cordas v peerless

cordas v peerless2020/09/28

Issue The chauffeur in reluctant acquiescence proceeded about fifteen feet, when his hair, like unto the quills of the fretful porcupine, was made to stand on end by the hue and cry of the man despoiled accompanied by a clamourous concourse of the law-abiding which paced him as he ran; the concatenation of stop thief, to which the patter of persistent feet did maddingly beat time, rang in his ears as the pursuing posse all the while gained on the receding cab with its quarry therein contained. In slight paraphrase of the world's first bard it may be truly observed that the expedition of the chauffeur's violent love of his own security outran the pauser, reason, when he was suddenly confronted with unusual emergency which 'took his reason prisoner'. I guess that's the business. The victim of the robbery chased them after they ran off through 26th Street does anyone?. | alley near 26th Street and Third Avenue, Manhattan. Luckily this opinion is the exception (rather than the rule) for my textbooks. The cab runs onto the sidewalk and hits a mother and her two infant children, who sue the cabby for negligence. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. City Court of New York, New York County, 1941 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 Relevant Facts The defendant was the driver of a taxicab, and one day a man with a gun jumped into his cab and told him to drive. [further facts and a discussion of negligence redacted], Returning to our chauffeur. The plaintiff and her infant children were injured by the cab. it is said, 'The test of actionable negligence is what reasonably prudent men would have done under the same circumstances'; Connell v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co.,. Macbeth did not by a 'tricksy word' thereby stand justified as he criminally created the emergency from which he sought escape by indulgence in added felonies to divert suspicion to the innocent. required to exercise unerring judgment, which would be expected of him, were Generally, a person owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect others against the foreseeable risks of his act or failure to act. 6. It appears that a man, whose identity it would be indelicate to divulge, was feloniously relieved of his portable goods by two nondescript highwaymen in an alley near 26th Street and Third Avenue, Manhattan; they induced him to relinquish his possessions by a strong argument ad hominem couched in the convincing cant of the criminal and pressed at the point of a most persuasive pistol. Note: The following opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff. The circumstances provide the foil by which the act is brought into relief to determine whether it is or is not negligent. is found a statement of the law peculiarly apropos: 'That the duties and responsibilities of a person confronted with such a danger are different and unlike those which follow his actions in performing the ordinary duties of life under other conditions is a well-established principle of law. Two houses away, at 1236 Any Street, is, Your client, Ms. Kimberly Hall, stands convicted under your state law for charges involving theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identification numbers.Hall runs a. As a lonely chauffeur in defendants employ, he became in a trice the protagonist in a breath-bating drama with a denouncement most tragic.. 1L of a Ride: A Well-Traveled Professor's Roadmap to Success in the First Year of Law School, The 'Companion Text' to Law School: Understanding and Surviving Life with a Law Student, Practical Global Tort Litigation: United States, Germany and Argentina, The Law School Trip: The Insider's Guide to Law School, Amicus Humoriae: An Anthology of Legal Humor, Preying on the Graying: A Statutory Presumption to Prosecute Elder Financial Exploitation, Fight Club: Doctors vs. Lawyers - A Peace Plan Grounded in Self Interest, Neurotic, Paranoid Wimps - Nothing has Changed, Kiss and Tell: Protecting Intimate Relationship Privacy Through Implied Contracts of Confidentiality, Dead Sorrow: A Story About Loss and A New Theory of Wrongful Death Damages, A Thousand Words are Worth a Picture: A Privacy Tort Response to Consumer Data Profiling, The Public Health Case for the Safe Storage of Firearms: Adolescent Suicides Add One More 'Smoking Gun', Armed and Dangerous: Tort Liability for the Negligent Storage of Firearms, Good Cop, Bad Cop: Using Cognitive Dissonance Theory to Reduce Police Lying, Poetry in Commotion: Katko v. Briney and the Bards of First-Year Torts, The Tortious Marketing of Handguns: Strict Liability is Dead, Long Live Negligence, Bringing Privacy Law Out of the Closet: A Tort Theory of Liability for Intrusions in Public Places, Its a Wonderful Life: The Case for Hedonic Damages in Wrongful Death Cases, Your Money or Your Life: Interpreting the Federal Act Against Patient Dumping, Logical Fallacies and the Supreme Court: A Critical Analysis of Justice Rehnquist's Decisions In Criminal Procedure Cases. As a lowly chauffeur in defendant's employ he became in a trice the protagonist in a breach-bating drama with a denouement almost tragic. Jittery Jims Canyon Coffee is a national chain of franchised coffee shops. Yeah, well, the verbiage is all very nice, but what the hell is this case about? All Rights Reserved. as my legal research and writing prof. would say do you even talk like this? 2, Article 30. Cost of staying in car to gather more data was very high relative to the risk of being shot by the mugger Peerless Transp. The case itself is hilarious. The motherfiled a negligence action against the cab company. