Country (d) A majority of jurisdictions favor telling a jury they are to take into account that the actor In fright, the chauffeur slammed on the . Plaintiff Crabtree?? Held. Get Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941), City Court of New York, New York County, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. We couldnt. Therefore, neither he nor his employer was responsible for Mrs. Cordas and her childrens injuries. He went on like that for about three pages of lengthy paragraphs, all of which could have been summarized in a few sentences: The cab driver drove for a short distance but then jumped out of the cab. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.. Facts: Plaintiff's children and wife were struck by a taxi, whose driver abandoned it. LEXIS 103, 159 Lab. Synopsis of Rule of Law. However, I think the majority of judges frown upon crafting an opinion . The standard looks at the age of the child, intelligence, maturity, training and experience. (e) Getting it wrong: Even in a emergency, the actor is still held to the same standard to act infirmity, which is treated merely as one of the circumstances under which he acts. Issue (s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case. When a child operates a motorized vehicle, he should be held to an adult standard of care because the chances of injury and accident are increased. 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. Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The hold-up man sensing his 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 an humble chauffeur as it undoubtedly would be to one of the intelligentsia.. Emergencies also change the probability O'Brien, writing for the majority, held that while Lake Erie Transportation cannot be held liable for trespass due to private necessity, they had used Vincent's property to preserve their own and thus are liable for the resulting damages to the plaintiff. Cancel. Lewis, in the dissent, argued that dock owners run the risk that damages might occur if boats caught by a storm are moored to it. Carlin, however, described what happened next like this: The chauffeur in reluctant acquiescence proceeded about fifteen feet when his hair, like unto the quills of the fretful porcupine, was made to stand on end by the hue and cry of the man despoiled accompanied by a clamorous concourse of the law-abiding which paced him as he ran; the concatenation of stop thief, to which the patter of persistent feet did maddeningly beat time, rang in his ears as the pursuing posse all the while gained on the receding cab with its quarry therein contained. O'Brien and Lewis JJ and another Where a defendant holds herself out to have expertise and another relies on such representation, there is no question that she is held to the general knowledge and skill of that field of expertise, does nto follow as a corollary that a similar act is negligent if performed by a person, patent danger with a moment left to adopt a means of extrication , to consider whether the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances, conformed, it may establish due careand, contrariwise, when proof of a customary, practice is coupled with a showing that it was ignored and that this departure was a, proximate cause of the accident, it may serve to establish liability , If an actor has skills or knowledge that exceed those possessed by most others, these skills or, knowledge are circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether the actor has behaved, Forecasting, Time Series, and Regression (Richard T. O'Connell; Anne B. Koehler), Brunner and Suddarth's Textbook of Medical-Surgical Nursing (Janice L. Hinkle; Kerry H. Cheever), Principles of Environmental Science (William P. Cunningham; Mary Ann Cunningham), Psychology (David G. Myers; C. Nathan DeWall), Give Me Liberty! It was very hazardous to be out on the water so the master of the Reynolds did not leave the wharf but stayed moored, replacing lines as they wore through. Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding. Lab Report #11 - I earned an A in this lab class. ), (What is the real question or dispute to be addressed/answered by the court? When a child causes injury by engaging in dangerous or adult conduct, they are held to an adult standard of care. Where a defendant holds herself out to have expertise and another relies on such representation, ), Agent of D was driving a taxi and a guy with a gun jumped in, In fear of his own life, D jumped out of moving cab, Cab continued on, hit P (mother + daughter) on sidewalk and P was injured, P claims that D was negligent in jumping out of his moving cab, (How did this case get to this court? 35. It appears that a man, whose identity it would be indelicate to divulge was feloniously relieved of his portable goods by two nondescript highwaymen in an alley near . after it ought to have stopped . I think I just read the worst written opinion ever. As the damage was the result of an inevitable accident and that the master of the boat, being in the exercise of due care and not at fault, should not be responsible for the damages. Cordas is, by far, the single best case we've read all year. But they sued, arguing that Peerless Transporation, the cab company, was responsible for their injuries. (i) NO NEW STANDARD: Reasonable Under the Circumstances knowledge are circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether the actor has behaved Sullivan v. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. Emergencies also change the probability because the actor doesn't have the time to gather data (c) You still must act reasonably under the circumstances (d) A majority of jurisdictions favor . Some of these judges tend to get carried away with their colorful takes. 1) Emergency, (a) If under normal circumstances an act is done which might be considered negligent it Sometimes a practice continues long 221 (1910) Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Manufacturing Co. 248 F . Vincent, a property owner . Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555, 1979 D.C. App. Year Area of law One of the first times many students of the law encounter a truly bizarre court opinion is an offering from the City Court of New York (which, even more oddly, is not an appeals court, but which led to a written court opinion all the same). Minnesota Supreme Court - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. patent danger with a moment left to adopt a means of extrication Cordas v. Peerless Moore v. The Regents of the University of California. Order affirmed, the plaintiff can recover. was negligent. Transportation Co. It was established by the trial court that the defendant's action did not constitute trespass since common law grants possessory rights to those who require the use of other peoples property in order to save lives. (Heck, if she should have sued anyone, it was the two robbers but they probably didnt have much money once they landed behind bars. Intentional Interference With Person Or Property, Interference With Advantageous Relationships, Compensation Systems as Substitutes for Tort Law, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam). A sense of how the whole opinion reads can be gleaned from an early sentence: It appears that a man, whose identity it would be indelicate to divulge was feloniously relieved of his portable goods by two nondescript highwaymen in an alley near 26th Street and Third Avenue, Manhattan; they induced him to relinquish his possessions by a strong argument ad hominem couched in the convincing cant of the criminal and pressed at the point of a most persuasive pistol.. Co._ 27 N.Y.S.2d 198-1.PDF, Breunig v. American Family Ins. conformed, it may establish due care.., contrariwise, when proof of a customary A mission impossible style exit from a taxicab, and an injured family results. Cite Bluebook page numbers to support each response. Issue. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Relevant Facts. How to Brief a Case What to Expect in Class How to Outline How to Prepare for Exams 1L Course Overviews Study Tips and Helpful Hints. 2d (BNA) 1127 (D.C. Cir. Children who engage in hazardous activity are to be held to the same standard of care that an adult would be held to. Court 762 P.2d 133 (1988) Weaver v. Ward. 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 . proximate cause of the accident, it may serve to establish liability Trimarco v. Klein calves, thighs, and hips. (Who are the parties, what is the dispute about, who is suing whom for what, what are the facts relevant to the (stated) issue or issues, etc. I'm begging you to actually look at the case OP is referencing. . reasonably. After discussing the price with Jake, a salesman at the dealership, and learning that he could buy the car for $500 less than the sticker, Background/Facts: TLG is continuing to work with its new client, Clean-n-Shine (Clean), a commercial cleaning company incorporated in Maryland, but doing business in all Mid-Atlantic, Case Study 2: Skylar is a teenager referred to Happy Backpacks, a community services organisation catering to homeless juveniles. 1: Bonkowski v. Arlan's Department Store: 2:19: 2: Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co: 1:35: 3: Dougherty v. Stepp: 1:51: 4: Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co Judge Carlin actually reached a common-sense decision: It was reasonable for the cab driver, when suddenly confronted by a gun-waiving thief, to react with less than ordinary caution (in other words to panic). posterior chain and shoulders. Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Co. The driver of the snowmobile was a thirteen-year-old boy. Discussion. (b) handicapped individual must be reasonable in the light of his knowledge of his Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Co. (1910), 124 NW 221 This case was brought on behalf of Kelly Robinson, a minor, for the injuries she sustained during a snowmobile accident that cost her the use of her thumb. 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. to move and struck and injured Cordas and her children. What action was taken by the court? A boat owned by the defendant, the Reynolds, was unloading goods at Vincent's wharf when a storm blew in. A national standard of care is a more modern method for measuring whether a doctor has committed negligence. A unanimous Strange Judicial Opinions Hall of Fame opinion is Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., penned in 1941 by Judge Carlin (no relation to George) of the New York City Court. At the other extreme is Denny v. Radar Industries, a 1971 decision by Judge John H. Gillis of Michigan, which in its entirety reads: The appellant has attempted to distinguish the factual situation in this case from that in Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating and Manufacturing Co., Inc. He didnt. ). LEXIS 476 (D.C. 1979). One scholarly article actually calls it an entertaining opinion in which Judge Carlin, besides incorporating references to Scylla and Charybdis, exposed his personality and lightened what was an otherwise dramatic situation.. Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? It was very hazardous to be out on the water so the master of the Reynolds did not leave the wharf but stayed moored, replacing lines as they wore through. Students also viewed. Study Aids. Morrison v. . Defendant Judges are allowed a level of discretion towards flavoring their opinions. (d) Where an actor conforms to custom, the rule is the same- it is relevant but not binding, Restatement sec. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. He The conduct that is considered reasonable may differ but the standard is the Whether a person who acts in a fast manner without thinking of the consequences while. (a) Physical Attributes was faced with an emergency, rather than a minority of jurisdictions which tell the jury CORDAS v. PEERLESS TRANSPORTATION CO. CITY COURT OF NY, 1941 Plaintiff's Name: C ORDAS Defendant's Name: P EERLESS T RANSPORTATION C O. Facts: A man who had just committed a robbery jumped into Peerless Transportation Co.'s taxi and ordered the driver to drive away. Minnesota I've always assumed Cordas was a practical joke by the judge. Torts Case Brief Standard of Care Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. City Ct of New York, New York County, 1941. (a) Custom gives us information about the probability of harm (P in B