Brown vs. Kendall, (1850) 6 Cush.

INTRODUCTION: 

60 Mass. 292, 1850 WL 4572 (Mass.), 6 Cush. 292, is a trespass action for assault and battery. The plaintiff, George Brown, filed the suit against the defendant, George K. Kendall, following an event in which two dogs, one belonging to each side, got into a fight. The defendant accidently struck the plaintiff with a stick while attempting to separate the dogs. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant could be held accountable for the injuries, notwithstanding the fact that the act was accidental and occurred while he was attempting to separate the dogs.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

Two dogs, one owned by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, got into a fight in front of their owners. In order to separate the dogs, the defendant used a four-foot-long stick. The plaintiff was standing nearby and took a step or two closer to the straining canines. As the dogs approached the plaintiff, the defendant, with his back to the plaintiff, swung the stick over his shoulder to strike the dogs and inadvertently struck the plaintiff in the eye, causing significant harm.

ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether it was necessary or proper for the defendant to intervene in the dog fight;
2. Whether the interference, if called for, was carried out properly, and what degree of care was exercised by each party on the occasion; were the subject of dispute between the parties, based on all of the evidence in the case, of which the above is a summary.
3. The plaintiff’s care at the time of the incident and the defendant’s alleged negligence.

JUDGEMENT

The defendant was not accountable for the injury if splitting the dogs was a necessary and legitimate action undertaken with due care and the injury was purely unintentional, according to the court. The plaintiff bore the burden of proving that the defendant had been negligent. Furthermore, if both the plaintiff and the defendant were not exercising ordinary care at the time of the occurrence, the plaintiff could only collect if it could be demonstrated that the defendant’s actions were the only cause of the injury and that the plaintiff’s conduct had no bearing on it.

The court ruled that the jury instructions were improper and ordered a new trial.

CONCLUSION

The legal rules governing unintended injuries and liability are clarified in this case. It underlines that if a damage occurs unintentionally as a result of a valid act, the actor causing the injury is not accountable unless their action was careless. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing fault, and they cannot recover if their own negligence contributed to the injury. Due to faulty jury instructions, the court in this case ordered a new trial.

REFERENCE

http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/pub/EngLegalHist/MitchellAllestry/Brown_v_Kendall.pdf

This Case summary is written by Pulugam Devaki, Intern at Legal Vidhiya for the month of October 

Admin