Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt

Question: Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 24 cubic feet per minute, and its coarseness is such that it forms a pile in the shape of a cone whose height is double the base diameter. While he was in this position, the machinery was started from the top of the hill and plaintiff was carried into a hopper where he was severely battered. See J. C. Penney Company v. Livingston, Ky., 271 S. 2d 906. 811:"Knowledge of the presence of children is shown by proof that children were in the habit of playing on or about the offending appliance or place. We held that the question should be submitted to the jury as to whether or not the defendant was negligent in maintaining a dangerous instrumentality so exposed that the defendant could reasonably anticipate that it would cause injury to children. It is not our province to decide this question. It follows that the absence of knowledge of such a habit relieves a party of the duty to anticipate or foresee the presence of reckless or careless trespassers in a place of danger. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 24 cubic feet per minute, and its coarseness is such that it forms a pile in the shape of a cone whose height is double the base diameter. How | Homework.Study.com. Unlimited access to all gallery answers. On its premises is a lengthy conveyor belt for transporting coal from a bin to a tipple. Without difficulty a person could enter the housing. The uncovered part, or hole, was obstructed by a wall of crossties. The appellee plaintiff, an infant seven years of age, was seriously injured on a moving conveyor belt operated by defendant appellant. There is no evidence in this case that defendant knew, or should have known, that trespassing children were likely to be upon this part of its premises, or that it realized, or should have realized, that the opening in the housing of the conveyor belt at this place involved reasonable risk of harm to children. Become a member and unlock all Study Answers.

Gravel is dropped on a conveyor belt
Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of
Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 30
Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt replica

Gravel Is Dropped On A Conveyor Belt

Defendant is a coal operator. Answer and Explanation: 1. Still have questions? 2, Section 339 (page 920); 65 C. J. S. Clover Fork Coal Company v. Daniels :: 1960 :: Kentucky Court of Appeals Decisions :: Kentucky Case Law :: Kentucky Law :: US Law :: Justia. Negligence § 28, page 453; and 1 Thompson on Negligence, Section 1030 (page 944). He will carry the unattractive imprint of this injury the rest of his life. The particular rule of foreseeability in a case like this is thus stated in 38, Negligence, sec. In the Mann case there was accessibility to a place of danger and there had been frequency of use of this place in the past, and obviously it could reasonably be anticipated that children might extend their play activity out on the tracks and one or more of them would be injured.

See Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. The plaintiff's head has permanent scars and depressions in the skull and hair will not grow in certain places. The machinery was operated from a point at the top of the structure, and the operator could not see the lower end at the bottom of the hill. Check the full answer on App Gauthmath.

Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt At A Rate Of

Within in the framework of this rule the Teagarden decision (Teagarden v. 2d 18) was justified on the grounds (1) the danger was not so exposed as to present the likelihood of injury, and (2) the defendant could not reasonably anticipate the presence of children on this car at the time of the accident. The Mann case, on which this opinion rests (first appeal, Mann v. Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R. R. Co., Ky., 290 S. 2d 820, and second appeal, Kentucky & Indiana Terminal R. Co. v. Mann, Ky., 312 S. 2d 451), presented facts materially different from those set forth in the instant case. I dissent from the opinion upon the broad ground that it departs from the established law of this state and, in effect, makes a possessor of property an insurer of the safety of children trespassing anywhere and everywhere on industrial premises, if there is slight evidence that a child had once been seen near the place of his injury. Rice, Harlan, for appellant. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing December 2, 1960. Yet defendant's own witnesses clearly established that they could be anticipated at various places near the conveyor or belt and defendant constantly tried to keep them away from other parts of the premises where they might be exposed to danger. Helton & Golden, Pineville, H. M. Brock & Sons, Harlan, for appellee. Solved] Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 15... | Course Hero. Those factors distinguish the Teagarden case from the present one. I do not regard this statement as being in accord with the principles recited in the Restatement of Law of Torts, Vol. However there was evidence that children occasionally had been seen playing near the housing at the bottom of the hill. The opinion states that "children occasionally had been seen playing near the housing at the bottom of the hill, " but that only one witness testified he had once seen a child on the belt in the housing. At the upper or covered end of the conveyor belt housing there was a roadway where it could well be said the presence of boys and other people should have been anticipated, but that cannot be said of the lower end. It is to be noticed that the several clauses with respect to liability of the possessor of land are cumulative, being connected by "and. "

