Brown v. Kendall
60 Mass. 292 (1850) (1850)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not liable for an injury that was unintentionally inflicted while engaged in a lawful act unless the plaintiff can prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care. The burden of proof to show the defendant's lack of ordinary care lies with the plaintiff.
Facts:
- George Brown's dog and George K. Kendall's dog began fighting.
- Kendall retrieved a stick to separate the animals.
- While stepping backwards and raising the stick over his shoulder to strike the dogs, Kendall was unaware that Brown had moved to a position behind him.
- As Kendall brought the stick down, he accidentally struck Brown in the eye, causing severe injury.
Procedural Posture:
- George Brown brought an action of trespass for assault and battery against George K. Kendall in a Massachusetts trial court.
- During the proceedings, Kendall died, and his executrix was substituted as the defendant.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that if Kendall's act was not necessary, he was liable unless he could prove he exercised extraordinary care.
- The judge placed the burden of proving such care on the defendant, Kendall.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Brown.
- The defendant appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions were incorrect.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For a plaintiff to recover for an injury caused by the unintentional act of a defendant engaged in a lawful activity, must the plaintiff prove that the defendant acted without ordinary care?
Opinions:
Majority - Shaw, C. J.
Yes. To hold a defendant liable for an injury that was unintentionally caused during a lawful act, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care. The court rejected the old common law distinction between trespass and case, which focused on whether an injury was direct or consequential, and instead established a new standard based on fault. The court defined 'ordinary care' as the kind and degree of care which prudent and cautious persons would use in the same circumstances to guard against probable danger. Because Kendall's act of separating the dogs was lawful, he can only be held liable if he was negligent. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that the burden was on the defendant, Kendall, to prove he exercised 'extraordinary care.' The proper standard requires the plaintiff, Brown, to bear the burden of proving that Kendall failed to exercise ordinary, or due, care.
Analysis:
This landmark case is foundational in American tort law, marking a significant shift from strict liability-based trespass actions to a modern, fault-based system of negligence. By establishing that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendant's lack of 'ordinary care,' the decision created the core framework for negligence claims. This standard of care, often called the 'reasonable person' standard, requires weighing the defendant's conduct against that of a hypothetical prudent person under the same circumstances and has become the central principle in unintentional tort litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Kendall