class 14: Legal Reasoning- Torgesen v. Schultz Statler v. Ray

What happens when you need a rule but you don’t have one?

you need to figure out how to bring a suit → like do you want to sue the govt in the bodies in lake meed case? is it privately owned? is there duty? do future seekers know the risk?

why is there not rule?

hadnt done it/ hadnt happened

What happens when you need a rule but you don’t have one? HOW does this happen?

You may have a client with a novel situation-

Example: Donald Trump- How do you go about prosecuting a former President and current Presidential candidate?

What happens when you need a rule but you don’t have one? WHAT DOES a lawyer do?

Synthesize a new rule based on the holdings of prior cases.

But most lawyers don’t want to look like they are

making a new rule- they will argue that

the rule already exists and stare decisis forces

the court to apply it. Make it binding.

are there other reasons to pass off a new rule as a rule already in existence?

• Many Judges don’t believe in making new law. They believe that the Courts should call balls and strikes- it is the legislature that makes the laws (Separation of Powers)

• they dont like to make new laws

• Also, lower court judges don’t like to have their rulings overturned. They want to avoid appeals and are risk averse.

induction

A logical process that proceeds from the particular to the general

example of general

general → big idea: ex. duty/negligence

|

V

particular: ex. scaffold cases 60ft 90ft vs 6ft 8ft (not same)

• develop a general rule (rule: height limit test → higher you go; hold you to that duty, lower you go; no holding you to duty) OR natural result of negligence is fatal (employer vs worker)

induction: if a number of cases have been decided in which a particular right or duty was found to exist,

then the court may conclude that the same right or duty exists in all similar cases.

Studying several particular cases gives you a general rule

Induction does not

compel a particular conclusion

• no forcing but it suggests a

  conclusion that is probable.

• Think of it as

  persuasive gambling. You are trying to have

  the court take a risk on something, so you are

  giving the court reasons to take that risk. The

  more reasons (cases) you find the better and if

  they come from higher courts with vertical

  precedent to your court- even better

YOU SHOULD BET ON ME

judgement (formulating arguments)

1. decide what facts to include in your argument to determine how to characterize prior cases (you choose the elements to focus on as you create the rule

2. set the level of generality (should you describe these cases in broad, general terms or should you be specific) (does the rule only apply in this particular case?) BELIEVE MY CASE AND HERES WHY

judgement (formulating arguments) example

appellate brief selection

• convicted of murdering man (broad daylight)

• stabbed in back (multiple times)

• 4 issues on appeal

  • did he mean to kill him? (defendant was claiming self defense)

  • BEST FACT: the wound on the victim alone mean he was trying to kill him (subclavian artery → how/infers)

general rules

• If you have a more general rule you may need fewer specific facts

• if you have numerous detailed facts then you are likely to have a rule that is very specific

general rules example

all heights for scaffold very specific

public policy

Lawyers may use policy arguments to help them select the facts they are going to use

public policy example

brief selections

• public policy argument (social protection, rehabilitation, deterrence)

• factor analysis argument (past occurrence → beat up mother, not sorry for crime)

elements of the new rule

• lawyers decide whether the elements are going to be general or specific (hazards v concealed hazards)

Lawyers need to walk a fine line- you can’t overreach

overreach

if the rule is too broad, application of the rule can yield undesirable results. You can’t impose liability for “all hazards”

overreach example

billboard

• looking for treasure in lake mead is an overreach

supporting the new rule

You are trying to sell it- this is not a new rule

but a well established one that we are putting

a new spin on- we are saying it in a new way.

Case support matters here

facts matter

You want to include only the facts that have

clear counterparts in your current case.

• BUT

• If your facts don’t match up- well then, you

can argue that this particular fact is not a

necessary element.

LOOK HERE NOT THERE → THE FACTS THAT ARE AGAINST ME OR LOOK HERE & THE OTHER ACKNOWLEGDE THE OTHER FACTS (NEUTRALIZE THEM/GET AHEAD OF THEM)

you want to keep the rule ____ wo ____

• general

• overreaching

Remember, the law is a dance or poker

• Your opposition will attempt to restrict the

number of cases you use. That case doesn’t

mean what you are saying- it only had to do

with this limited set of facts, not our facts.

• No general rules exist- only specifics and our

case is specific, so that rule doesn’t apply here

the law is a dance or poker EX

comtesse - if you dont oppose something; your conceding it (oppose everything)

if the facts you are arguing arent present in this situation, you opponent/opposition will

look through the facts and say they are different somehow or should be ignored

and you want it to be general

Your opposition is trying to make the rule

as narrow as possible

Torgesen v. Schultz, 192 N.Y. 156 (1908) (Willard Bartlett, J.): facts

Dene Torgesen, a domestic servant for lawyer Henry W. Taft in Manhattan, lost an eye on July 1, 1901.