In that case the terminal tracks of a railroad bisected a public street in Louisville which was unfenced; switching operations were going on continually on the tracks; and many persons crossed over the tracks to reach the other end of the street. Crop a question and search for answer. In Lyttle v. Harlan Town Coal Co., 167 Ky. 345, 180 S. 519, also cited in support of the Mann opinion, liability was based upon knowledge of a "habit" of children to play at the location where the injury was sustained. It is true we cannot know how this injury may affect his earning ability. How fast is the height of the pile increasing when the pile is 10 ft high? The factual situation may be summarized. Court of Appeals of Kentucky. CLOVER FORK COAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Grant DANIELS, Guardian for and on Behalf of Danny Lee Daniels, an Infant, Appellee. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of. We solved the question! Now, find the volume of this cone as a function of the height of the cone. But this was 175 feet above the other end where this child crawled into the opening. His principal argument on this point is that the evidence failed to establish that children habitually played near the housing where *213 the injury occurred, so defendant could not anticipate an injury. This Court rejected the attractive nuisance theory of liability, which was sought to be applied in that case.

Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt At A Rate Of 30

I take exception to this statement of the law contained in the opinion: "There is no requirement of the law that before the doctrine of dangerous instrumentality may be applied children must be shown habitually to have been present at the exact point of danger. It means usually or customarily or enough to put a party on guard. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 30. Dissenting Opinion Filed December 2, 1960. The jury awarded plaintiff $50, 000. The recently developed doctrine of liability for injuries to young children trespassing upon property is applicable, as stated in the opinion, to a "dangerous instrumentality. "

There was evidence, as the opinion states, that children had often been seen on the hill near the upper end of the conveyor belt housing. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt replica. We may accept defendant's contention that the evidence failed to show many children often played around the point of the accident. A small child strayed from one of these open streets onto the tracks and was injured by a shunted boxcar. In that case a very young child strayed into defendant's railroad yard and was run over by a shunted tank car.

Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt Replica

In the first Mann opinion, 290 S. 2d 820, 823, in support of the decision of this Court to impose liability there for maintaining a dangerous condition, the opinion relies upon this statement from 38, Negligence, sec. A number of children lived on streets that opened on the tracks. More than that, the jury ignored even the law given for their guidance in this case; for their verdict is contrary to the instruction submitted since there was no evidence that children habitually played on the dangerous instrumentality, or even around it. It seems indisputable that the conveyor belt, exposed and unprotected, constituted a latent danger. Our factual situation more closely approaches that in the Mann case (Kentucky and Indiana Terminal Railroad Company v. 2d 451). I am authorized to state that MONTGOMERY, J., joins me in this dissent. Answer: feet per minute. An adverse psychological effect reasonably may be inferred. The opinion refers to this indefinite evidence as showing their playing there to have been "occasionally. "

It has been said that if the place or appliance does not possess a quality constituted to attract children generally, the owner of the premises may not reasonably anticipate injury unless it is shown that they customarily frequent the vicinity of the danger. Feedback from students. The opinion practically concedes the soundness of the objection but places defendant's liability upon the conclusion that children were "known to visit the general vicinity of the instrumentality. The briefs for both parties were exceptional. ) It was indeed a trap. That he was seriously injured no one can question. It is insisted, however, that the area sometimes frequented by them was 175 feet up the hill from the point where the plaintiff was injured. Gauthmath helper for Chrome. Related Rates - Expii. Defendant's operation was not in a populated area, as was the situation in the Mann case. Now we will use volume of cone formula. This involves principles stemming from the "attractive nuisance" doctrine.

Does the answer help you? Here, the jury passed upon the case under the wrong law, and it is fundamental that a jury should be required to decide the facts according to the true law applicable. Clover Fork Coal Company v. DanielsAnnotate this Case.