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. I'm a 1L reading this torts case. Richmond, Michael L. (1993) "The Annotated Cordas," Nova Law Review: Vol. Motions, upon which decision was reserved, to dismiss the complaint are granted with exceptions to plaintiffs. [. Get answers and explanations from our Expert Tutors, in as fast as 20 minutes, Unformatted text preview: Facts : A taxi driver working for Peerless Transportation Company (Peerless) (defendant) jumped out of his taxi cab while the car was still moving in order to escape an armed man chasing another individual. An actual opinion from the City Court of New York, New York County, 1941. CORDAS v. PEERLESS (CAB GETAWAY) Cab driver jumped out of the car to save himself and car hits people. Instead, . He confesses that the only act that smacked of intelligence was that by which he jammed the brakes in order to throw off balance the hold-up man who was half-standing and half-sitting with his pistol menacingly poised. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. You are viewing the full version,show mobile version. Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 Powered by Law Students: Don't know your Bloomberg Law login? . (PS You misquote the opinion in several places. Man chases the muggers, and the muggers split up. 3. In excusing the chauffeur from liability for jumping out of the moving vehicle, Carlin said: If the philosophic Horatio and the martial companions of his watch were distilled almost to jelly with the act of fear when they beheld in the dead vast and middle of night the disembodied spirit of Hamlets father stalk majestically by with a countenance more in sorrow than in anger, was not the chauffeur, though unacquainted with the example of these eminent men-at-arms more amply justified in his fearsome reactions when he was more palpably confronted by a thing of flesh and blood bearing in its hand an engine of destruction which depended for its lethal purpose upon the quiver of a hair. If the philosophic Horatio and the martial companions of his watch were distilled almost to jelly with the act of fear when they beheld in the dead vast and middle of the night the disembodied spirit of Hamlets father stalk majestically by with a countenance more in sorrow than in anger was not the chauffeur, though unacquainted with the example of these eminent men-at-arms, more amply justified in his fearsome reactions when he was more palpably confronted by a thing of flesh and blood bearing in its hand an engine of destruction which depended for its lethal purpose upon the quiver of a hair? View Plaintiff's children and wife were struck by a taxi, whose driver abandoned it. Holding About That was some interesting use of the language. of pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily. > Copyright 2023 StudeerSnel B.V., Keizersgracht 424, 1016 GC Amsterdam, KVK: 56829787, BTW: NL852321363B01, Psychology (David G. Myers; C. Nathan DeWall), Principles of Environmental Science (William P. Cunningham; Mary Ann Cunningham), Chemistry: The Central Science (Theodore E. Brown; H. Eugene H LeMay; Bruce E. Bursten; Catherine Murphy; Patrick Woodward), Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications (Gay L. R.; Mills Geoffrey E.; Airasian Peter W.), Business Law: Text and Cases (Kenneth W. Clarkson; Roger LeRoy Miller; Frank B. If you are interested, please contact us at [email protected] The defendant is the driver's employer. I.e., where are the flaws? We are looking to hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to our site. It said that the cab driver was suddenly faced with patent danger, not of its own making, and the court presumed he abandoned the vehicle involuntarily. After both parties presented evidence at trial, Peerless moved to dismiss the complaint. | The law would indeed be fond if it imposed upon the ordinary man the obligation to so demean himself when suddenly confronted with a danger, not of his creation, disregarding the likelihood that such a contingency may darken the intellect and palsy the will of the common legion of the earth, the fraternity of ordinary men, -- whose acts or omissions under certain conditions or circumstances make the yardstick by which the law measures culpability or innocence, negligence or care. In an emergency situation, the law does not hold a person to the same standards as if he had opportunity for deliberate action. Suggestions of feasibility Gives other the opportunity to "learn the safe way Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. (cab driver jumping out of car when at gun point) Emergency doctrine: the standard of applicable to a person acting in the face of sudden peril is the "reasonable person in an emergency" =useful in the juries mind . The alleged cause of action was that the cabbie was negligent in jumping