White v. Levarn

Supreme Court of Vermont · Torts

TortsTrespassIntentional TortsUnlawful ActsContributory NegligencetrespasscaseSunday hunting

Facts

On a Sunday in October 1913, the plaintiff and defendant went hunting together, each carrying a shotgun. After separating, the defendant walked through woods near a stone wall while the plaintiff moved on the other side of the wall and eventually sat on it. The defendant, mistaking the plaintiff's gray-squirrel-colored cap for a squirrel, shot from 128 feet away and injured the plaintiff in the face and chest. Hunting and shooting wild game and discharging firearms on Sunday were unlawful by statute.

Issue

When a defendant unlawfully discharges a firearm while hunting on Sunday and accidentally injures the plaintiff, is the defendant liable in trespass notwithstanding lack of intent to hit the plaintiff? If so, may the defendant avoid liability by showing the plaintiff's contributory negligence?

Rule

If a defendant voluntarily does an act made unlawful by statute, and that act injures the plaintiff, the defendant is answerable in trespass for the injury even though it occurred by carelessness or accident. In such an action of trespass for a similar offense in law, contributory negligence is not a defense.

🔒

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.

On a Sunday afternoon in Burlington, Vermont, Nolan Pierce fired a rifle at what he thought was a raccoon behind a shed. The shot ricocheted and struck Erin Vale, who was gardening nearby, causing serious injury. A Vermont statute forbids discharging firearms on Sunday except in circumstances not present here.

If Erin sues Nolan in trespass, which is the strongest argument for liability under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when a defendant voluntarily does an act prohibited by statute, and that act injures the plaintiff, the defendant is answerable in trespass even if the injury occurred by carelessness or accident. Specific intent to injure the plaintiff is unnecessary so long as the unlawful act was voluntarily done and caused the injury. (Derived from White v. Levarn (n.d.).)