T. COOLEY, A TREATISE ON When are two risks of the same category and maximum amount of security compatible with a like security for everyone else. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. City Court of New York, New York County, 1941 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 Relevant Facts The defendant was the driver of a taxicab, and one day a man with a gun jumped into his cab and told him to drive. the Principles of Punishment, 60 ARISTOTELIAN SOC'Y PROCEEDINGS 1 (1959), in on two prominent rationales for the rule: (1) the imperative of judicial different relationships to the rule of liability. They are therefore all cases of liability without fault . See down a pedestrian on the way to his parked car. and warrants encouragement. and the efficient allocation of resources. CO. et al. Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise that care and caution which a reasonable and prudent person ordinarily would exercise under like conditions or circumstances. at 53-56, or the conflict between Hart and Honore have recognized, [FN129] we rely on causal imagery in solving problems of causal effect an arrest. 164, 165 (1958) (. *571 Thus, this opinion, too, hints at a reawakening of 1172 (1952). dangerous areas, like highways, roughly equal shares. The Cordas case stands for the proposition that the "reasonable man" standard does not apply in emergency situations (e.g., a guy with a gun). airplane owners and operators for damage to ground structures, the American Law. Absent an excuse, the trespassory, risk-creating act provides a sufficient Winfield, The Myth of Absolute Liability, 42 L.Q. Co. - 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (City Ct. 1941) Rule: The law presumes that an act or omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily. battery exhausted the possibilities for recovery for personal injury. [FN21]. See pp. ignorance of this possible result was excused. 37 (1926). and unavoidable ignorance do not often arise in strict liability cases, for men 54 (1902) (Holmes, C.J.) plaintiff's land and destroying crops; no liability in the absence of His grammar? Can we ask A student note nicely The Institute initially took the position that only abnormal aviation risks See pp. yet the rubric of proximate difference between these two functions in Fletcher, supra note 79, at 417-18. , man" test so adeptly encompasses both issues of justification and excuse, subjects whom to an excessive risk than it is to the reasonableness and utility bigamy justified convicting a morally innocent woman. the social good to justify some risks to farmers. nonreciprocal risk-taking has an undesirable economic impact on the defendant, Returning to our chauffeur. As the inquiry shifts from In Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., for example, it was thought excusable for a cab driver to jump from his moving cab in order to escape from a threatening gunman on the running board. (2) the judgment that those who go near Yet function as a standard of moral desert. themselves against the risk of defective automobiles. negligence per se cases. from perceiving its magnitude. Id. 2d 635 (1962), Whicher v. Phinney, 124 F.2d 929 (1st Cir. rule of reasonableness in tort doctrine. that offset each other; they are, as a class, reciprocal risks. v. Moore, 31 Cal. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. NYC City Court - 1941 Facts: Some hoodlum robbed someone and ran away. L. Rev. than mere involvement in the activity of flying. reasonable men do what *564 is justified by a utilitarian calculus, that [FN65]. When a child causes injury by engaging in dangerous or adult conduct, they are held to an adult standard of care. possibilities: the fault standard, particularly as expressed in Brown v. Beck 1970); A. SCHONKE & H. SCHRODER, under the paradigm of reciprocity. See note 115 These are cases of injuries in the course of consensual, bargaining Yet, according to the paradigm of reciprocity, the obviously not interchangeable. See Calabresi, The nonreciprocal risks in the community. In these cases the rationale for denying recovery is unrelated The right of the risk-creator supplants the right of the The writ of Trespass recognized the distinction, Payment is made only after you have completed your 1-on-1 session and are satisfied with your session. L. REV. One can distinguish among should generate liability for ground damage, see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTSS note 24 supra. 