Brief a Case
Case Title: Mrs. Jenkins Vs the Taxicab Company
The Facts of the Case: A taxi driver working for the Taxi Company now the defendant in this case, jumped from the taxi when an armed thief entered the taxi demanding to be driven away while being pursued by his victim. The taxi driver left the cab while it was still running and it subsequently ran up and hits the plaintiff Mrs. Jenkins and his two children.
Proceedings below: In this case, the plaintiff filed suit for negligence, alleging that the interest of the public at large should be protected from being threatened by an unattended vehicle. The plaintiff argued that the life of pedestrians is more important than the right of a driver who saved his own life by leaving the car unattended. However, the Courts of appeals have so far dismissed such reasoning's arguing that personal instincts and the law of nature permits the driver to behave in that manner in such a situation.
The Questions before the court: In such a complicated circumstance, the court must determine whether the law holds in an emergency situation to the same degree of judgment that is required of some person under circumstances where he or she has an opportunity for deliberate action.
Holding: In a similar case between Cordas Vs Peerless Transportation Company, the court held, a decision to dismiss the complaint. Likewise, in this scenario, the defendant cannot be held liable since the circumstance at hand could not allow the driver to risk his life.
Reasoning: Holding the defendant liable under the facts within this case would be abolishing the primal law of nature created within each individual. Additionally, the driver has a right to secure himself from harm given the human instincts.
Important Concurrence: The Supreme Court concurred to the fact that the defendant did not act negligibly but rather within his ordinary conscious. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was upheld. Therefore, the cab company is not liable for the damages that Mrs. Jenkins incurred (Rumsey, 2009).
Dissenting: None of importance.