Schultz filled siphon bottles with aerated water at 125 psi. A druggist bought them from Schultz and sold two

to her employer. On a very hot day (95-97°F), she kept them in a third-floor room until evening, then stood

them in a pan with ice against the bottles. One exploded as she turned away. No contract existed between

Torgesen and Schultz. Evidence: Schultz's circular claimed "all possible precautions": bottles pressure-tested

at 350 psi, then cracked-ice shock test. Torgesen's physics expert tested 71 of Schultz's bottles under similar

conditions; 5 exploded within 30 seconds of touching ice. Returned bottles were not retested, and Schultz

could not tell how many times a bottle had been reused.

torgesen v shultz: ph

Opinion and handout: the question on appeal is whether Torgesen presented enough evidence for a jury. The

Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, costs to abide the event. (My analysis: the reversal

implies the trial court ruled for Schultz for lack of evidence, probably a dismissal; the excerpt does not say so.

Not stated: any intermediate appellate ruling.)

torgesen v shultz: issue

(1) Does a bottler owe a duty of care to a remote user with whom it has no contract (no privity)?

(2) Did Torgesen offer enough evidence that Schultz breached that duty to let a jury decide negligence?

torgesen v shultz: rule

Under Thomas v. Winchester and similar cases, a vendor of an article dangerous in its nature, or likely to

become so in the course of ordinary usage the vendor should contemplate, owes a duty (no contract

needed) either to exercise due care to warn users of the danger, or to take reasonable care to prevent

the article from proving dangerous when subjected only to customary usage (¶4, adopting Lord Justice

Cotton's statement in Heaven v. Pender). Liability requires knowledge of the dangerous character (¶5, O'Neill

v. James). Evidence that the vendor's test was inadequate for customary use makes negligence a jury

question.

torgesen v shultz: Application / Reasoning

• Knowledge (¶6): Schultz's own circular ("we take all possible precautions to guard against accidents") shows it knew 125-psi siphons would explode without an adequate test: no reason to say that unless accidents were likely. Distinguishes O'Neill, where 60-psi cider was a "harmless, ordinary article."

• Inadequate test (¶6): the expert's experiments (5 of 71 exploded on ice) tended to show Schultz's described test, assumed to be its severest, was insufficient to make the bottles "tolerably certain" not to explode in customary use.

• Common-sense fact: Schultz is chargeable with knowing customers, especially in hot weather, put siphons against ice.

• Scope (¶7): evidence is only enough for a jury. Schultz may still prove its test adequate. The Court analyzes only the 'reasonable care to prevent' prong, not the warning prong.

Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co., 195 N.Y. 478, 88 N.E. 1063 (1909) (Hiscock, J.): facts

Ray Manufacturing (Buffalo) made large coffee urns for hotels, built as a "battery of three": a central boiler urn

heated by a steam coil, with an urn on either side. Ray sold one to a jobber, who sold it to a company of

which Ellsworth Statler was an officer. It was installed in a temporary hotel in St. Louis for the 1904 Louisiana

Purchase Exposition. On practically its first use the bottom of the central urn blew out under steam and water

pressure. Statler and another person were badly scalded and a third was killed. No contract between Statler

and Ray.

Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co.: ph

Statler won a jury verdict at trial. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed (109 N.Y.S. 172

(1908)). Ray appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held the verdict sound on its general merits but

reversed and granted a new trial because of serious errors in evidence rulings.

Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co.: issue

May a manufacturer and vendor of an inherently dangerous appliance be liable for negligent construction to a third party who has no contract with it?

Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co.: rule

Synthesis (¶3, final sentence): if an article is of an inherently dangerous nature, a manufacturer is liable for

negligent construction that, added to the article's inherent character, makes it imminently dangerous, and

that causes an injury not necessarily incident to proper use but naturally following from the defective

construction. Also required: the manufacturer knew the use the article was made for (¶¶1-2). Liability does

not extend to unskillful installation or improper use (¶2). No privity needed.

Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Co.: app/rule

• No exceptions to the charge (¶2): the jury was instructed on the right theory and told to exclude installation and misuse. The evidence let the jury find that Ray, knowing the use, built it defectively and unsafely.

• Precedent string (¶2): the question "must be regarded as settled" for the plaintiff by Thomas, Coughtry, Devlin, Davies, Torgesen, and others.

• Torgesen (¶3): the last Court of Appeals decision; it too involved no contract and rested on negligence. It quoted Heaven v. Pender, which the court reads as the principle above.

• Result: would affirm on the merits, but evidence errors require a new trial.

