Davison
v.
Supreme
Court of
149
Prosser,
pp. 137-139
Facts: The plaintiffs were driving
across a bridge and lost control. Their car
skidded, broke through a railing, and fell to the ground. The plaintiffs sued for their injuries,
alleging that the county was negligent in not installing railings strong enough
to keep a car from breaking through. The
defendants alleged contributory negligence and denied its own negligence. The plaintiffs won at trial. The defendant first moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict and was denied.
Then the defendant appealed.
Issue: Was the county negligent in
failing to install guardrails that are capable of preventing a car from leaving
the road?
Rule: As a matter of public
policy, we want roads to be built and maintained, and thus we cannot require
safety measures that would make roads generally unaffordable.
Analysis: The court finds that it’s
extra hard to make sturdy railings on elevated causeways or viaducts. Since we still want to be able to drive on
such structures, it is against public policy interests to subject communities
to liability for non-ideal safety precautions.
Conclusion: The court reversed the trial
court’s ruling.
Notes
and Questions
1. In Barlett,
the Supreme Court of Washington basically said that times have changed, and the
engineering problems of 1928 are not clearly the same as they were in
1968. Therefore, it ruled that evidence
should be presented in regard to whether extra-safe guard rails were more
practical than they used to be.
2. It seems as
though the defendant could be liable if it would have been practical to
construct the track other than the way it was, and if the defendants could have
foreseen a result such as the one that occurred.
3. The court
should promote the outcome that is the most socially beneficial. The reasonable course of action is to prevent
harm to persons, and in particular, as many persons as possible. The defendant may be subject to liability
either way, but we want to set things up so that the defendant is subject to
less liability if he does less harm.
4. I don’t know
what the book meant by “intestate”, but I think it was a typo. Unless that means someone else will be
killed, I think the court needs to protect the interest of the trucker in
defending his own life. He may still be
found liable for the injury of the plaintiff’s whatever, but then again, he may
not be found to be negligent.