A was waiting for a bus at the bus stop. Across the street and down the block, B negligently overinflated the tire he was intending to put onto C's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured C and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and into the path of an oncoming vehicle driven by D. D swerved his car to the right to avoid the dog and crashed into the bus stop where A was waiting, causing him injuries. If A sues B, he will likely:
1. lost, because B did not own him a duty of care
2. lost, because B did not breach the duty of care
3. win, becuase B's breached the duty of care owed to C, and therefore, is liable to anyone injured as a result of his negligent conduct.
4. win, becuase an injured person who files a lawsuit is entitled to compensation from the person sued.
Sage
The likely answer is 3, but I suspect that the person asking the question believes that #1 is the correct answer. The fact situation is a variant of the famous Palsgraf case. Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928). In Palsgraf, a passenger was attempting to board a moving train. Guards on the train grabbed him (believing he was about to fall) and caused him to drop a package he was carrying. Unknown to the guards, the package contained fireworks, which exploded when the package was dropped. The explosion caused scales at the opposite end of the platform to fall, injuring the plaintiff (Mrs. Palsgraf). The Court of Appeals (per Cardozo, J.) held that the railroad was not liable because the guards did not know that the package contained explosives, and the actual accident that caused the injury was unforeseeable to the guards. The significant aspect of Palsgraf was Justice Cardozo's conclusion that the guard's negligence toward the passenger -- by grabbing him -- was not negligence toward Mrs. Palsgraf, because it was not foreseeable that the guard's negligence could injury Mrs. Palsgraf.
Under a strict reading of Palsgraf, A would lose and #1 would be the correct answer. However, the essence of the Palsgraf test is foreseeability. The guard could not foresee any danger to a person far away from the events, and therefore owed no duty to that person. Here, the facts are somewhat different. The guard in Palsgraf had no inkling that an explosion would ensue by reason of his grabbing the passenger. However, a person overinflating a tire knows that the tire could explode and that explosions can cause all kinds of unfortunate consequences, including distracting drivers and thereby causing accidents. Applying the Palsgraf concept of foreseeability, A should prevail.
The difficulty with Answer #3 is that it contains an erroneous premise. In negligence cases, it is never true that a negligent person is liable to anyone injured as a result of his negligent conduct -- there must always be a duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The phrasing of the question suggests that the questioner believes that #1 is the correct answer.
Orignal From: Q&A: Law question about Negligence?
Post a Comment