Nelly Negligence Case Study

Decent Essays
Jones will not be regarded as willful or wanton disregard of Vega's safety for failing to disclose Nelly tendency of flicking hats off because he did not have actual knowledge of potential danger. The Texas exceptions to the limitation on liability for farm animal activities provide one exception of willful or wanton disregard for participant's safety which may invoke the liability. §87.004(4). Willful and wanton disregard means, "the entire want of care" which raises the belief that the "act or omission complained," was the result of "conscious indifference" to the "welfare of the person" who affected by it. Young v. McKim, 373 S.W.3d 776, 783 (Tex. App. 2007); Little, 236 S.W.3d at 334. It is the same standard as "gross negligence." Young, …show more content…
For instance, a Georgia court sets a higher standard of negligence than Texas court. Holcomb v. Long, 329 S.E.2d 687, 783 (Ga. App. 2014). The court of appeal of Georgia held that the "willful conduct" or "willful failure" to perform a duty is more than even "gross negligence." Id. The standard of conduct is criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. Id. The court suggests that a person noticed that the saddle is beginning to loosen but fail to re-tighten it or warn the participant may establish negligence or at most gross negligence but not criminal standard of negligence. …show more content…
The Massachusetts trial court held that knowledge of an equine's particular tendency which may put a person in danger, failing to warn that person about such behaviors, may rise to willful and wanton disregard for the person's safety. Konan v. George, No. 20000710B, 2002 WL 1020734 (Mass. Super. Ct. Mar. 14, 2002). The standard is simply the "negligence" standard. Id. When the sponsor or owner knows that the horse dislikes being ridden in the "wrong" direction, failing to warn the participant to meet the level of negligent. Konan, 2002 WL 1020734, at

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    It is also referred to as imputed Negligence. __________ 9.Res judicata _ A matter already judged)- A legal doctrine that bars litigation between the same parties on matters already determined in a former lawsuit. ________________________ 10.Stare decisis (To stand by a decision) the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. ____ 11.Res ipsa loquitur _(The thing speaks for itself) a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened.…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hinman Charles Harvey Case

    • 1436 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Like the victim in Hinman, Joanie Blake will prove that Charles Harvey is liable for the damages sustained by Blake, based on the “direct and immediate” behavior of Harvey’s dogs (Lewellin 62). The said behavior led directly to Blake incurring significant injuries. The liability Harvey faces is reinforced by the Minnesota Statute that states, If a dog, without provocation, attacks or injures any person who is acting peaceably in any place where the person may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained.…

    • 1436 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Niles Case Study

    • 1594 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The injuries sustained in the Niles v City of San Rafael were foreseeable. The injuries resulted from the commission and the omission of act from the defendants. There was negligence in the city’s supervision of the school playground and medical malpractice at Mt. Zion Hospital. The medical negligence was nonfeasance meaning there was a failure to act when there is a duty to act as a reasonability to safeguard a person rights. The Plaintiff was an innocent party whom rights were violated by the defendants.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Veyas Animal Cruelty

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I. Question Presented Is Veyas guilty of animal cruelty because she acted in self defense and can she be charged with recklessly discharging a firearm even though she was in an altered state of mind? II. Brief Answer No, Veyas is not guilty of animal cruelty because she believed her life was at risk by the horse, she also is not guilty of recklessly discharging a firearm because of her altered state of mind.…

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Negligence is defined by a tort related to defective products in which the defendant has breached a duty of due care and caused harm to the plaintiff. In Amy’s case, her cosmologist, Monique Smith used a product made by the defendant, Blondey Blonde Co. to highlight Amy’s hair, which causing Amy injured on scalp. Therefore, I believe that the negligence is existed and because of several elements of negligence. In duty, which states that the obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk of harm, Blondey Blonde Co. didn’t fulfill the obligation and duty that not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk of harm.…

