Hassenyer v. Michigan Central Railroad
12 N.W. 155, 48 Mich. 205, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 779 (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The standard of ordinary care required in negligence actions is the same for all persons regardless of sex. While age and other circumstances may be considered, sex alone does not create a different, lesser legal standard of care for women than for men.
Facts:
- Louisa Hasseneyer, a 13-year-old girl, was walking along Burdick street in Kalamazoo, carrying a pail of milk.
- The morning was cold and stormy.
- As Hasseneyer approached a railroad crossing, a train was passing in one direction with its bell ringing.
- Simultaneously, an engine backing up several cars approached from the opposite direction, also with its bell ringing.
- A flagman was present at the crossing, and a brakeman was walking alongside the backing train.
- Hasseneyer was struck and killed by the backing train.
- No one witnessed the moment of impact, and her body was found just outside the street limits on railroad company property.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrators of Louisa Hasseneyer's estate sued the Michigan Central Railroad Company in a state trial court for damages related to her death.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury, among other things, that 'the law did not expect or require the same degree of care and prudence in a woman as in a man.'
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff (Hasseneyer's estate).
- The defendant railroad company (plaintiff in error) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Michigan, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions were erroneous.
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 the standard of care required to avoid a finding of contributory negligence differ based on sex, allowing for a lesser degree of care for women than for men?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooley, J.
No, the law does not require a different degree of care from a woman than from a man. While the trial court was correct to instruct the jury that a child is not held to the same standard of care as an adult, it was an error to instruct that the law expects or requires less care and prudence from a woman than from a man. Although sex, along with other circumstances like age and experience, may be considered by a jury in determining what is reasonable conduct, the law does not create a separate, lower standard of care for women. The court reasoned that in many situations, women are naturally more cautious than men, so a rule demanding less care would be 'unphilosophical and unreasonable.' The court concluded that 'the rule of prudent regard for the rights of others knows nothing of sex' and that women entering any occupation are held to the same standard of diligence as men. Because the erroneous instruction may have controlled the jury's verdict in a case where the question of due care was in doubt, a new trial was required.
Analysis:
This case is significant for rejecting gender-based distinctions in the 'reasonable person' standard for negligence. It establishes that the standard of ordinary care is objective and does not change based on sex. While the court allows for consideration of individual characteristics and circumstances, it firmly refutes the creation of a separate, more lenient legal standard for women. This decision was a progressive step toward a gender-neutral application of tort law and has influenced the modern understanding of a uniform standard of care.
