Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 894 views

    Stinnett v. Buchele

    Uploaded by

    crlstinaaa
    In Stinnett v. Buchele, the plaintiff Stinnett was injured when he fell off a barn while painting. He sued his farm employer Buchele for negligence, arguing Buchele failed to comply with safety regulations requiring a safety net. The trial court granted summary judgment for Buchele. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the safety regulations did not create an independent cause of action and there was no evidence Buchele was familiar enough with the farm location to have a duty to provide a safety net for Stinnett.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Stinnett v. Buchele

    Uploaded by

    crlstinaaa
    894 views2 pages
    In Stinnett v. Buchele, the plaintiff Stinnett was injured when he fell off a barn while painting. He sued his farm employer Buchele for negligence, arguing Buchele failed to comply with safety regulations requiring a safety net. The trial court granted summary judgment for Buchele. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the safety regulations did not create an independent cause of action and there was no evidence Buchele was familiar enough with the farm location to have a duty to provide a safety net for Stinnett.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    In Stinnett v. Buchele, the plaintiff Stinnett was injured when he fell off a barn while painting. He sued his farm employer Buchele for negligence, arguing Buchele failed to comply with safety regulations requiring a safety net. The trial court granted summary judgment for Buchele. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the safety regulations did not create an independent cause of action and there was no evidence Buchele was familiar enough with the farm location to have a duty to provide a safety net for Stinnett.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    894 views2 pages

    Stinnett v. Buchele

    Uploaded by

    crlstinaaa
    In Stinnett v. Buchele, the plaintiff Stinnett was injured when he fell off a barn while painting. He sued his farm employer Buchele for negligence, arguing Buchele failed to comply with safety regulations requiring a safety net. The trial court granted summary judgment for Buchele. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the safety regulations did not create an independent cause of action and there was no evidence Buchele was familiar enough with the farm location to have a duty to provide a safety net for Stinnett.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as TXT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as txt, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case: Stinnett v.

    Buchele
    598 s.w.2d 469

    Parties: Appellant (Plaintiff) - Stinnett


    Appellee (Defendant) - Buchele

    Procedural History: Summary Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

    Facts: Plaintiff is farm employee who was injured when he fell off a barn he was
    painting. He brought an action against the farm employer that asserted his
    negligence in failing to comply with safety regulations that required a safety net
    for work in elevated areas, and for failure to supply a safe place to work.

    Issue: does the farm employer have a duty for due care?

    Holding/Judgment: Summary judgment affirmed for plaintiff (employer)

    Reasoning: The trial court granted summary judgment to the farm employer because
    it determined that the safety regulations did not create an independent cause of
    action against an employer and there was no evidence that the farm employer had
    sufficient familiarity with the circumstances at the farm location that he had a
    duty to the farm employee to discharge.

    _________________________________________________________________________________
    CLASS NOTES

    Was the harm foreseeable?


    Did the actor's conduct violate the reasonable standard of care?
    How would you determine the reasonable standard of care?

    Employer is a doctor. - not familiar with circumstances that the painter should
    have been.
    What is the doctor's duty? How should he behave in order to satisfy the duty of
    due care?
    ○ He has to take reasonable care to provide safe working environment.
    What did the doctor do that didn't show reasonable care?
    ○ Doctor should have provided him with safety harness/net.
    On appeal, roofer arguing that based on facts, should have been decided
    differently.

    What does Appellate court say about doctor's reasonable care?


    ○ Doctor supplied all materials that roofer asked for. Why is it reasonable
    for doctor not to provide the safety net?
    § Doctor has hired him, but knows nothing, and is not directly involved
    in the actions.
    § Roofer had done jobs similar before, and should have known what to
    require of the doctor
    § Doctor did not know roofer went that day to work
    § Doctor is reasonable to expect the roofer to know what to expect and
    to have the equipment
    § Appropriate for doctor to rely on roofer to take precautions for his
    own safety. It satisfies the standard of reasonable care. He would not have
    reasonably seen danger.
    § Hypo: it would not be reasonable for an amateur to know what to
    expect
    § Danger is obvious. Not hidden danger. On a roof, it is obvious you
    may fall off. Hypo: if doctor knew something about roof to make it dangerous that
    may come out differently.

    You might also like