Brown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. 292 (1850)
Facts
George Brown and George Kendall both had dogs. The dogs got into a fight. Kendall tried to separate the dogs with a stick and hit Brown in the eye. Both men agreed the blow was unintentional.
Questions
1. Can a defendant, who is acting lawfully, be found liable for damages inflicted unintentionally?
2. Is Mr. Kendall liable for Mr. Brown's injury?
Holding
1. Yes
2. No
Reasoning
1. Tort law requires citizens to exercise a certain standard of care in their actions, even if their actions are lawful. When damages are unintentional, the burden of proof falls on the plaintiff to show that the defendant was acting carelessly. If the defendant was sufficiently careless, they are negligent.
2. Kendall acted within a reasonable standard of care. Although he had no duty to separate the dogs, it was the prudent thing to do. In his attempt to separate the dogs, he was not careless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment