Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
New York Court of Appeals - 227 N.Y. 208
Tags: Torts, Duty, Reasonable precautions
tl;dr:
Boy swung a wire under a bridge and got electrocuted by the uninsulated trolley wire underneath. Court holds that Defendant trolley company did not act unreasonably in failing to prevent against this unforeseeable injury.Video Summary
Case Summary
In Adams v. Bullock (1919), the New York Court of Appeals reviewed a negligence case between a 12-year-old boy, William Adams, and the Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, an electric company. The boy was injured when a wire he was swinging touched electric trolley wires below a bridge, and he sued the company for not taking sufficient precautions to prevent the accident.
The trial court found the company negligent, and the Appellate Division agreed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgement, stating that negligence depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the level of care a reasonable person would take. Foreseeability, or whether the harm caused was within the scope of risk created by the defendant's actions, is a key factor in determining negligence.
In this case, the court found Adams's accident was unforeseeable, as it involved a rare combination of events, had no evidence supporting that such accidents were frequent or likely to happen again, and the company had taken precautions by placing the wires out of reach. Therefore, the company could not be held liable for negligence.
This case is significant because it highlights the principles and limitations of negligence and foreseeability in tort law, applies these doctrines to various dangerous activities or conditions, and shows how courts assess whether harm was foreseeable or unforeseeable considering the probability, frequency, and nature of the harm.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The plaintiff in this case received a verdict at Trial Term, which was affirmed by a divided court at the Appellate Division. However, the defendant cannot be held liable for the injury caused to the twelve-year-old boy as they were using an overhead trolley in the lawful exercise of its franchise, and there is no evidence that the duty to adopt reasonable precautions was ignored. The trolley wire was placed in a way that no one standing on the bridge or bending over the parapet could reach it. The defendant was not warned of any special danger at the bridge, and no like accident had occurred before. The decision made by the lower court is incorrect, and a new trial should be held. The Chief Justice Hiscock and Justices Chase, Collin, Hogan, Crane, and Andrews all agree with this decision.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.