Brown v. Kendall

Quick Summary

Two dogs fought. The defendant raised a stick to separate them. By accident, the stick hit the plaintiff’s eye. The court said: when a person does a lawful act with ordinary care, they are not liable for accidental injury. The plaintiff must show unlawful intent or fault.

Issues

• Can a defendant be held liable for an injury caused unintentionally while doing a lawful act?

Rules

• A person performing a lawful act with ordinary care and prudence is not liable for injuries that accidentally result.
• The plaintiff must prove either unlawful intention or fault (lack of ordinary care).

Arguments

Judgment

The court ruled for the defendant. The plaintiff had to prove unlawful intent or lack of ordinary care. Because the defendant acted lawfully and with ordinary care, he was not liable for the accidental injury.

Ratio Decidendi

Liability in accidental injury cases turns on ordinary care. If the actor used ordinary care while doing a lawful act, there is no fault and no liability.

Why It Matters

• Key case for the ordinary care standard in tort law.
• Separates accident from fault in everyday activities.
• Guides exam answers on unintentional harm and negligence.

Key Takeaways

• Lawful act + ordinary care → no liability for accident.
• Plaintiff’s burden: show unlawful intent or fault.
• Context matters: emergencies and quick actions can still be reasonable.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

BRO-KEN = BROwn sets Ordinary care; Kicking stick was lawful; ENd result accidental → no fault.

1. Identify the act: lawful or not?
2. Measure care: was it ordinary?
3. Conclude liability: accident without fault → no liability.

IRAC Outline

Glossary

Ordinary Care

The caution a reasonably prudent person would use in similar conditions.

Unlawful Intent

A conscious aim to do something the law forbids.

Accidental Injury

Harm that occurs without intent, during otherwise lawful conduct.

FAQs