a. Facts-
Π was mentally retarded and Δ was a farmer. Δ “took in” Π after Π had lived at
a State Home for mentally retarded children. One day, Δ asked Π to help with
corn picking. As Π was corn picking, Π’s arm got caught in the husking
machinery, causing serious injury. Π sued Δ for NOT directly warning Π of the
danger. Δ argued that Π was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law, for
coming too close to the picker.
b. Procedural
History- Trial Ct found for Π, Δ appealed, Ct of appeals affirmed
c. Issue-
Whether Δ owed Π, a “low moron”, the duty to warn Π of the danger involved with
corn picking
d. Holding-
Yes, Δ owed Π the duty to warn him of the danger, since Π was a “low moron”
e. Rule-
When faced with a mentally retarded individual, one must exercise care by
warning said retard of dangers
f. Rationale-
i.
Δ was the one who expressly put Π in
that position; had Δ not asked, Π would still have his arm. Therefore, Δ could
have at least warned Π of the dangers.
ii.
While Π was not capable of understanding
why there was danger in moving
machinery, Π had the capacity to follow and comprehend a warning. Therefore, to
NOT warn a retard of danger is to act negligently
g. Notes-
i.
Lynch
can be squared with Vaughan b/c Menlove
was not medically retarded. Vaughan
dealt with sane people, Lynch deals
with those who are mentally retarded
1. Mentally
challenged people should be held L for their activities, but, if you go too far w/ that, then you are limiting the mental
person’s ability to partake in activities normally enjoyed by others
ii.
Defect must be considered to be
“distinct” to afford different treatment
No comments:
Post a Comment