Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court - 60 Mass. 292
tl;dr:
Defendant accidentally poked Plaintiff's eye with a stick while trying to separate their dogs. Court finds that Defendant is only at fault for injury resulting from a failure to exercise ordinary care.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the 1850 case Brown v. Kendall, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court addressed negligence and liability in an accidental injury situation. In this case, two neighbors, Brown and Kendall, were trying to separate their fighting dogs. Kendall unintentionally hit Brown in the eye with a stick, causing serious harm. Brown sued Kendall for assault and battery, arguing that Kendall's handling of the stick was negligent.
Kendall claimed he used appropriate care and couldn't avoid the injury. The trial court sided with Brown, stating Kendall must prove he used extraordinary care or show Brown was at fault. Kendall appealed, and the Supreme Judicial Court overturned the ruling, explaining that Brown needed to prove Kendall's negligence to win damages.
The court introduced a standard of ordinary care, expecting a person to act as a reasonably careful and cautious individual in similar situations. They clarified that negligence couldn't be assumed solely from an injury and needed supporting evidence. The court noted that liability in accidental injuries relied on whether the injury could've been prevented by using ordinary care, not on the necessity or appropriateness of the action causing it.
Importantly, this case established negligence and liability principles for accidental injuries and shifted the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. It also introduced the "reasonable person" standard as a measure of ordinary care, and remains a key authority today.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
This case concerns liability for harm caused by an unconscious act. The use of a weapon or instrument that causes harm to another is considered a voluntary act, even if the harm was not intended. The appropriate remedy depends on whether the damage is immediate or consequential. If the damage is immediate, trespass vi et armis is the proper remedy. If the damage is consequential, then a case is the appropriate remedy. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's intention was unlawful or that the defendant was at fault to establish liability. If the injury was unavoidable and the defendant's conduct was blameless, then the defendant will not be liable. The term "ordinary care" refers to the kind and degree of care that prudent and cautious individuals would use in a given situation to guard against probable danger. The lower court erred in not giving instructions to this effect.
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.