Adams v. Bullock

Unknown Court
125 N.E. 93 (1919)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A party is not negligent for failing to take precautions against an extraordinary or unforeseeable casualty that is not within the area of ordinary prevision. The duty of reasonable care, even when using a dangerous instrumentality, does not extend to guarding against every conceivable risk, only those that are reasonably foreseeable.

Facts:

Bullock operated a trolley line in the city of Dunkirk that used an overhead wire system.
The trolley line ran beneath a railroad bridge that was frequently used by pedestrians as a shortcut and by children as a play area.
The trolley wire was strung 4 feet and 7 3/4 inches below the top of the bridge's 18-inch-wide parapet, making it inaccessible to anyone standing on the bridge or leaning over its side.
On April 21, 1916, Adams, a twelve-year-old boy, was on the bridge swinging an eight-foot-long wire.
While swinging the wire, Adams brought it into contact with the trolley wire below, causing him to suffer an electric shock and burns.

Procedural Posture:

Adams sued Bullock for negligence in the New York state trial court (Trial Term).
A jury found in favor of Adams, and a judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
Bullock, as the appellant, appealed to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court).
The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment in a divided decision.
Bullock, as the appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trolley company breach its duty of reasonable care by failing to guard its overhead wires against an extraordinary and unforeseeable accident, such as a child swinging a long wire from a bridge above?

Opinions:

Majority - Cardozo, J.

No. A trolley company does not breach its duty of reasonable care by failing to guard against such an unforeseeable accident. The defendant was lawfully using an overhead trolley system and had a duty to adopt reasonable precautions to minimize the resulting perils. However, the trolley wire was placed so that no one on the bridge could reach it through ordinary use. The accident was caused by an 'extraordinary casualty, not fairly within the area of ordinary prevision.' No vigilance, short of the 'gift of prophecy,' could have predicted this specific accident at this specific location, as there was no history of similar events or special dangers to warn the defendant of the need for extra precautions. To hold the defendant liable would be to improperly charge it as an insurer against all possibilities of harm rather than holding it to a standard of reasonable care.

Analysis:

This case is a foundational decision in tort law that refines the concept of foreseeability as a limit on the duty of care. It establishes that even when dealing with dangerous instrumentalities like electricity, a defendant is not liable for harms that are so remote and improbable that they fall outside the scope of reasonably foreseeable risks. The ruling prevents the standard of care from becoming one of strict liability, where a defendant would be an 'insurer' for any and all injuries. It solidifies the principle that negligence requires the breach of a duty to protect against probable, not merely possible, dangers.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Adams v. Bullock (1919)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature