Thursday, December 3, 2015

Foster v. Preston Mill Co. case brief

Foster v. Preston Mill Co. case brief
Facts: Blasting operations scared a mink owned by Foster and caused mink to kill their kittens. Foster wants to recover damages because of the blasting on the theory of absolute liability. Plaintiff told the defendant of the effect of the blasting operations on the mink and in a trial, they found it was an important factor and awarded plaintiff money. 
Decision: Judgment reversed, the defendant wins. 
Reasoning: Limitation on it placed as a matter of public policy; the limitation is that strict liability should be confined to consequences which lie within the extraordinary risk whose existence calls for such responsibility; this is even though the utmost care is exercised to prevent the harm. 
It is usually said that the defendant’s duty to ensure safety extends only to certain consequences. They asked whether the risk that any unusual vibration or noise may cause wild animals to kill their young, one of the activities that make the blasting ultra-hazardous? The court decided that it is not the ultra-hazardous activity. Common experience says blasting leads to property damage from falling debris or vibrations of the earth. 
The risk of causing harm of the kind experienced is not the kind of risk which makes blasting ultrahazardous and it should not be protected against and allowing plaintiff to recover. 

Holding: Strict liability requires the plaintiff to prove that the type of risk that occurs is the type of risk that is generally expected to occur from that activity and if the plaintiff proves that, they can maintain their lawsuit. 

Check out our eBook: How to Win at Law School to see how to transfer to a top school, get the top grades in your class, and get a head start on the legal profession!

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...