Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencestatuteappealverdictcorporationsustainedcontributory negligencejury instructions
plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceappealverdictmotioncorporation

Related Cases

Lillibridge v. McCann, 117 Mich. 84, 75 N.W. 288, 41 L.R.A. 381, 72 Am.St.Rep. 553
View Case »
Sims v. Pappas, 73 N.E.3d 700
View Case »
Mentzer v. W.U. Tel. Co., 93 Iowa 752, 62 N.W. 1, 28 L.R.A. 72, 57 Am.St.Rep. 294
View Case »
Williams v. Bright, 230 A.D.2d 548, 658 N.Y.S.2d 910
View Case »
O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 447 N.E.2d 727, 4 O.B.R. 335
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Paramount Development Corp. v. Hunter, 249 Md. 188, 238 A.2d 869

Facts

In March 1965, two boys, Stuart Hunter and James Cherrix, both around 5 1/2 years old, entered a vacant and unlocked house owned by Paramount Development Corporation. They turned on an electric range, igniting some newspapers and causing damages amounting to $5,612.50. Paramount sued the boys and their parents, but the parents' demurrers were sustained, and the jury found in favor of the boys.

On an afternoon in March 1965, Stuart Hunter and James Cherrix, both then about 5 1/2 years old, entered a vacant and unlocked house at 706 Cabin John Parkway, in Rockville, Maryland, owned by Paramount Development Corporation (Paramount). The boys turned on an electric range; some newspapers were ignited; and the resulting damages to the house amounted to $5,612.50.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether the case should be tried as a negligence case and whether the court erred in not instructing the jury on the law of trespass.

The court of Appeals, Singley, J., held that since action was brought in negligence and tried as negligence case, it was proper to submit case to jury on question of negligence, and failure to instruct on law of trespass was not error.

Rule

The court applied the principle that an action brought in negligence should be submitted to the jury on the question of negligence, and that a violation of statute may be evidence of negligence but does not constitute negligence per se.

The lower court concluded that the declaration sounded in both trespass and negligence; that the case was tried as a negligence case; and that therefore, it should go to the jury as a negligence case.

Analysis

The court concluded that the case was properly tried as a negligence case, as the declaration included allegations of negligence. The jury was instructed to determine whether the boys' actions constituted negligence and whether any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed to the damages. The court found no error in the jury instructions regarding negligence and contributory negligence.

The court below correctly concluded that an action brought in negligence and tried as a negligence case should go to the jury on the question of negligence. Negligence was correctly defined in the instruction.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court, concluding that the jury's verdict in favor of the defendants should not be disturbed.

Judgment affirmed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the defendants, the boys, as the jury found in their favor, and the court upheld the jury's decision.

The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; the plaintiff filed a motion for a judgment n. o. v.; and from the judgment entered in favor of the defendants, the present appeal was taken.

You must be