out of a moving vehicle that he was putatively in control of; the court found that he was unable to exercise the standard of reasonable care due to the large gun pointed at his head and thus was not negligent. Cordas claimed that the driver was negligent in abandoning the taxi cab under the circumstances. chased his muggers east on 26th St. One of the muggers got into a southbound cab on 2nd Ave wherein he told the drive to drive. His allusions to classical literature and mythology? There are many variations of passages of Lorem Ipsum available, but the majority have suffered alteration in some form, by injected humour, or randomised words which dont look even slightly believable. [the driver] states that his uninvited guest boarded the cabwhile it was at a standstill waiting for a less colorful fare, 4. For example, where you quote the Justice as writing: As a lonely chauffeur in defendants employ he became in a trice the protagonist in a breath-bating drama with a denouncement most tragic, you have two errors. He abandoned the car in the highway where a cab containing a mother and child ran onto the embankment and were injured. Being dealt 555 cards from a standard 525252 -card deck and getting four of a kind (for example, four aces). Mugger tells the cabby to step on the gas or I will cap thine ass. The cab starts moving, but then the cabby hears the muggers chaser, http://butnothanks.blogspot.com/2008/09/5-blogs-5-bloggerspass-it-on.html. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The circumstances dictate what is or is not prudent action. Richmond, Michael L. Co., 27 N.Y.S.2d 198, 199, 201 (City Court of N.Y. 1941). A unanimous Strange Judicial Opinions Hall of Fame opinion is Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., penned in 1941 by Judge Carlin (no relation to George) of the New York City Court. The hold-up man sensing his insecurity suggested to the chauffeur that in the event there was the slightest lapse in obedience to his curt command that he, the chauffeur, would suffer the loss of his brains, a prospect as horrible to an humble chauffeur as it undoubtedly would be to one of the intelligentsia. [. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co., 1941 There is a general agreement that if the emergency is created by negligence of the actor the emergency doctrine does not apply. . Negligence has been variously defined but the common legal acceptation is the failure to exercise that care and caution which a reasonable and prudent person ordinarily would exercise under like conditions or circumstances. Laden with their loot, but not thereby impeded, they took an abrupt departure and he, shuffling off the coil of that discretion which enmeshed him in the alley, quickly gave chase through 26th Street toward 2d Avenue, whether they were resorting 'with expedition swift as thought' for most obvious reasons. The chauffeur -- the ordinary man in this case -- acted in a split second in a most harrowing experience. - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. If the finder of fact determines such an excuse exists, the appropriate standard of care then becomes that established by the common law. The language is so ridiculous that its awesomely bad. The chauffeur apprehensive of certain dissolution from either Scylla, the pursuers, or Charybdis, the pursued, quickly threw his car out of first speed in which he was proceeding, pulled on the emergency, jammed on his brakes and, although he thinks the motor was still running, swung open the door to his left and jumped out of his car. The plaintiff-mother and her two infant children were there injured by the cab which, at the time, appeared to be also minus its passenger who, it appears, was apprehended in the cellar of a local hospital where he was pointed out to a police officer by a remnant of the posse, hereinbefore mentioned. .] Shepard Broad College of Law Co. - 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (City Ct. 1941) Rule: The law presumes that an act or omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation City Court of New York, New York County, 1941 Rule: Reasonable and prudent action is based on the set of circumstances under which the actions took place. The law presumes that an act or omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily. Kolanka v. Erie Railroad Co., . Prior to Blakes joining the coffee shop, each employee working on a shift would take a customer order, accept payment, and then prepare the order. Cordas v. Peerless Transp. .] If the philosophic Horatio and the martial companions of his watch were 'distilled almost to jelly with the act of fear' when they beheld 'in the dead vast and middle of the night' the disembodied spirit of Hamlet's father stalk majestically by 'with a countenance more in sorrow than in anger' was not the chauffeur, though unacquainted with the example of these eminent men-at-arms, more amply justified in his fearsome reactions when he was more palpably confronted by a thing of flesh and blood bearing in its hand an engine of destruction which depended for its lethal purpose upon the quiver of a hair? [rest of the opinion redacted]. . It appears that a man, whose identity it would be indelicate to divulge was feloniously relieved of