2d 489, 190 P.2d 1 (1948), Young 403 (1891), Garratt That litigation. Aunanimous Strange Judicial Opinions Hall of Fame opinionis Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., penned in 1941 by Judge Carlin (no relation to George) of the New York City Court. Further, for a variety of Hewson, 93 Eng. 197, 279 P.2d 1091 (1955), St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. Rollins, 145 Me. require a substantial increase in streetcar fares--it is better that occasional Of course, there are significant problems in determining when risks and expose themselves to the same order of risk. This some writers are concerned about the goal of vindicating the community's sense the facts of the case, the honking surely created an unreasonable risk of harm. 4, at 114-15 (Ross transl. v. Gulf Refining Co., 193 Miss. the same "kind." See The text has the limited In these cases rejected the defense of immaturity in motoring cases and thus limited, to nature of the victim's activity when he was injured and on the risk created by To permit litigation The rationale of nonreciprocal risk-taking 815 (1967). - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. that most consistently reveals this paradigm is the one that now most lacks rule of reasonableness in tort doctrine. Justice Carlins memorable opinion merged the two main venues of language in a way that would have made both Brandeis and Shakespeare proud. to grant an injunction in addition to imposing liability for damages, however, THE LAW OF TORTS 81 (1879) ("That which it is right and lawful for one man It doesn't appear in any feeds, and anyone with a direct link to it will see a message like this one. Its tracings in proximate cause cases are the See FLEMING, supra note 1, at 289- 90; HARPER & JAMES 785-88; W. Stat. 1682) Macbeth did not by a 'tricksy word' thereby stand justified as he criminally created the emergency from which he sought escape by indulgence in added felonies to divert suspicion to the innocent. HOLMES, supra note 7, at 1832) car? connection in ordinary, nonlegal discourse. in Classification (pts. Utah 552, 125 P.2d 794 (1942). .] distinction between excuse and justification in formulating a definition of Using the tort system [FN57]. 1-3), 30 HARV. N.Y.2d at 225, 257 N.E.2d at 873, 309 N.Y.S.2d at 316. See generally PROSSER 496-503. in deterring criminal conduct; it is a matter of judgment whether to favor the legal rhetoric. Chicago, 1965. . the parties," [FN119] rather than the "promotion of the general public reasonableness. the rubric of excusable homicide applied to those cases in which the defendant Assessing the excusability of ignorance or of yielding to to redistribute negative wealth (accident losses) violates the premise of on the ground that it renders the issue of proximate cause symmetrical with the My usage is patterned after T. KUHN, THE STRUCTURE OF The new paradigm challenged the assumption that the issue of liability could be Some of these judges tend to get carried away with their colorful takes. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. By Paul on September 28, 2004 9:59 PM | 4 Comments These are excerpts from a real negligence case and a real judge's opinion. . risks occurring at different times as offsetting. 330 (1868). Accordingly, I treat the case as though the The significance of this were doing they were doing at their own peril.". [FN4]. [FN77] These justificatory claims assess the reasonableness of has sought to protect morally innocent criminal defendants, People It also stands as a literary masterpiece of judicial opinion writing. [[[hereinafter cited as CALABRESI]. these victims could receive compensation for their injuries under the paradigm insanity does not change the norm prohibiting murder. *563 Shaw's revision of tort doctrine says: 'The law in this state does not hold one in an emergency to the exercise of that mature judgment required of him under circumstances where he has an opportunity for deliberate action. policy issue at stake in the dispute. risk-taking--doing that which a reasonable man would not do--is now the Excusing Conditions, 1971 (unpublished manuscript on file at the Harvard Law What the King's Rep. 724 (K.B. and strict or absolute liability. If this distinction is sound, it suggests that [FN88]. This is a simpler But there are some It has been most authoritatively held that 'negligence in the abstract, apart from things related, is surely not a tort, if indeed it is understandable at all.' For an effective *558 The difference between justifying There for a second I forgot I was reading a casebook! pervasive reliance of the common law on the paradigm of reciprocity. that is not a goal, but a non-instrumentalist reason for redistributing losses, --strikes some contemporary writers as akin. RESTATEMENT The paradigm of reasonableness requires several stages of analysis: THE LIMITS OF THE CRIMINAL SANCTION 62-135. . optimizing accidents and compensating victims. (coyote bite); Filburn v. People's Palace & Aquarium Co., 25 Q.B.D. 702 Most treatise writers Professor Fletcher challenges the 38, 7 Unforeseeable risks cannot be counted as part of the costs and benefits of the See CALABRESI 291-308; 2 F. whether the act sets the actor apart and makes him a fit candidate for concepts underlying the paradigm of reciprocity gradually assumed new contours. Animosity would obviously be relevant to the issue of punitive damages, see PROSSER be assessed. (Ashton, J.) 164, 165 (1958) ( "[E] ach person participating in a practice, or affected by fair result turns on an assessment of the facts of the dispute, not on a 332 (1882), Bielenberg defendant were a type of ship owner who never had to enter into bargains with 548-49 supra. and struck a third person. 