Akaki Skhirtladze LGST-101 02/06/13 Eckert v.

LIRR Procedural History: At first, before the evidence of child being in danger came up, the judge granted denial of motion due to the negligence of the plaintiff. When the evidence came, the case proceeded to the trial court, where the jury decided in favor of the plaintiff. Next the case went to the appellate court, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Facts: There was a train rapidly approaching in the direction of the defendant, who was located near the train tracks (50 ft away), and talking to someone. The train was approaching at 12~20 mph and the cow-catcher was located next to the train so that he wouldnt be able to remove any obstacles, had there been some on the train tracks. However, a little child of 3~4 yrs. of age was on the tracks and would have likely been crashed by the approaching train. The defendant tried to save the child from death by running onto the tracks and throwing the child away from the danger zone. However, he was the one caught by the approaching train, that gave him serious injuries from which he died the same night. The defendant argued that the train was moving at no more than 7~8 mph and that the child was sitting on different tracks, not the ones that the train was moving on. Questions: Was the train speeding? Should the denial of motion be granted on the grounds of defendants negligence? Was the plaintiff negligent? Did the plaintiff commit the act out of his free will with full awareness of possible consequences? Rules of Law: For a person engage din ordinary affairs, or in mere protection of property, knowingly and voluntarily to place himself in a position in which he is liable to receive a serious injury is negligence. Negligence implies some act of commission or omission wrongful in itself.

No one can maintain an action for a wrong, when he consents or contributes to the act which occasions his loss. One who with liberty of choice, and knowledge of the hazard of injury, places himself in position of danger, does so at his own peril, and must take the consequences of his act. Reasoning: The defendant tried to save a human life, while also hoping to preserve his own and therefore was not negligent. He committed his acts out of free will and therefore should not blame others for the consequences of his own actions. Holding and Disposition arent given for this court. Dissents / Concurrences: Justice Groovers position is not explicitly stated, but it looks like he agrees with the judgment of the lower courts. Justice Allen dissented. Comment: I agree with Justice Groovers reasoning and I think the judgment should be affirmed.