irrelevant
F: TC ruled in favor of P
P: Vaughan (Landlord)
D: Menlove (Tenant)
D rented the property from P. He placed buildings and a haystack on the property near P’s cottages. Seeing the haystacks, D neighbors began warning him that the hay created a fire hazard. While he was told the best course of action would be to remove it, D dismissed their warnings. He placed a chimney in the haystack believing that would lower the risk of fire. Notwithstanding D’s modification, they hay spontaneously caught fire, and it spread to D barn and then to P cottages, destroying them.
I: whether negligence determined objectively, or need D’s actual knowledge (individual judgment)
R: Negligence is determined objectively, based on the standard of care a reasonable person would use in similar circumstances
C: affirmed.
Co: warning -> evidence of common knowledge (ok)
But, in general, the fact that he was warned is irrelevant
No comments:
Post a Comment