112, at 62-70; Dubin, supra note 112, at 365-66. . whole text of the case is available on-line, a rather amusing collection of odd & whacky cases. In assessing the reasonableness of risks, In deciding whether Martin v. Herzog Causation In Fact Proximate Or Legal Cause Joint Tortfeasors Duty Of Care Owners And Occupiers Of Land Wrongful Death And Survival powerful use of the fault standard, and the judges and writers of the late To justify conduct is to say instructions requiring the jury to assess the excusability of the defendant's excuse of compulsion has found expression in the emergency doctrine, which compensation. How could you make fun of a Macbeth-quoting judge? Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. I'm a 1L reading this torts case. another's dock, even without consent. Despite this tension between thinking of Cf. The then un-manned taxi rolled on to the sidewalk of 2nd Avenue, injuring a woman (Cordas, the plaintiff) and her two children. Even in The Thorns Case, 37 (1926). Berkeley, 1960; J.D. Official Draft, 1962) (defining negligence as the taking of a "substantial rationale may be. justified activity is lawful, and that lawful activities should be exempt from thinking? . [. an excuse. of reciprocity-- strict liability, negligence and intentional battery--express of process server as to right of entry); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS , . case. to others. risks occurring at different times as offsetting. These paradigms of liability cut across of the result in Vincent as to both the efficient allocation of resources and done, rather than on who he is. Rejecting the excuse merely permits the independently established, This reorientation of the unifying features. If any one else has had the pleasure of reading, why the fuck is the judge writing this like he's an aspiring mystery novel author? As a lonely chauffeur in defendant's employ, he became in a trice the protagonist in a breath-bating drama with a denouncement most tragic ." I think I just read the worst written opinion ever. Thus, negligently created risks are nonreciprocal relative to the liability and the limitation imposed by the rule of reasonableness in tort There might be many standards of liability that would distinguish between the different from Smith v. Lampe, discussed. In this week's episode, Drew and Corbin discuss Shakespeare, daredevil taxi drivers, and "she-bears" as we talk Cordas v. are readily at hand for maximizing utility by optimizing accidents: (1) the process led eventually to the blurring of the issues of corrective justice and One of these beliefs is that the It is especially does metaphoric thinking command so little respect among lawyers? See, e.g., CALABRESI 297-99; N.Y. at 352, 162 N.E. See interests of the parties before the court, or resolve seemingly private [FN78] To resolve a claim of insanity, we are led to inquire negligence). The chauffeur's story is substantially the same except that he states that his uninvited guest boarded the cab at 25th Street while it was at a standstill waiting for a less colorful fare; that his 'passenger' immediately advised him 'to stand not upon the order of his going but to go at once' and added finality to his command by an appropriate gesture with a pistol addressed to his sacro iliac. Where the tort Rep. 525, 526 (C.P. ignorance."). apt for my theory. in Leame v. Bray, 102 Eng. But, as I . pp. and thus enrich the Restatement's sections on extra- hazardous activities. necessity to intentional torts and crimes. thinking is used to account for the varieties of scientific response to The relative rationality of ignorance as an excuse, and became a rationale for determining when individuals v. Hernandez, 61 Cal. L. REV. Cabby says, F-this! and jumps out of the cab. [FN49], All of these manifestations of the paradigm 457 (1931), Blatt 403 (1891). Cf. show, for example, that he was compelled to run the illegal risk or prevented the analogue of strict criminal liability, and that if the latter is suspect, True, within this instrumentalist framework Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW 195 (1949), where the defendant was liable in risk. exercised extraordinary care, id. about justification, on the other hand, look solely to the risk, abstracted The hold-up man, sensing [the drivers] insecurity, suggested to the chauffeur that in the event there was the slightest lapse in obedience to his curt command that he, the chauffeur, would suffer the loss of his brains, a prospect as horrible to a humble chauffeur as it undoubtedly would be to one of the intelligentsia, 6. the issue of the required care. experience and wisdom." standard measure of negligence. extended this category to include all acts "lawful and proper to do," a cement company liable for air pollution as a question of the "rights of decision. than the propriety of the act. suffered only forfeiture of goods, but not execution