Vaughan v. Menlove, bad news for morons

Last week I described negligence torts by saying, "Of course you didn't mean to, but you should have known better." That explanation opens the door for morons to say, "Dude. No way. I didn't know better. Seriously. You should get high with me some time. I don't know better. I don't know shit. You'll see."

Today I want you to do a fist pump for Vaughan v. Menlove. This case shot down the moron defense with the concept of reasonable prudence.

Vaughan v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (1837)

Facts
The defendant made a pile of hay on his property, which he rented from the plaintiff. Over a period of 5 weeks the defendant was warned multiple times that the hay could catch fire. The defendant responded that he would "chance it." The hay caught fire and burned down multiple buildings on the property. Plaintiff sued for damages. The judge instructed the jury to examine the actions of the defendant, and decide whether his behavior was that of a "reasonably prudent man." The defendant was found liable, and appealed on the grounds that he acted to the best of his own judgment.

Questions
1. Should a general standard of reasonable prudence determine whether a defendant is negligent?
2. Was the decision correct?

Holding
1. Yes
2. Yes

Reasoning
1. Every individual does not afford their own standard of reasonable behavior. Since prudence is the issue in negligence cases, juries should determine what behavior is prudent.
2. Prior law holds that individuals must enjoy their property in a way that does not injure others. The individual should be held liable for injuries, unless they resulted from unexpected events. The defendant in this case was repeatedly warned about the danger of the hay. The judge's instructions had legal precedent and correctly identified the issues before the jury.

My monthly jog

Lazy Sunday

The Summer of E

Just start at the beginning

The thing I love about Legal Writing in Plain English is that it makes me feel less stupid. The author argues that writing is a difficult craft, and most lawyers are amateurs. When you take a bunch of amateurs and shove them into a text-rich environment with no real guidance, you get a lot of schlock. Legal documents are poorly organized and long-winded. What's worse is that they're littered with big BS words to hide the fact that they are schlock.

So when I try to read a case file and get nowhere, I have a handy excuse ready: "This guy sucks at writing."

Exercise 3 - Basic
Today I did an exercise in sequencing ideas. Garner's advice is to put items in chronological order. You might think starting at the beginning and moving forward is obvious, but many attorneys haven't figured it out yet. Why should a legal document summarize facts backwards (Memento), one concept at a time (Pulp Fiction), or Abrams-style (Lost)? Combining poor sequencing with the schlock-effect makes some of this stuff unreadable.

Anyway, I'll post my assignment to comments. Feel free to skip it since it will be totally out of context without the Legal Writing book. Or, give it a gander and point out all my grammatical errors.

What is Civil Procedure?

Laws can be generally divided into two groups, criminal and civil. Criminal law is fairly self explanatory. Civil law is everything else, including contracts, torts, domestic issues, and civil rights.

According to wisegeek.com, civil procedure is "an intricate and complex set of rules and regulations that apply to the filing, pursuance, and trial of civil lawsuits." Civil procedure does not apply to criminal court.

Brown v. Kendall

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.