Mod 5 Learning Activity
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Purdue Global University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
727
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by Candiejune
Introduction
You asked me to research potential liability for Mr. David Peterson Sr.'s, our client, for negligence for injuries to Mr. Phil Aarons caused by Mr. David Peterson Jr. referencing the Smith v. Allen case as precedent.
Question
Is David Peterson, Sr. liable to Phil Aarons for Negligence for Aarons’s injuries that resulted from a flying nail that David Peterson, Jr. attempted to hammer into a baseboard?
Is Peterson Sr. liable for negligence to Phil Aarons for leaving tools in his toolbox?
Is Peterson Sr. liable to Aarons for negligence for injuries resulting from a flying nail that Peterson Jr. attempted to hammer?
Facts
David Peterson Jr. (David), eleven, and Phil Aarons (Aarons), nine, were playing knock hockey in David's basement. Their play caused a baseboard to break loose, halting the game. Aaron's was tired of the game and went to play with a trainset in a different part of the room. David wanted to continue playing so he decided to fix the baseboard. David took a hammer and a large nail from the tool box in the corner and readied to repair the baseboard. On David's second stroke, the hammer displaced the nail. The nail flew across the room striking Aaron in the face causing a bloody nose, a gash in his cheek, and chipping his two front teeth.
Analysis Prep
Review Smith v. Allen case to find the rule of law and begin drafting analysis.
Rule
A person has a duty to protect others against unreasonable risks, but cannot be expected to guard against harm from events that are not reasonably anticipated or are so unlikely to occur that the risk, although recognizable, would commonly be disregarded. [pinpoint citation]
No person can be expected to guard against harm from events that are not reasonably to be anticipated, or are so unlikely to occur that the risk, although recognizable, would commonly be disregarded. [include
pinpoint citation]
Explanation
The facts of the precedent case, the holding of the precedent case, and the reasoning from the precedent case.
Smith v Allen Facts
In Smith
, Judith Smith, nine, and Jimmy Allen, eleven, were playing in Jimmy’s back yard. Jimmy picked up a golf club that his father, James Allen, had left lying on the ground. Jimmy swung the golf club, inadvertently striking Judith in the chin. Smith filed a claim for negligence against jimmy for failing to warn Smith that he was about to swing the club and for swinging the club while Smith was in the zone of
danger. Smith also claimed that James was negligent for leaving the golf club on the ground and, therefore, was liable for his sons actions because James knew that the golf club was on the ground and that Jimmy would play with it. [citation]
The holding of the precedent case.
Smith v Allen Holding
The court held that Allen was not liable to Smith because a golf club is not so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligent to leave it lying on the ground in the yard. [pinpoint citation]
Allen cannot be found negligent as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable.
The reasoning from the precedent case.
Smith v Allen Reasoning
A golf club is not commonly used as a weapon, like a knife for example. [pinpoint citation]
A golf club is not so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligent to leave it lying on the ground in the yard. Unlike a knife, for example, it is not commonly used as a weapon. Thus, the father cannot be held liable on the allegations of this complaint.
Analysis Prep
Analogize facts – compare “like things.” In this case, you can also incorporate the reasoning into the comparison. When you are dealing with more facts or more complex facts, you might need a separate sentence or even a paragraph to show how the reasoning applies.
Draw comparisons between the precedent case and the prospective case to highlight the similarities.
Prep 2
The golf club and the hammer/nail.
The age of the parties (nine and eleven), the setting (play in a area not unsafe for play), acts not intended
to cause harm, items not typically used to commit a crime.
Prep 3
Like the golf club in Smith
, the hammer and nail are not “obviously and intrinsically dangerous” like a weapon such as a knife. Furthermore, David Peterson Sr. kept the hammer and nail in a tool chest rather than leave them out like the father left the golf club out in Smith
, making it less likely that they would be considered dangerous.
Just as in Smith, the items that inflicted the injury are not commonly used as a weapon.
Prep 4
Distinguish Green
from the Peterson facts and provide a reason that the Green
holding would not apply to the Peterson facts.
In Green v. Kendall, the court found that the child was participating in an inherently dangerous activity. This case should not apply to Peterson as there is no inherently dangerous activity.
Prep 5
Although one court held a child golfer liable for a flying golf ball that injured a plaintiff, the holding was based on the reasoning that a golf ball is a dangerous missile. [pinpoint cite the Green case.] The Green
court determined that a golf ball in flight is a dangerous instrument and likened it to “firing a gun.” [pinpoint green.] Unlike the golf ball in flight in Green
, a hammer and nail are not dangerous instruments. A nail is not typically anticipated to fly; whereas a golf ball hit with a golf club is meant to fly, so the hammer and nail are more like the golf club lying on the ground in Smith
than the golf ball in flight in Green
.
In Green v. Kendall, the court found that the child was participating in an inherently dangerous activity. This case should not apply to Peterson as there is no inherently dangerous activity.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is not likely that David Peterson, Sr. will be held liable to Aarons for negligence.
Conclusion Mod 6
Peterson, Sr. is not likely liable to Phil Aarons for negligence for Aarons’s injuries because storing a hammer and nails in a basement tool chest did not create an unreasonable risk. A hammer and nails are common household items that are not dangerous enough to impose a duty on Peterson, Sr., and storing them in a tool chest created less of a risk. Therefore, Peterson, Sr. will not likely be liable for negligence.
Peterson, Sr. is likely not liable to Aarons for negligence for Aarons's injuries because storing a hammer and nail in a toolbox did not create an unreasonable risk. A hammer and nail are common household items and are not dangerous enough to create a duty for Peterson, Sr.; storing them in a toolbox lessened any existing risk. Therefore, Peterson, Sr. will likely not be liable for negligence.
Brief Answer
David Peterson, Sr. is not likely liable to Phil Aarons for negligence for Aarons’s injuries that resulted from
a flying nail that David Peterson, Jr. attempted to hammer into a baseboard.
Storing common household items, such as a hammer and nail, in a toolbox does not create an unreasonable risk therefore Peterson, Sr. will not likely be liable for negligence.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help