Ruth carelessly parks her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car roles down the hill, knocking down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignites a grass fire. The fire spreads until it reaches a barn one mile away. The barn houses dynamite, and the burning barn explodes, causing part of the roof to fall on and injure a passing motorist, Jim. Explain Ruth's liability for all injuries and damages using Cardozo's and Andrew's theory re: negligence.
1 answer
There is no question that Ruth’s actions breached the duty of reasonable care necessary to park a car on the hill. Furthermore, there is little doubt that Jim has been injured by a roof falling on him and not through his own negligence. Therefore, Jim’s major task in defense will be connecting Ruth’s breach of duty to his injury. The issue of foreseeability becomes a test of proximate cause, the connection needed for Jim’s recovery for damages. In other words, Jim must show that the chain of events was a foreseeable result of Ruth’s carelessness.
1 answer