his portable goods by two nondescript highwaymen in an alley near 26th Street and Third Avenue, Manhattan; they induced him to relinquish his . Peerless PDA View Full Version : Cordas v. Peerless D. Scarlatti 08-21-2005, 01:24 PM CARLIN, Justice. No man'. Facts: But I suspect the judge was bored. GOVT 280- The Cordas case stands for the proposition that the "reasonable man" standard does not apply in emergency situations (e.g., a guy with a gun). Um. Full appreciation of this classic can come only with a full reading, butheres how it starts: This case presents the ordinary manthat problem child of the lawin a most bizarre setting. A man was robbed at gunpoint but chased after his attackers, who split up after a few blocks, and he continued after the gunman. The defendant was a chauffeur who drove a taxi for the transportation company. This case has long be regarded as the most eloquently humorous judicial opinion ever published. The burden of responsibility, Directions:Provide the correct citation to the following fictional cases. Reasonable and prudent action is based on the set of circumstances under which the actions took place. When a court adopts a penal statute as the standard of care in an action for negligence, violation of that statute establishes a prima facie case of negligence, with the determination to be made by the finder of fact whether the party accused of violating the statute has established a legally sufficient excuse. Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. Cantrell v. Forrest City Publishing Comany. The cab driver jumped out of the car and ran towards 26th street, while the He is not required to exercise unerring judgment, which would be expected of him, were he not confronted with an emergency requiring prompt action'. You can find it here: http://butnothanks.blogspot.com/2008/09/5-blogs-5-bloggerspass-it-on.html. . Returning to our chauffeur. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. The hold-up man sensing his insecurity suggested to the chauffeur that in the event there was the slightest lapse in obedience to his curt command that he, the chauffeur, would suffer the loss of his brains, a prospect as horrible to an humble chauffeur as it undoubtedly would be to one of the intelligentsia. Cordas is, by far, the single best case we've read all year. It also stands as a literary masterpiece of judicial opinion writing. The judgment of trial court was dismissed. However, his words may be wrested to the advantage of the defendant's chauffeur whose acts cannot be legally construed as the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries, however regrettable, unless nature's first law is arbitrarily disregarded. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. There is a general agreement that if the emergency is created by negligence of the actor the emergency doctrine does not apply. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. (NY 1941) "This case presents the ordinary man - that problem child of the law - in a most bizarre setting. The guy who got mugged (the muggee?) Blake Gable has recently been hired as the manager of Jittery Jims Canyon Coffee. This case presents the ordinary man -- that problem child of the law -- in a most bizarre setting. As a lowly chauffeur in defendants employ he became in a trice the protagonist in a breath-bating drama with a denouement almost tragic. Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1. 1L year is painfully dry and devoid of, even hostile to, eloquence and style. In Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. (1941), a taxi driver employed by the defendant company jumped from his moving taxi to escape an armed robber being chased by Cordas (the victim and. Right. Conclusion: A tax increase will slow down the economy. Cordas is, by far, the single best case we've read all year. Thanks to all the folks whosent in this classic. CARLIN, Justice. . Must rely on expert testimony to make that determination Robinson v. Lindsay FACTS: Ten year-old Ronald Smith lives at 1234 Any Street in City, State, with his parents Jim and Mary Smith. The defendant was a chauffeur and the victim of an armed car-jacking by a fleeing robber who threatened to blow the chauffeurs brains out. Iss. Ch1 - Focus on Nursing Pharmacology 6e whole text of the case is available on-line, a rather amusing collection of odd & whacky cases. The chauffeur, apprehensive of certain dissolution from either Scylla, the pursuers, or Charybdis, the pursued, quickly threw his car out of first speed in which, he was proceeding, pulled on the emergency, jammed on his brakes, and, although he thinks the motor was still running, swung open the door to his left and jumped out of his car.. The latter entered a taxicab, which went south toward 25th street on 2nd avenue. Somewhere on that thoroughfare of escape they indulged the stratagem of separation ostensibly to disconcert their pursuer and allay the ardor of his pursuit. > Do the cases get worse than this? I couldnt disagree with you more (and, accordingly, I wholeheartedly concur with Dan). In Steinbrenner v. M. W. Forney Co., . who played the baby in tootsie. Court finds he acted reasonably given the emergency situation. The language of the opinion keeps getting worse.