    • 1529 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    After being assigned to draft a memorandum for your review regarding Myra’s accident. Enclosed below are the four elements regarding the negligence claims, and the potential defenses we may have against Myra’s Claim? There are four elements to the negligence cause of action: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages or injury. A defendant is owed a duty of care to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would under the circumstances.…

    • 828 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Woody and Smiley may sue Vicaria for negligence. In order to prove negligence, Woody must show duty, a breach of duty, causation, a proximate cause of harm, and actual harm. We would prove Vicaria had a duty of reasonable care to Woody and Smiley because of the special relationship between a pilot and a passenger. Vicaria’s agreement to fly Woody and Smiley proves the existence of a special relationship needed to establish a duty of reasonable care. We would establish a breach of duty by proving Vicaria had done something a reasonable person would never do.…

    • 1488 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Factual causation There must be a causal connection between the wrong and the damage suffered. ‘But for test’ derived from a significant case Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea Hospital . But for Watson’s stroke, would the damage to Sherlock still have happened? The answer is no.…

    • 807 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In Vega's case, the court is likely to find that Jones was not willful or wanton disregard of Vega's safety because Texas law seems to have a high standard and Vega does not have any evidence which may show that Jones had actual knowledge that Nelly's such tendency would cause injury or potential of danger. Vega's case is very smiler to Young. In Young, like McKim knew but failed to warn Young that the horse was mistreated before and gelded freshly, in Vega's case, Jones also knew but failed to warn Vega that Nelly has the tendency to flick people's hats off. Furthermore, like in Young, where the horse was overall gentle and had no prior incident to hit or injure anyone, in Vega's case, Nelly overall was a gentle horse and never injured any…

    • 807 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Stevenson [1932] All Er 1. Module 3 page 26) is a duty of care whether the applicant is dependent on a class that the defendants should reasonably have to predict that it was suffered by the losses if the defendant was careless and a reasonable presumption was also influenced by the concept it should have. To determine whether a reasonable diligence is or not to break, the court balances the seriousness of the loss against the possibility and the costs or the effort to prevent losses in less effort. In (Bolton v. Stone [1951] AC 850 ) had said that probability is because the accident was very small, so that a reasonable person could not be fair to consider.…

    • 812 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Superior Essays

    AND QUINN, F. (2011). Tort Law. Edition- Eighth. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited HEPPLE, HOWARD AND MATTHEWS.…

    • 1814 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Tort Of Negligence

    • 1701 Words
    • 7 Pages

    I am writing to discuss the liability requirements in the tort of negligence, regarding the case of Mrs. Smith being severely injured by Mr. John Sherwood, when, due to his negligence he crashed into Mrs. Smith’s car causing her to break her back and be hospitalized, which resulted in her missing work till this day. The events occurred on the 12/12/12 at around 5.40pm. In the English law, negligence is the most accessed tort as well as important. The word tort is French and which is translated as ‘wrong’ in English.…

    • 1701 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Long V Nursing Home

    • 1847 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Nevertheless, in Beverly, that even in medical malpractice actions, the general rule requiring expert testimony is abrogated to the extent that “the alleged act of negligence clearly lies within the range of the jury’s common knowledge and experience.” Beverly Enters.-Va. , 441 S.E.2d at…

    • 1847 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Essay On Tort Law

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Negligence is conduct by an individual that drops below a reasonable standard of care and causes harm to another person. An individual has a duty to act reasonably when interacting with others. When that individual fails to act reasonably and thereby causes harm to others. When that individual fails to act reasonably and thereby causes harm to others, that individual is…

    • 706 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although, Alan may argue that it was not foreseeable that Larry would fall into the water during his rescue, this argument would not be upheld by the court. Rescuers are deemed to be foreseeable and within the zone of danger (under the Cardozo view). Alan therefore owed a duty to Larry. He breached the duty by negligently maintaining the railings on his home. But for Alan’s negligent maintenance of the railing, Larry would not have needed to wade into the water to perform rescue.…

    • 1160 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays