Moisan v. Loftus
1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 2496, 178 F.2d 148 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The distinction between ordinary and gross negligence lies in the degree of risk imposed; gross negligence requires conduct that creates a significantly higher probability of injury than mere everyday carelessness or a failure to exercise ordinary prudence.
Facts:
- On the evening of April 9, 1948, Robert F. Loftus invited the plaintiff for a drive in a truck.
- The night was cold and windy, with the temperature described as 'very close to freezing.'
- While driving on a road near Lake Champlain, Loftus increased his speed to over fifty miles per hour and used his 'low beam' headlights, though no other vehicles were in sight.
- Water from the lake had overflowed onto the road and frozen, creating a patch of ice.
- Loftus saw the patch from 200-300 feet away but believed it was water.
- When the truck hit the patch, Loftus realized it was ice and applied the brakes hard.
- The truck skidded for about 125 feet, struck a tree, and overturned, injuring the plaintiff.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued Robert F. Loftus in a trial court for personal injuries.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, the trial judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, Loftus.
- A judgment was entered for Loftus based on the directed verdict.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment to this court (the United States Court of Appeals).
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 driver's conduct constitute 'gross or wilful negligence' under Vermont's guest passenger statute when he drives over fifty miles per hour at night with low-beam headlights on a road with freezing temperatures, and subsequently mistakes a patch of ice for water, causing an accident?
Opinions:
Majority - L. Hand, Chief Judge
No. The driver's conduct did not constitute 'gross or wilful negligence' because it amounted to the kind of ordinary carelessness many drivers exhibit, rather than conduct creating a high probability of injury. The court reasoned that the difference between 'gross' and 'ordinary' negligence is quantitative, centering on the probability of the resulting harm. While driving over fifty miles per hour at night with low beams might be careless, it is a common practice among drivers. Furthermore, mistaking ice for water in early April when hard frosts are uncommon was not reckless. The court concluded that Loftus's actions were the 'kind of carelessness which all of us fall into every day' and did not rise to the level of blameworthiness required by the definition of gross negligence, which implies a more extreme departure from the standard of care.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its articulation of the distinction between ordinary and gross negligence, particularly through Judge Hand's famous C = P x D formula (Care = Probability x Danger). While acknowledging the formula is illusory for precise calculation, Hand uses it to frame the analysis, emphasizing that the key variable separating the two standards is the probability of harm. The decision establishes a high bar for plaintiffs under guest statutes, requiring proof of conduct that creates a substantially greater and more obvious risk than everyday mistakes or minor traffic violations. It illustrates the judicial struggle with applying vague, quantitative legal standards to unique factual scenarios.
Unlock the full brief for Moisan v. Loftus