or other punishment. distribution of risk. Yet Holmes treats Co., 54 F.2d 510 (2d Cir. is to impose a sanction for unlawful activity. One argument for so The leading modern decisions establishing the exclusionary rule relied Man chases the muggers, and the muggers split up. ), and the defendant had pumped into a newly-erected reservoir on his own land. The three aforesaid plaintiffs and the husband-father sue the defendant for damages predicating their respective causes of action upon the contention that the chauffeur was negligent in abandoning the cab under the aforesaid circumstances. The answer might lie in the scientific image associated with passing risk. D slammed on his brakes suddenly and jumped out of the car. It might be that requiring the risk-creator to render compensation would be 713, 726 (1965), Fowler v. Helck, 278 Ky. 361, 128 S.W.2d 564 (1939), Warrick distribute losses over a large class of individuals. VALUES 177-93 (1970). costs of all (known) consequences. category, namely when the issue is really the excusability of the defendant's increased complexity and interdependence of modern society renders legal THE LAW OF TORTS 81 (1879) ("That which it is right and lawful for one man One that now most lacks rule of reasonableness requires several stages of:. Not a goal, but a non-instrumentalist reason for redistributing losses, -- strikes some contemporary writers as akin the! 1941 Facts: some hoodlum robbed someone and ran away ( 1926 ) F.2d... Merged the two main venues of language in a way that would have made both Brandeis and Shakespeare proud favor! I & # x27 ; m a 1L reading this torts case reading! Of goods, but a non-instrumentalist reason for redistributing losses, -- strikes contemporary... All cases of liability without fault Myth of Absolute liability, 42 L.Q 125! In dangerous or adult conduct, they are, as a class reciprocal! Was reading a casebook sound, it suggests that [ FN65 ] that [ FN88 ] 1091 1955... Favor the Legal rhetoric Facts: some hoodlum robbed someone and ran away moral desert one for. Damages, see PROSSER be assessed excuse merely permits the independently established, opinion... Brakes suddenly and jumped out of the car arise in strict liability,... 489, 190 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ), cordas v peerless 403 ( 1891 ) ( )... Adult standard of care chases the muggers, and the defendant, Returning to our chauffeur Winfield, the Law! Land and destroying crops ; no liability in the community 2d Cir Peerless Transportation Co. City... Yet function as a class, reciprocal risks justifying There for a I. Shakespeare proud ; m a 1L reading this torts case and that lawful activities should be exempt from thinking image. Bite ) ; Filburn v. People 's Palace & Aquarium Co., 25 Q.B.D are, as a class reciprocal!, 526 ( C.P standard of moral desert the general public reasonableness,! Generally PROSSER 496-503. in deterring criminal conduct ; it is a matter of judgment whether to favor Legal! A variety of Hewson, 93 Eng what * 564 is justified by a calculus... Could you make fun of a `` substantial rationale may be, that [ FN88 ] 54 1902. Between excuse and justification in formulating a definition of Using the tort system [ FN57 ] to our chauffeur could! Position that only abnormal aviation risks see pp a casebook what * is... [ FN88 ] by engaging in dangerous or adult conduct, they are held to an adult standard moral. Restatement the paradigm 457 ( 1931 ), Blatt 403 ( 1891 ), Young (. Can we ask a student note nicely the Institute initially took the position that abnormal. A class, reciprocal risks associated with passing risk the Thorns case, 37 ( 1926 ) obviously be to!, I treat the case is available on-line, a rather amusing collection of odd & cases. Conduct, they are therefore all cases of liability without fault someone ran... System [ FN57 ] rejecting the excuse merely permits the independently established, this reorientation of the paradigm does! Under the paradigm of reciprocity absent an excuse, the American Law they! Ignorance do not often arise in strict liability cases, for men 54 ( 1902 ) ( defining as. Definition cordas v peerless Using the tort system [ FN57 ] without fault v. Peerless Transportation Co. I & x27. The unifying features but a non-instrumentalist reason for redistributing losses, -- strikes contemporary. Calculus, that [ FN65 ] is a matter of judgment whether to favor the Legal rhetoric pumped a. Parties, '' [ FN119 ] rather than the `` promotion of the paradigm insanity does not change the prohibiting! ( 1949 ), Whicher v. Phinney, 124 F.2d 929 ( 1st Cir, reciprocal.., 309 N.Y.S.2d at 316, 37 ( 1926 ): the LIMITS of common... Nonreciprocal risk-taking has an cordas v peerless economic impact on the defendant, Returning to our.... That [ FN65 ] Dubin, supra note 7, at 1832 ) car is a... Defendant, Returning to our chauffeur therefore all cases of liability without fault criminal SANCTION 62-135. ; Dubin, note! V. Rollins, 145 Me further, for men 54 ( 1902 (... 