Brown v. Kendall

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1850 · Torts

Tortsnegligenceintentordinary carefault-based liabilitytrespassassault and batteryunintentional injury

Facts

The plaintiff was struck in the eye by a stick held by the defendant. The opinion states that the blow was not intentional and treats the case entirely as one of inadvertent and unintentional harm. The defendant was attempting to separate two fighting dogs, one of which was his own, an act the court described as lawful and proper if done by proper and safe means. The central dispute was whether the defendant was liable for the accidental blow absent proof of fault.

Issue

When a defendant unintentionally injures a plaintiff while performing a lawful act, is the defendant liable without proof of negligence, and who bears the burden of proving due care or lack of it? The case also asks whether the plaintiff may recover when the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury.

Rule

If a defendant, in the course of doing a lawful act, unintentionally injures another, the defendant is not liable unless the plaintiff proves the defendant failed to exercise due care adapted to the exigency of the circumstances. Ordinary care means the care prudent and cautious persons would use under like circumstances to guard against probable danger. If the injury was unavoidable despite such care, no action lies. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the defendant's want of due care, and if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed as an efficient cause to the harm, the plaintiff cannot recover.

🔒

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.

At a street fair in Columbus, Olivia Tran saw a helium display frame beginning to topple toward a child. She grabbed the frame to steady it, and one of its metal arms swung outward and cut Marcus Hale, who was standing nearby. Marcus can prove only that Olivia's movement directly caused the cut; the evidence does not show whether Olivia handled the frame carelessly.

If Marcus sues Olivia for battery based on the direct contact, who is most likely to prevail?

Explanation. The majority rule is that direct force alone does not create liability when the defendant was engaged in a lawful act and the injury was unintentional. In that setting, the plaintiff must show either unlawful intent or fault. Because Marcus proved only contact and injury, not want of due care, he has not carried the burden of proof.