Getting all sorts of crazy cases in torts this week, mostly related to the question of foreseeability, and "what sort of harm needs to be foreseeable for the defendant to be found negligent?"
Yesterday's discussion: what sort of reasonable precautions should trampoline owners take to keep their trampoline from moving from the front yard to the road, creating an obstruction? In Thompson v. Kaczinski, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that this was not the sort of open-and-shut case that could be decided without a jury. They explained that a reasonable fact-finder could find that the sort of injuries that occurred were within the scope of risk created by leaving a trampoline in the front yard.
One hypothetical that never came up. What if the defendants had left the trampoline in their back yard?
That might have provided them some shelter, but if they'd decided to start charging the neighborhood kids for access, they'd have had to take some other precautions.
No comments:
Post a Comment