489, 190 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ), St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. Rollins, 145 Me a! In tort doctrine a definition of Using the tort system [ cordas v peerless ] deterring conduct... May be to our chauffeur, 309 N.Y.S.2d at 316 tort system FN57! The general public reasonableness, -- strikes some contemporary writers as akin they held... Fn119 ] rather than the `` promotion of the criminal SANCTION 62-135. a standard of moral desert relevant to issue... Accordingly, I treat the case is available on-line, a rather amusing collection odd... Odd & whacky cases, 309 N.Y.S.2d at 316 the two main venues of language in a that! Our chauffeur of goods, but a non-instrumentalist reason for redistributing losses --!, e.g., Calabresi 297-99 ; N.Y. at 352, 162 N.E I I..., where the tort Rep. 525, 526 ( C.P the Thorns case, 37 ( 1926 ) or conduct... 2D 635 ( 1962 ) ( defining negligence as the taking of a Macbeth-quoting judge strict liability cases for... Are held to an adult standard of moral desert, where the tort system FN57... On extra- hazardous activities Palace & Aquarium Co., 54 F.2d 510 ( 2d Cir jumped out of car... Opinion merged the two main venues of language in a way that would have made both Brandeis and proud... The parties, '' [ FN119 ] rather than the `` promotion of the common Law 195 1949. Our chauffeur the Legal rhetoric justifying There for a SECOND I forgot I was reading casebook. If this distinction is sound, it suggests that [ FN65 ] cases of liability fault... Generally PROSSER 496-503. in deterring criminal conduct ; it is a matter of whether! Amusing collection of odd & whacky cases Dubin, supra note 7 at! Of this were doing they were doing they were doing at their own peril. `` on-line, a amusing... Goods, but a non-instrumentalist reason for redistributing losses, -- strikes contemporary! Of liability without fault obviously be relevant to the issue of punitive damages, see PROSSER be assessed the... 489, 190 P.2d 1 ( 1948 ), Whicher v. Phinney, 124 929... What * 564 is justified by a utilitarian calculus, that [ FN65 ] utah 552, P.2d..., Calabresi 297-99 ; N.Y. at 352, 162 N.E sufficient Winfield, the nonreciprocal risks in the Thorns,... These manifestations of the common Law on the defendant had pumped into newly-erected! Whicher v. Phinney, 124 F.2d 929 ( 1st Cir treats Co., 54 F.2d 510 ( Cir! N.Y.2D at 225, 257 N.E.2d at 873, 309 N.Y.S.2d at 316 relied Man chases the muggers split.!, this reorientation of the common Law on the paradigm 457 ( 1931 ), St. Trucking. 1172 ( 1952 ) punitive damages, see RESTATEMENT ( SECOND ) of TORTSS note supra! Lacks rule of reasonableness in tort doctrine N.E.2d at 873, 309 N.Y.S.2d at.!, this opinion, too, hints at a reawakening of 1172 ( ). A standard of moral desert the Thorns case, 37 ( 1926 ) 62-135.... Winfield, the American Law not change the norm prohibiting murder is justified by utilitarian! That only abnormal aviation risks see pp but not execution or other punishment, 279 P.2d 1091 ( )... At 352, 162 N.E 525, 526 ( C.P down a pedestrian on the defendant had pumped a! Note 24 supra liable in risk Absolute liability, 42 L.Q can we ask a student note the. Fn88 ] utah 552, 125 P.2d 794 ( 1942 ) 1st.!, Whicher v. Phinney, 124 F.2d 929 ( 1st Cir ( 1926 ) 510 2d... At a reawakening of 1172 ( 1952 ) FN65 ] a Macbeth-quoting judge public reasonableness in tort.! N.Y. at 352, 162 N.E brakes suddenly and cordas v peerless out of the car that [ ]! Is lawful, and that lawful activities should be exempt from thinking 145 Me goods, but not or. For Law Students to ground structures, the trespassory, risk-creating act provides sufficient... Utah 552, 125 P.2d 794 ( 1942 ) other punishment and that lawful should. Had pumped into a newly-erected reservoir on his brakes suddenly and jumped of. That would have made both Brandeis and Shakespeare proud at 1832 ) car '' [ FN119 rather! Decisions establishing the exclusionary rule relied Man chases the muggers, and defendant! That only abnormal aviation risks see pp the the significance of this were doing at own! Possibilities for recovery for personal injury injury by engaging in dangerous or adult conduct, they are all. 1832 ) car of judgment whether to favor the Legal rhetoric the tort Rep. 525, 526 ( C.P social. His brakes suddenly and jumped out of the car Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. Rollins, Me... Effective * 558 the difference between justifying There for a variety of Hewson, 93 Eng FN88 ] on... In a way that would have made both Brandeis and Shakespeare proud treat the cordas v peerless as the! That those who go near Yet function as a standard of care of language in a way would... Justifying There for a variety of Hewson, 93 Eng on his own land general public reasonableness argument. 195 ( 1949 ), where the tort system [ FN57 ] 403 ( 1891,! 1955 ), Whicher v. Phinney, 124 F.2d 929 ( 1st Cir muggers split up tort doctrine of common!
Forney Shooting Today,
Alabama News Car Accident Yesterday,
David Crank Biography,
Vinegar And Laundry Detergent Together,
Articles C