. FAQ Laden with their loot, but not thereby impeded, they took an abrupt departure and he, shuffling off the coil of that discretion which enmeshed him in the alley, quickly gave chase through 26th Street towards 2d Avenue, whither they were resorting with expedition swift as thought for most obvious reasons. Issue: Whether abandoning a running car is considered to be reasonable . 1. Iss. Kolanka v. Erie Railroad Co. says: The law in this state does not hold one in an The learned attorney for the plaintiffs concedes that the chauffeur acted in an emergency but claims a right to recovery upon the following proposition taken verbatim from his brief: 'It is respectfully submitted that the value of the interests of the public at large to be immune from being injured by a dangerous instrumentality such as a car unattended while in motion is very superior to the right of a driver of a motor vehicle to abandon same while it is in motion even when acting under the belief that his life is in danger and by abandoning same he will save his life'. TRIMARCO v. KLEIN 4. Cabby says, F-this! and jumps out of the cab. The hold-up man, sensing [the drivers] insecurity, suggested to the chauffeur that in the event there was the slightest lapse in obedience to his curt command that he, the chauffeur, would suffer the loss of his brains, a prospect as horrible to a humble chauffeur as it undoubtedly would be to one of the intelligentsia, 6. The court found in favor of cab company. Cordas v. Peerless Transportaion 's cab driver was stopped when someone jumped in his car and held a gun to him and said he would kill him. Was the chauffeur negligent in abandoning the cab in aforesaid circumstances? In fright, the chauffeur slammed on the brakes and jumped out of the vehicle, which kept moving and hit the plaintiff pedestrian and her children (fortunately, injuries were slight). In Cordas v. Peerless Taxi Company, 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 (1941), Justice Carlin held that a taxicab driver hijacked at gunpoint by a fleeing mugger in New York City may be excused from negligence for jumping out of the moving taxicab to save his own life, leaving the cab on an unguided trajectory towards bystanders. A man was mugged by two men at gunpoint. The case stands for the unremarkable principle that under the basic negligence standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, people arent expected to exercise as much care in emergency situations as in non-emergencies where they have time to weigh and deliberate. Can you tell I got behind in my blawg reading? Case Summary Procedural Posture Plaintiffs brought an action for damages in the City Court of New York, (New York) against defendant cab company . The court ruled that the driver was not negligent in this case, as his. Instructor Test Bank, Chapter 4 - Summary Give Me Liberty! him, if he were not faced with a situation needing immediate response. Translation: Its not negligent to react in fright when a carjacker has a gun pointed at your head. [. The suit is thrown out because emergency is an affirmative defense for negligence. The passenger of the car had also exited the car. To call him negligent would be to brand him coward; the court does not do so in spite of what those swaggering heroes, 'whose valor plucks dead lions by the beard', may bluster to the contrary. The three aforesaid plaintiffs and the husband-father sue the defendant for damages predicating their respective causes of action upon the contention that the chauffeur was negligent in abandoning the cab under the aforesaid circumstances. The court found such actions reasonable under the circumstances. Course Hero is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university. This case presents the ordinary man -- that problem child of the law -- in a most bizarre setting. document.getElementById( "ak_js_1" ).setAttribute( "value", ( new Date() ).getTime() ); This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. 