The Law of Negligence

Throughout history, society has implicated its problems into the civil laws of negligence. Judges implicate new rules to solve the social problems; therefore, they must modify the new rules to comply with the changes of society. The focus of this paper is to explain the rules of negligence, identify the preexisting social problems, and identify new problems created from new rules. Also, the principal goal of The Civil Justice System will be examined in order to explain how the evolutions of the legal system are satisfactory and well applied to maintain social order.

The first and second rules of negligence arose from the Butterfield v. Forester (1809) case. There was no previous statute, meaning a law enacted by a legislative body nor were there any torts which are injuries caused by the negligent acts of another. There was nothing to state what was acceptable conduct and what was not. The plaintiff sued the respondent for negligent actions; having a large brace obstructed the road for which there was no tort stating that this was negligent. The judge created The Reasonable Man Standard. Every human has a duty to act reasonably; therefore, a reasonable man would not have obstructed the road. Society changed and everyone understood that they had a duty to full-fill, though some people failed to act responsible, therefore, they were negligent and would be held liable. This stabilized our society.

The respondent counter sued the plaintiff for negligence because of racing through a populated area at night. The judge had to create another rule because both parties were negligent. This rule changed because the factual circumstances shifted, finding that both parties were negligent. It is not fair for the plaintiff to receive recovery if he or she contributed to his or her own injury; this created social instability. The judge established The Contributory Negligent Rule: if an individual contributes to his or her own injury, he or she is at fault and therefore does not receive recovery. Not everyone is equally negligent; The Contributory Negligent Rule would not seem fair to the plaintiff if he or she was only ten percent negligent. These physical changes caused new rules in law to maintain social stability.

The third and fourth rules were established in the Davis v. Mans (1842) case. During the industrial revolution cities were becoming larger and more populated. Businesses did not take responsibility for their employee's actions while at work. Businesses needed to be controlled. Mans was a business owner. He hired a man to deliver his beer in order to keep his costs down. Mans encouraged his drivers to drive as fast as they could to make more money. Davis broke the law when he tethered his donkey by the road. His donkey was killed as Mans' driver sped through town to deliver beer. Davis sued Mans for his employee's negligent act. The judge held Mans liable by creating The Respondent Superior Rule which held employers liable for their employee's actions. His employee had a duty to drive responsibly and Mans had a duty to make his workers follow the law.

Society wanted the businesses to be held liable. Otherwise, what incentive did businesses have to follow the law? Mans counter sued based on The Contributory Negligence Rule because Davis broke the law when he tethered his donkey by the road. Society interpreted this in several ways because there are different levels of duty to others based on the relationship. The judge had to create a new rule: The Last Clear Chance Doctrine which stated the person who had the last opportunity to prevent the injury could not receive recovery for an injury he or she could have prevented. Mans had an economic duty to control his employees, therefore, The Last Clear Chance Doctrine was abandoned. It appeared to be a stupid rule because it would dismiss the business' responsibility to control its workers. Society felt it was corrupt to allow the businesses to do as they pleased.

The fifth rule of negligence was established in the British Columbia Railroad v. Loach (1915) case. In this case, both parties are negligent once again. The Railroad was negligent, because the brakes on the train were out and they drove it anyway, hitting Sans, who was driving a wagon and killing him. Sans had The Last Clear Chance to avoid the accident because he had a passenger who jumped from the wagon when the train blew its horn. Based on this fact, the Railroad should have won, buy society thought differently. Society wanted employers to take responsibility for the accidents they cause.

The judge created The Approximate Cause Doctrine which defined whose negligent actions really caused the injury. Businesses once again were held liable for their machines and making them safe for employees. It did not make sense to apply The Last Clear Chance Doctrine to machines because employers would have no reason to fix machines to prevent injury.

The sixth and seventh rule was established in the Maki v. Frelk (1968) case. Frelk ran a stop sign killing Maki Frelk was charged with many traffic violations. However, this jurisdiction used The Contributory Negligence Rule, making Maki responsible, because he could have slowed down and prevented the accident. This was unfair to the Maki family. They asked the court to adopt the Comparative Negligence Rule which weighs the degree of negligence of each party but the state would not adopt the law. However, Wisconsin did in 1931, only they modified it, making it The Modified Comparative Negligence Rule. The modified version still follows the pure form of The Comparative Negligence Rule. It draws a line at a specific degree of negligence preventing the individual from gaining recovery.

Throughout history, it is evident that each negligent rule has been used and is applied somewhere in the United States still today. Each negligent rule fits the demand of society until society changes, and then the courts must modify them to maintain social stability. As long as society continues to change, the laws will also change. Today, most jurisdictions adopt The Modified Comparative Negligence Rule, meaning that the jury decides the degree of negligence for each party and how much their injuries are worth.

The process of evolutionary law is the only way that has been identified as a means to satisfy the goal of the Civil Justice System in the United States. The main goal of Civil Law is to maintain social order. It does not matter what the opinion of either party is because the goal is not to be fair. Judges would rather be fair to society; otherwise, the United States would lose social stability. Each rule has been created to maintain social stability; when one rule failed the judges would create a new rule to satisfy society. If the Civil Justice System were to cease the historical evolution of law, there would be no Justice System left. When society speaks out, the courts hear it.