Torgesen v. Schultz: players

• torgesen: domestic servant

• schultz: defendant/siphon bottle filler

• taft: employer/lawyer

Torgesen v. Schultz: faccctsss

pressurized bottle damaged Torgesen’s eye (siphon bottle)

• hot bottle → cold = problem

• people return bottom/more its used overtime → becomes safety concern

Schultz v Taft arguments

• Schultz: no duty because no contract with Torgesen (Taft bought the siphon). privity of contract

• Taft: Thomas v. Winchester and similar cases impose a duty of care without privity. yes duty. dangerous + she used it the way it was intended to be used

What is the test that the Court of Appeals creates?

If a vendor supplies an article that is dangerous in its nature, or likely to become dangerous in ordinary, contemplated use, and the vendor knows (or is chargeable with knowing) of that danger, then the vendor owes the user, even without a contract, a duty either to warn users of the danger with due care, or to take reasonable care to prevent the article from proving dangerous when used in the ordinary way. Here that meant testing the bottles adequately for conditions such as being put on ice in hot weather.

test

expert testimony/witness

There must be knowledge of the dangerous character before the defendant can be held liable?

• Where did this knowledge come from in this case?

Knowledge of danger is required (¶5, O'Neill). It came from the defendant's own circular (¶6).

• austria, advertising (they are likely to break)

• circular

• bragging about safety so they know

Let’s look at Paragraph 6- What does the Court use against the manufacturer?

The language of the defendant’s circular tends

to show that it was well aware that siphons

were liable to explode unless adequately

tested and they stated “We take all possible

precautions to guard against accidents”

In addition to this what evidence is employed?

• What is the evidentiary tactic employed by the plaintiff?

Use the defendant's own words (its circular) plus expert experiments reproducing the conditions (5

of 71 exploded on ice).

Facts were chosen to support this rule-

particularly common sense facts- Such as????

Hot weather; customary to put siphons against ice; a precaution statement implies accidents are likely; returned bottles never retested.

• water on a hot day

Plaintiff Wins

Plaintiff proved that the bottle was defective

and proper inspection would have revealed

the defect. The bottle manufacturer knew

what its product would be used for and could

have foreseen the use by the bottler. The

tests used were inadequate- The bottle

manufacturer had a duty to properly inspect

the bottles.

Statler v. Ray Manufacturing
Company

buffalo company took place in st. louis

• coffee urn → pressurized stem + hot coffee

No Privity

• No contractual relations

cases to think about Winterbottom + Loop

• No contractual relations- So automatically- what cases are you thinking about?

• What is a jobber?

No contract, so think Thomas, Coughtry, Devlin, and the older no-privity cases (Winterbottom).

jobber is a middleman who buys from the manufacturer and resells.

Plaintiff argues

That the defendant knew the purposes behind

how the urn was used and that the urn if used

for the purpose for which it was designed was

liable to become a source of great danger if

not carefully and properly constructed

Defendant negligently and carelessly
constructed the urn so that it was imminently
dangerous when employed as intended-
natural and direct result of negligence would
be an explosion with injury

• sounds like Thomas v Winchester, Devlin, Coughtry,

No exceptions were taken? What does this mean?

Defendant did not object to the jury instructions at trial, so it cannot attack them on appeal; the trial court framed the question correctly. (General appellate-preservation rule, not stated in your materials.)

Trial court was correct in limiting and framing the question

jury was instructed on the right theory

marketing is important. How so? And this is like ??

Ray knew the use for which it sold the urn, which supports the knowledge element; like Schultz's circular and like Devlin, where the seller knew the use.

also talked about being tested

Leaves us the question

• Whether a manufacturer and vendor of such

an inherently dangerous appliance is liable to

a third party on the grounds that this device

will be a source of great danger if the

appliance is not carefully and properly

constructed- look at that string site!!!!-

Throwing all of the cases at you for support

Is a manufacturer of an inherently dangerous appliance liable to a third party? The string cite shows the court is saying the answer is already settled.

Then there was Torgesen

• First subject to an adequate test

• Then there was evidence that the test used by

the vendor was insufficient when used as

customers might expect to use them.

• The question of negligence should go to a jury

The Action was based upon the ground of

negligence- not contractual relation or privity

• Torgesen: test inadequate means jury question; negligence not privity. Rule: inherently dangerous article + negligent construction = imminent danger; injury follows from the defect

An article of inherently dangerous nature

Here is the rule- in the case of an article of an

inherently dangerous nature, a manufacturer

may become liable for a negligent

construction when added to the inherent

character of the appliance makes it

imminently dangerous- resulting injury does

not come from its use but naturally follows

from a defective construction

guns; do warning (t v w) → things that can cause harm

And then the court punts...

• Would affirm for Statler but sends the case

back to the trial court because of evidentiary

issues.

Would affirm for Statler but remands for a new trial because of evidence rulings.