Aarons V. Peterson
ISSUE Is the defendant negligent and liable for injuries to the plaintiff?
RULES
In negligence, a plaintiff must prove: duty; breach duty; causation; and actual injury. Cite A person owes a heightened duty of care where children may be present. Cite
ANALYSIS
In Aarons v. Peterson, the defendant kept a hammer and nails in a toolbox on the floor of his basement. His eleven-year-old son took the hammer and a nail from the toolbox to repair a knock hockey board that he and his nine-year-old neighbor broke. When hammered, the nail flew and stuck the neighbor’s face. Duty - The defendant had a duty to protect invitees from injuries which might result from the use of tools in his toolbox. His duty was heightened since he could …show more content…
However, he took no measures to secure the tools either by fastening a lock or relocating the toolbox to a less accessible location. His failure to protect the children from the potential harm arising from their use of the tools is a breach of his duty owed to the plaintiff. Causation - The defendant’s son was able to obtain dangerous instruments, a hammer and nail, which were housed within an accessible toolbox. While using the hammer to make a blow to a nail, the nail flew out from the wood and stuck the neighbor. Actual Injury - The nail strike chipped the neighbor’s front teeth, bloodied his nose, and gashed his cheek. In Smith v. Allen the son struck a neighbor with a toy, a golf club. The court held that a golf club was not “obviously and intrinsically dangerous” and therefore the adult responsible for leaving it lying on the ground was not negligent. Cite In Aarons v. Peterson the son struck a neighbor with a tool, a nail. A nail is a sharp implement, the purpose of which is to cause damage to items it comes into contact with after receiving a blow from a hammer. A nail, by design, is fundamentally
RULES
In negligence, a plaintiff must prove: duty; breach duty; causation; and actual injury. Cite A person owes a heightened duty of care where children may be present. Cite
ANALYSIS
In Aarons v. Peterson, the defendant kept a hammer and nails in a toolbox on the floor of his basement. His eleven-year-old son took the hammer and a nail from the toolbox to repair a knock hockey board that he and his nine-year-old neighbor broke. When hammered, the nail flew and stuck the neighbor’s face. Duty - The defendant had a duty to protect invitees from injuries which might result from the use of tools in his toolbox. His duty was heightened since he could …show more content…
However, he took no measures to secure the tools either by fastening a lock or relocating the toolbox to a less accessible location. His failure to protect the children from the potential harm arising from their use of the tools is a breach of his duty owed to the plaintiff. Causation - The defendant’s son was able to obtain dangerous instruments, a hammer and nail, which were housed within an accessible toolbox. While using the hammer to make a blow to a nail, the nail flew out from the wood and stuck the neighbor. Actual Injury - The nail strike chipped the neighbor’s front teeth, bloodied his nose, and gashed his cheek. In Smith v. Allen the son struck a neighbor with a toy, a golf club. The court held that a golf club was not “obviously and intrinsically dangerous” and therefore the adult responsible for leaving it lying on the ground was not negligent. Cite In Aarons v. Peterson the son struck a neighbor with a tool, a nail. A nail is a sharp implement, the purpose of which is to cause damage to items it comes into contact with after receiving a blow from a hammer. A nail, by design, is fundamentally