Meaning Of Negligence Plaintiff’s Conduct And Its Effects Outline

Meaning of Negligence: Plaintiff’s Conduct and its Effects

1. Contributory Negligence- Virginia Is a Contrib. Neg State

   1. Fork: Are we in a contributory or comparative negligence regime?

   2. Contributory Negligence: If P is found at all negligent, P loses

      1. 2 important factors to determine contributory negligence:

         1. What’s the context?

         2. Who is the person?

   3. Gyerman v. United States Lines Co. (p.307):

      1. Plaintiff was injured while unloading fishmean stacks that had been brought into the warehouse by the defendant. Before he began working, he noticed the stacks were not properly arranged and he notified the united states lines chief marine clerk, even though his union conract provided that he should stop working when in good faith he believed the work to be unsafe, and that he should convene a joint labor management committee to address the issue.

         1. Defendant argues that plaintiff was contributory negligent for continuing to work even though he was aware of the dangers.

         2. Court asks the question of “if he would have taken the steps as outlined in the labor contract, could he have prevented the accident from happening” to determine the question of contributory negligence.

            1. Court ruled that defendant did not meet its burden of proving that plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries.

         3. Gyerman is an example of contributory negligence that has two features:

            1. P is in a circumstance where she is not in a good position to take care for herself (she is an employee and her only alternative is to stop working)

               1. Key feature of the case: P was party to a union contract, she had power to apply and did not.

            2. Who is the plaintiff? She is an expert, she must have known.

   4. LeRoy Fibre v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry (p.316)

      1. Plaintiff stored stacks of straw on its own land about 70 feet from railroad tracks. One day, a high wind carried sparks from a passing train and lit the flax on fire. Trial court found plaintiff contributory negligent for placing the flax within 100 feet of the railroad’s right of way

         1. Holmes: A well managed train creates an obligation on the land owner to move her flax

            1. Plaintiff must move flax past the point where it would be burned by a well-managed train

               1. That is, plaintiff is required to use his land according to how someone uses theirs

               2. There is a way in which defendant can harm plaintiff without paying, so now plaintiff has to engage in a “defensive use of his land”

               3. Holmes wins in how we treat this currently

         2. Mckenna: “That one’s use of his property may be subject to the servitude of the wrongful use by another of his property seems an anomaly”

   5. Smithwick v. Hall (causation and contributory negligence)

      1. Plaintiff was working on a narrow platform erected in front of the defendant’s icehouse. Defendant foreman warned plaintiff to stay away from the east side of the platform because it had no railing and he feared he might slip on the ice.

         1. Plaintiff disregarded that instruct, but was hurt when the east portion of the icehouse buckled.

            1. Defendant’s contributory negligence in maintaining the icehouse was conceded, but the plaintiff’s contributory negligence was not treated as causally relevant because the resulting harm was not “within the risk”, that is, the class of events that made it dangerous for the plaintiff to venture to the east side. Other Contributory Negligence Cases?

2. Assumption of Risk

3. Assumption of risk: is just another way of saying D was not negligent or that D was already negligent but P was negligent in knowing the risk and continuing anyways.

   1. With a small amount of obvious risk to the plaintiff, it might be that defendant is not negligent at all

      1. Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. (p.338)

         1. Plaintiff sued after he sustained injuries on “the Flopper”, alleging:

            1. There was a jerk

            2. The ride was too fast (unsafe)

            3. There was no railing

            4. There was unpadded wood on the sides of the ride

         2. Court states that the risk was invited and forseen, and cites “volenti...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Long Torts Outline.