Pichelman v. Barfknecht
Issue: Should Arnold and Sylvia Barfknecht have been convicted of a negligent tort against Betty Pichelman?
Rule: A negligent tort involves the failure to exercise reasonable care to protect another’s person or property. It wouldn’t qualify for an intentional tort because Arnold and Sylvia did not willfully take actions that were likely to cause injury. Duty, Branch of Duty, Causation, and Damages are all required in order for a plaintiff to prove negligence of a defendant. The reasonable person standard, which the courts use to determine whether or not an individual owes a duty of care to another, states that the courts generally hold that landowners have a duty of care to protect individuals on their…show more content… Anyone providing a service to a home should be equally protect, which Betty was doing. Due to the fact that Betty was a social friend of the Barfknechts, it is questionable as to whether or not she should have been considered a social guest when entering the premises. If she had been considered a social guest, the courts would have made an exception against statute 895.52. the courts failed to find a duty that Sylvia and Arnold owed Betty and if there is no existing duty, then no legal liability can take place on account of negligence. Betty was unable to provide a breach of duty. This same situation occurred in Roland C. Feichtner v. City of Cleveland Et. Al. Feichtner filed a negligence claim against Cleveland and five construction companies, but was unable to establish a duty. Therefore, he lost his case.
Conclusion: Sylvia and Arnold are not held liable for a negligent tort against Betty because even though they didn’t warn her of unsafe conditions on their property, she simply wasn’t involved in a recreational activity upon entering their premises.
1. I am surprised by the verdict. I would have fully expected Betty to win this case as she was injured by a wild animal. I would have expected that Sylvia and Arnold would have a duty towards her to keep their property safe, even though she wasn’t involved in a recreational activity.
2. The main lesson to be learned in this case is to be