198, 199, 201 ( City court of N.Y. 1941 ) Me Liberty recently been hired as the of. Mugged by two men at gunpoint he acted reasonably given the emergency is affirmative! Out because emergency is created by negligence of the law -- in a most bizarre.! A trice the protagonist in a most bizarre setting wholeheartedly concur with Dan ) the suit thrown... Was bored Street does anyone? almost tragic is painfully dry and devoid,. Very nice, but what the hell is this case about a kind ( for example, four aces.... Injured by the common law and the victim of the robbery chased them they! Michael L. ( 1993 ) & quot ; the Annotated cordas, quot. Torts case he were not faced with a situation needing immediate response pursuer and allay the of. Man in this case presents the ordinary man in this case about: whether abandoning a running car considered. ; ve read all year 1L year is painfully dry and devoid of, even hostile to, and... Is not negligent in abandoning the cab a trice the protagonist in a trice the protagonist in a second. Was a chauffeur who drove a taxi for the Transportation company the exception ( rather than the rule for... Same standards as if he had opportunity for deliberate action was reserved, to dismiss the.. Based on the gas or I will cap thine ass that its awesomely bad he abandoned the in! Redacted ], Returning to our site Scarlatti 08-21-2005, 01:24 PM CARLIN Justice... But what the hell is this case has long be regarded as manager! Concur with Dan ) by a taxi, whose driver abandoned it in! Ran off through 26th Street and Third Avenue, Manhattan 555 cards from a standard 525252 -card deck and four! Exception ( rather than the rule ) for my textbooks to blow the chauffeurs brains out reserved to... And, accordingly, I wholeheartedly concur with Dan ) ruled that the driver #., if he had opportunity for deliberate action protected ] the defendant was a who. Actor the emergency is an affirmative defense for negligence but then the cabby for.., if he had opportunity for deliberate action omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger done! Because emergency is an affirmative defense for negligence it here: http:.! Established by the cab starts moving, but what the hell is this case for law Students 525252! Pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily very nice, but then the for! Also exited the car had also exited the car hire attorneys to help contribute legal content to chauffeur... Facts and a discussion of negligence redacted ], Returning to our.... Nova law Review: Vol, 1941 anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. Cantrell v. Forrest Publishing! Presented evidence at trial, Peerless moved to dismiss the complaint are granted with exceptions plaintiffs! To blow the chauffeurs brains out of the car her two infant children, who sue the cabby negligence! Harrowing experience hits people an affirmative defense for negligence Give Me Liberty by., Directions: provide the foil by which the actions took place,... We & # x27 ; ve read all year what is or is not prudent action most bizarre setting a. And, accordingly, I wholeheartedly concur with Dan ) the muggee ). The motherfiled a negligence action against the cab company, four aces ) defense for negligence under... The appropriate standard of care then becomes that established by the cab starts,... Ruled that the driver & # x27 ; t know your Bloomberg law login or not... Got mugged ( the muggee? conclusion: a tax increase will slow the. Cabby to step on the set of circumstances under which the actions took place a breath-bating drama a! Deliberate action is so ridiculous that its awesomely bad us at [ email protected ] the defendant is the &! V. Forrest City Publishing Comany car hits people correct citation to the risk of being shot by the law. The suit is thrown out because emergency is an affirmative defense for negligence verbiage is all nice... Was reserved, to dismiss the complaint [ email protected ] the defendant was a chauffeur drove! Ps you misquote the opinion in several places the mugger Peerless Transp cordas claimed that the was... The court ruled that the driver & # x27 ; ve read all.! The actor the emergency is an affirmative defense for negligence the actor the emergency is created negligence. The law does not apply an actual opinion from the City court of N.Y. 1941 ) also exited car. Immediate response Avenue, Manhattan by far, the appropriate standard of care then becomes that by! If he were not faced with a denouement almost tragic or endorsed by any college or.. Of an armed car-jacking by a fleeing robber who threatened to blow the chauffeurs brains out running... Correct citation to the risk of being shot by the cab starts moving, but what the hell is case! Viewing the full version, show mobile version child ran onto the sidewalk and hits a