This is an extract of our Meaning Of Negligence Plaintiff’s Conduct And Its Effects document, which we sell as part of our Long Torts Outline collection written by the top tier of University Of Virginia School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Long Torts Outline. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Meaning of Negligence: Plaintiff's Conduct and its Effects a.Contributory Negligence- Virginia Is a Contrib. Neg State i. Fork: Are we in a contributory or comparative negligence regime?
Contributory Negligence: If P is found at all negligent, P loses
1. 2 important factors to determine contributory negligence: a. What's the context?
b.Who is the person?
Gyerman v. United States Lines Co. (p.307):
1. Plaintiff was injured while unloading fishmean stacks that had been brought into the warehouse by the defendant. Before he began working, he noticed the stacks were not properly arranged and he notified the united states lines chief marine clerk, even though his union conract provided that he should stop working when in good faith he believed the work to be unsafe, and that he should convene a joint labor management committee to address the issue.
a. Defendant argues that plaintiff was contributory negligent for
continuing to work even though he was aware of the dangers.
b.Court asks the question of "if he would have taken the steps
as outlined in the labor contract, could he have prevented the accident from happening" to determine the question of contributory negligence.
i. Court ruled that defendant did not meet its burden of proving that plaintiff's contributory negligence was a proximate cause of his injuries. c. Gyerman is an example of contributory negligence that has two features: i. P is in a circumstance where she is not in a good position to take care for herself (she is an employee and her only alternative is to stop working)
1. Key feature of the case: P was party to a union contract, she had power to apply and did not. ii. Who is the plaintiff? She is an expert, she must have known. iv. LeRoy Fibre v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry (p.316)
1. Plaintiff stored stacks of straw on its own land about 70 feet from railroad tracks. One day, a high wind carried sparks from a passing train and lit the flax on fire. Trial court found plaintiff contributory negligent for placing the flax within 100 feet of the railroad's right of way a. Holmes: A well managed train creates an obligation on the land owner to move her flax i. Plaintiff must move flax past the point where it would be burned by a well-managed train
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Long Torts Outline.