Showing posts with label PETERSON V. TAYLOR 316 N.W.2d 869 (1982). Show all posts
Showing posts with label PETERSON V. TAYLOR 316 N.W.2d 869 (1982). Show all posts

PETERSON V. TAYLOR 316 N.W.2d 869 (1982) CASE BRIEF

PETERSON V. TAYLOR
316 N.W.2d 869 (1982)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Peterson (P), a minor, appealed a judgment in favor of Taylor (D), neighbors, against whom the minor had brought a negligence suit after the minor was burned by D's gasoline.
FACTS: P and D lived on neighboring acreages. P and his three-year-old sister Molly stopped at D's place on their way home from another neighbor's house. Finding no one home, P decided to gather some twigs and build a fire on a concrete slab in the Taylors' back yard, using some matches he had taken from his uncle's car earlier that day. The wind blew that fire out. P then went to the storage shed, removed a can of gasoline, opened it, smelled it to confirm that it was gasoline, threw a lighted match into it and stood back to watch the fire come out of the can. When that fire appeared to have died out, he got a second can of gasoline, and accidentally spilled some of it on his pants. P's gasoline-soaked pants somehow became ignited, and he rolled on the ground to put out the fire. P received serious burns on the lower half of his body and superficial burns on portions of the upper half. P had opened the shed by standing on his 'tippy-toes' to unlatch it. P knew D stored cans of gasoline there. P had been told not to go onto D's property when they weren't home, and that D would not have allowed him to enter the shed had they been present. P knew that gasoline would burn and might even explode when ignited with a match. P had previously been caught playing with fire on a few other occasions and had been punished and sternly warned about the dangers involved. P sued D. An expert testified that a child having P's characteristics probably would not realize the full extent of the danger involved in playing with matches and gasoline. The expert also testified that P knew he could be burned by a gasoline fire. D argued contributory negligence by P. D got the jury verdict and P appealed.

ISSUE:


RULE OF LAW:


HOLDING AND DECISION:


LEGAL ANALYSIS:





Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com




© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner