Brown v. Kendall
60 Mass. 292 · Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
Facts
George Brown brought an action of trespass, vi et armis, against George K. Kendall for assault and battery. Kendall, while attempting to separate two fighting dogs, one of which was his own, accidentally struck Brown in the eye with a stick, causing injury. The blow inflicted by Kendall upon Brown was unintentional, and the damage sustained by Brown from the stick was inadvertent and unintentional. Kendall's act of parting the dogs was considered a lawful and proper act.
Procedural history
This is an action of trespass for assault and battery. The original defendant died pending the action, and his executrix was summoned in. The case came before this court on exceptions to the jury instructions given by a lower court. The lower court instructed the jury that the defendant was responsible for the consequences of the blow unless he exercised extraordinary care, and placed the burden of proving extraordinary care or the plaintiff's lack of ordinary care on the defendant. This court found these instructions to be not conformable to law and ordered a new trial.
Issue
The legal question is how far, and under what qualifications, a party is responsible for damage caused by an unintentional act, specifically whether liability exists for an unintentional injury resulting from a lawful act, and who bears the burden of proving fault.
Holding
The court held that the lower court's jury instructions were not conformable to law and ordered a new trial. It ruled that if an unintentional injury occurs during a lawful act, the defendant is not liable unless there was a want of due care, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving such lack of care.
Rule
To establish liability for an unintentional injury, the plaintiff must prove either that the defendant's intention was unlawful or that the defendant was at fault (negligent or careless). If the injury was unavoidable and the defendant's conduct was free from blame while performing a lawful act with due care, there is no liability. "Ordinary care" is defined as the degree of care prudent and cautious men would use, varying with circumstances to guard against probable danger. The burden of proving the defendant's want of due care rests with the plaintiff.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.