| Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided January 26, 1874 | |
| Full case name | Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout |
| Citations | 84 U.S. 657 ( more ) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Hunt, joined by unanimous |
Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that first enunciated the idea that a landowner could be liable for the injuries of a child trespasser.
On March 29, 1869, a small child was injured by a railroad turntable owned by Sioux City and Pacific Railroad, which was being operated in Blair, Nebraska. The child was playing on the turntable, which injured his/her foot. The father took the company to court in Nebraska, but it was removed to the Supreme Court.
A child was injured by a railroad turntable owned by Sioux City and Pacific Railroad, which was being operated in Blair, Nebraska. Sioux City & Pacific Railroad company was held liable, despite the prevailing idea that a landowner was not held liable for injuries to trespassers. Trespassing children were thought to be a special case that required a higher duty of care. This theory of liability came to be known as the "turntable doctrine" and later the attractive nuisance doctrine by the case Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R.R. Co.
In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
Blair is a city in and the county seat of Washington County, Nebraska, United States. The population was 7,990 at the 2010 census. Blair is a part of the Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Statistical Area.
In rail terminology, a railway turntable or wheelhouse is a device for turning railway rolling stock, usually locomotives, so that they can be moved back in the direction from which they came. it is especially used in areas where economic considerations or a lack of sufficient space have served to weigh against the construction of a turnaround wye. In the case of steam locomotives, railways needed a way to turn the locomotives around for return trips as their controls were often not configured for extended periods of running in reverse and in many locomotives the top speed was lower in reverse motion. In the case of diesel locomotives, though most can be operated in either direction, they are treated as having "front ends" and "rear ends". When a diesel locomotive is operated as a single unit, the railway company often prefers, or requires, that it be run "front end" first. When operated as part of a multiple unit locomotive consist, the locomotives can be arranged so that the consist can be operated "front end first" no matter which direction the consist is pointed. Turntables were also used to turn observation cars so that their windowed lounge ends faced toward the rear of the train.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of the modern law of diversity jurisdiction.
English tort law concerns the compensation for harm to people's rights to health and safety, a clean environment, property, their economic interests, or their reputations. A "tort" is a wrong in civil law, rather than criminal law, that usually requires a payment of money to make up for damage that is caused. Alongside contracts and unjust enrichment, tort law is usually seen as forming one of the three main pillars of the law of obligations.
The attractive nuisance doctrine applies to the law of torts in some jurisdictions. It states that a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by an object on the land that is likely to attract children. The doctrine is designed to protect children who are unable to appreciate the risk posed by the object, by imposing a liability on the landowner. The doctrine has been applied to hold landowners liable for injuries caused by abandoned cars, piles of lumber or sand, trampolines, and swimming pools. However, it can be applied to virtually anything on the property.
Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 is a leading decision by the House of Lords which established a new area of English tort law. It established the rule that one's non-natural use of their land, which leads to another's land being damaged as a result of dangerous things emanating from the land, is strictly liable.
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657, was a court case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, in which two homeowners were held liable for battery for injuries caused to a trespasser who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an abandoned house on the homeowners' property. The case thereafter received wide attention in legal circles, becoming a staple of tort law casebooks and law school courses.
In the law of tort, property, and criminal law a trespasser is a person who commits the act of trespassing on a property, that is, without the permission of the owner. Being present on land as a trespasser thereto creates liability in the trespasser, so long as the trespass is intentional. At the same time, the status of a visitor as a trespasser defines the legal rights of the visitor if they are injured due to the negligence of the property owner.
In tort common law, the defense of necessity gives the state or an individual a privilege to take or use the property of another. A defendant typically invokes the defense of necessity only against the intentional torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land, or conversion. The Latin phrase from common law is necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura privata. A court will grant this privilege to a trespasser when the risk of harm to an individual or society is apparently and reasonably greater than the harm to the property. Unlike the privilege of self-defense, those who are harmed by individuals invoking the necessity privilege are usually free from any wrongdoing. Generally, an individual invoking this privilege is obligated to pay any actual damages caused in the use of the property but not punitive or nominal damages.
Premises liability is the liability that a landowner or occupier has for certain torts that occur on their land.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to tort law in common law jurisdictions:
The Sioux City and Pacific Railroad was a railroad in the U.S. states of Iowa and Nebraska. Built as a connection from Sioux City, Iowa to the Union Pacific Railroad at Fremont, Nebraska, it became part of the Chicago and North Western Railway system in the 1880s, and is now a main line of the Union Pacific (UP). The east–west portion from Fremont to Missouri Valley, Iowa, is the Blair Subdivision, carrying mainly westbound UP trains, and the line from California Junction, Iowa north to Sioux City is the Sioux City Subdivision.
Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.
Albro v. The Agawam Canal Co., 6 Cush. 75, was a case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that contributed to the "fellow servant rule".
United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268 (1922), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that limited liability for landowners regarding injuries to child trespassers.
The eggshell rule is a well-established legal doctrine in common law, used in some tort law systems, with a similar doctrine applicable to criminal law. The rule states that, in a tort case, the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them.
The peculiar risk doctrine is a legal doctrine in the U.S. state of California by which an owner or employer can be held vicariously liable for damages caused by an independent contractor negligently performing his or her work.
Venning v Chin (1974) 10 SASR 299 is a Supreme Court of South Australia full court judgment, by which it was decided that in trespass cases, the onus lies on the defendant to disprove fault. However, for injuries caused in highway accidents, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove fault on the part of the defendant.