In England, Katie Dagley, 19, died in an accident as bizarre as it was tragic. In something out of a proximate cause question on a torts exam, a traffic light-controlled bridge malfunctioned after a slug cause the lights to malfunction. That’s right, investigators believe that the slug left a trail across a circuit board that caused it to short out. That caused the lights to malfunction and Dagley proceeding against traffic on a one-land bridge in Tamworth, Staffordshire.
There are obviously superseding intervening acts and acts of God that cut off liability in torts. However, it strikes me as a bit odd to have an exposed circuit board that can short out with as little as a snail or slug passing over it. Such natural events would appear foreseeable. Of course, the utility or agency in charge could argue that this was a first such occasion or, as in Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works, had such a low probability that it was reasonable not to take precautions. However, it would seem under the Hand formula there is a basis to allege potential negligence. The commonly used formula is based on three elements: (1). Probability of harm (or likelihood of injury) = P; (2). Gravity of harm (or seriousness of injury) = L (loss or liability); and (3) Burden on defendant (or injury sacrificed) to take adequate precautions = B. It is unreasonable if B < P x L.
Here the burden (B) to avoid the accident would have been quite low to protect a circuit board. The loss (L) is quite high due to involvement of vehicles on a one-lane bridge. What is left is the probability (P). A slug-induced accident may be a first, but it may have occurred before and been treated as a simply burned out circuit board. Moreover, one would have had to look at all causes of shorting out a board due to the failure to protect it from insects, weather etc.
Source: Daily Mail
Jonathan Turley
The accident probably wasn’t just the fault of the slug, the circuit board or the traffic lights. Driver inexperience and flimsy cars were likely factors as well. According to the original story in the Daily Mail, the drivers were 18 and 19, and both were driving mini-size cars. The driver who survived stated he saw oncoming headlights but assumed the other driver would yield since he had the green light. Experienced drivers know better: you have to watch out for other drivers making mistakes – like not slowing for a red light.
When I was training my own kids to drive, I told them, “You can’t just trust the signals. You have to watch what the other cars are doing.” In my family we call it “reading the auto body language.”
Hope this tip helps other people training young drivers.
MUSLIM SLUGS ON JIHAD. CHRISTIAN SLUGS WOULD NEVER DO THIS. THIS IS ENGLANDS PUNISHMENT FOR IMPORTING MUSLIM SLUGS.
Remember the CIA’s relentless overhyping of the Soviet Union’s capabilities and hostile intentions during the cold war?
Well … they’ve found a new bogeyman in global terrorism and it’s a much easier sell.
Everybody’s buying.
If the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is two times less than being killed by a falling vending machine, what does the above formula say about decimating the constitution in the name of fighting a war on terror? -Bob, Esq.
The American people have been hoodwinked… Lots of money flowin’ in the name of fighting the war on terror… It’s a profitable biz.
“The current lot of fascists won’t be happy with destroying merely 1/10th of the Constitution. They are going for the whole enchilada.” -Buddha
Nope, they won’t… And, yes, they are… Bears repeating, Buddha…
Bob,
That word, “decimating”. I think you are being far too optimistic. The current lot of fascists won’t be happy with destroying merely 1/10th of the Constitution. They are going for the whole enchilada.
“The commonly used formula is based on three elements: (1). Probability of harm (or likelihood of injury) = P; (2). Gravity of harm (or seriousness of injury) = L (loss or liability); and (3) Burden on defendant (or injury sacrificed) to take adequate precautions = B. It is unreasonable if B < P x L."
If the likelihood of being killed in a terrorist attack is two times less than being killed by a falling vending machine, what does the above formula say about decimating the constitution in the name of fighting a war on terror?
Buddha Is Laughing
1, May 23, 2011 at 10:20 am
Slugs have notoriously shallow pockets as defendants.
=================================================
lol … and true
Had that happen to a keyboard once…..
Not really….
Well really I spilled a shiner bock….bad for everyone…but the repair guy….
In the end, it’s often what we least expect…
The circuit board should have been housed in a weather-proof and hence, slug-proof enclosure.
Long Live Slugs!
Slugs have notoriously shallow pockets as defendants.