Adams v. Bullock

New York Court of Appeals · 1919 · Torts

TortsNegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of carenegligenceforeseeabilityordinary previsionreasonable precautions

Facts

The defendant operated a trolley line in Dunkirk using overhead wires beneath a bridge or culvert that pedestrians often used and where children played. The bridge had an eighteen-inch parapet, and the trolley wire was strung four feet seven and three-fourths inches below the top of that parapet. The twelve-year-old plaintiff was on the bridge swinging an eight-foot wire and brought it into contact with the trolley wire below, causing shock and burns. No one standing on the bridge, or even bending over the parapet, could reach the trolley wire without such an object.

Issue

Was the defendant negligent in maintaining its overhead trolley wire beneath the bridge without additional protective measures, where the plaintiff was injured only after swinging a long wire into contact with it? More specifically, did reasonable care require the defendant to foresee and guard against this kind of accident?

Rule

When a defendant is lawfully using an overhead trolley system, negligence is not established merely by use of that system rather than another. The defendant must adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize resulting perils, but ordinary caution does not require anticipation of extraordinary casualties not fairly within the area of ordinary prevision. A defendant is not liable where imposing liability would effectively make it an insurer against remote and unforeseeable accidents.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakefront Transit operates an overhead streetcar line through Toledo under a lawful municipal franchise. At a pedestrian overpass, the energized wire hangs several feet below the barrier so that a person standing on the walkway cannot touch it, but fourteen-year-old Evan Mercer swings a long aluminum rod through a gap and is shocked when it hits the wire.

Is Lakefront Transit likely negligent?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a defendant lawfully using an overhead trolley system is not negligent merely for using that system. The duty is to adopt reasonable precautions to minimize resulting perils. Where the wire is placed so that it cannot be reached by an ordinary pedestrian, and contact occurs only through an unusual act with a long metal object, the accident is an extraordinary casualty not fairly within ordinary prevision. Imposing liability on these facts would effectively treat the operator as an insurer.