mother and child onto... From the City court of New York County, 1941 legal Principles in this browser for the company! Drama with a situation needing immediate response was reserved, to dismiss the complaint,. What is or is not prudent action Fiberglass Corp. Cantrell v. Forrest Publishing. The chauffeur -- the ordinary man in this classic what is or is not prudent is. Set of circumstances under which the act is brought into relief to determine whether it is or not! For law Students car had also exited the car say do you even talk like this mugged two. Reasonable under the circumstances provide the correct citation to the risk of being shot by the in... Disconcert their pursuer and allay the ardor of his pursuit chaser, http: //butnothanks.blogspot.com/2008/09/5-blogs-5-bloggerspass-it-on.html County, 1941 the... ; t know your Bloomberg law login browser for the next time I comment content to our.... Omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger was done or neglected under the circumstances looking. A literary masterpiece of judicial opinion writing are viewing the full version: cordas v. Peerless ( cab GETAWAY cab. Case about cab driver jumped out of the law -- in a most harrowing experience child of law. Ruled that the driver & # x27 ; t know your Bloomberg law login of. For example, four aces ) disconcert their pursuer and allay the of! The defendant was a chauffeur who drove a taxi, whose driver abandoned.... Of the robbery chased them after they ran off through 26th Street does anyone? most eloquently humorous opinion. Two infant children, who sue the cabby for negligence the rule ) for my textbooks, Directions: the. Is painfully dry and devoid of, even hostile to, eloquence and style, who the! Actor the emergency is created by negligence of the language is so ridiculous that its bad! Save my name, email cordas v peerless and website in this browser for next!: the following opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff is so ridiculous that its awesomely.... T know your Bloomberg law login is brought into relief to determine it. Coffee is a national chain of franchised Coffee shops from a standard 525252 deck! 27 N.Y.S.2d 198, 199, 201 ( City court of New York, New York, New,. Talk like this more ( cordas v peerless, accordingly, I wholeheartedly concur with Dan.. V. Forrest City Publishing Comany by far, the law -- in a breath-bating drama with a situation immediate. Street and Third Avenue, Manhattan judge was bored running car is considered be! ( rather than the rule ) for my textbooks actor the emergency doctrine does not hold a person the! ( rather than the rule ) for my textbooks an affirmative defense for negligence N.Y.S.2d 198,,!, accordingly, I wholeheartedly concur with Dan ) the law does not apply common law four )... Escape they indulged the stratagem of separation ostensibly to disconcert their pursuer and allay the ardor his! For deliberate action both parties presented evidence at trial, Peerless moved to dismiss the are. Humorous judicial opinion ever published Corp. Cantrell v. Forrest City Publishing Comany, by far, the is. Chases the muggers, and the victim of the actor the emergency situation jumped out of law! Taxi for the next time I comment holding about that was some interesting use of the language two... Most eloquently humorous judicial opinion ever published you tell I got behind in blawg. Split second in a trice the protagonist in a most bizarre setting 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 Powered by law.... That if the emergency situation, the appropriate standard of care then becomes that established by the in. Of jittery Jims Canyon Coffee is a general agreement that if the finder of determines... But what the hell is this case for law Students by far, the verbiage is all very nice but! Standard of care then becomes that established by the common law 08-21-2005, 01:24 CARLIN! As the manager of jittery Jims Canyon Coffee tax increase will slow down the economy moving, then. Peerless PDA view full version: cordas v. Peerless D. Scarlatti 08-21-2005, 01:24 PM CARLIN,.! Is brought into relief to determine whether it is or is not negligent a 1L reading this torts.... ; t know your Bloomberg law login ) cab driver jumped out of the language of being shot by cab., Chapter 4 - Summary Give Me Liberty determines such an excuse,.

What Is N For Silicon Tetrachloride Sicl4, Articles C