White v. Levarn
11 A.L.R. 1219, 93 Vt. 218, 108 A. 564 (1918)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who injures another while engaged in an unlawful act is liable in an action for trespass, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence is not a valid defense to that liability.
Facts:
- On a Sunday, the plaintiff and the defendant went hunting partridges and gray squirrels together, each armed with a shotgun.
- Late in the afternoon, the two men separated, walking on opposite sides of a stone wall that divided a wooded area from a clearing.
- The plaintiff, who was wearing a cap the color of a gray squirrel, sat down on the stone wall.
- From a distance of 128 feet, the defendant saw the plaintiff's cap, mistook it for a squirrel, and fired his shotgun.
- The shot struck the plaintiff in the face and chest, causing significant injuries.
- The defendant did not intend to hit the plaintiff; the shooting was a mistake.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in a trial court, stating claims for both trespass and 'case' (a form of negligence).
- During the trial, the court permitted the defendant to introduce evidence of the plaintiff's contributory negligence, over the plaintiff's objection.
- The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed to the state's highest court, filing exceptions to the trial court's admission of evidence and its final judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a trespass action for personal injury, can a defendant who caused the injury while voluntarily committing an unlawful act use the plaintiff's contributory negligence as a defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Watson, C. J.
No. In a trespass action for an injury caused by a defendant's voluntary and unlawful act, the plaintiff's contributory negligence is not a defense. The court reasoned that hunting and discharging a firearm on a Sunday were both unlawful acts prohibited by statute. When an injury results from such a voluntary, unlawful act, the actor is liable in trespass, regardless of whether the harm was caused by carelessness or pure accident. The court analogized this situation to assault cases where a victim's consent is not a valid defense because the act itself is a wrong against the state and public policy. By the same logic, a plaintiff's own negligence cannot excuse a defendant's liability for an injury caused during the commission of his own unlawful act.
Dissenting - Powers, J.
Yes. The defendant should be able to assert the defense of contributory negligence. The dissent argued that the violation of the Sunday hunting law was merely a condition under which the injury occurred, not the legal cause of the injury itself. The actual cause was the negligent shooting. Therefore, the illegality of the hunting activity should be considered separate from the act of negligence, which would permit the court to consider the plaintiff's own contributing negligence.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strict, bright-line rule for torts that occur during the commission of an unlawful act. It effectively removes contributory negligence as a defense in such cases, aligning the treatment of these torts with intentional torts like assault, where public policy prevents certain defenses. The ruling reinforces the principle that a wrongdoer cannot escape liability by pointing to the lesser fault of the person they injured, especially when the defendant's conduct is statutorily forbidden. This precedent strengthens the position of plaintiffs injured during illegal activities and limits the defensive strategies available to defendants who were simultaneously violating the law.
