holding that negligence may be predicated on the foreseeable acts of third persons
How later courts described this case
- holding that negligence may be predicated on the foreseeable acts of third persons
- duty to prevent injury when defendant knew of vicious propensities of third person and fact that third person knew of a loaded gun kept in the home of the defendant
- discussing the distinction between ultimate facts and proof of “the facts or circumstances by which the ultimate facts will be established”
- “The reasonable anticipation of danger is an essential element of actionable negligence; and whether negligence exists in a particular situation depends on whether or not a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated danger and provided against it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bergmann v. United States, 526 F. Supp. 443 (1981)
The defendant contends that Scheibel is distinguishable from the case before this Court because it involved principles of negligence for landowners.
The opinion
HENLEY, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Plaintiffs petition, alleging as it does that defendant “kept a loaded shotgun as protection [for herself and her home] from Joyner,” negates any possible inference that Joyner was a guest she brought into her home, a guest invited in violation of her duty to exercise due care to avoid subjecting others to the danger she knew Joyner’s presence would present.
The only inference the quoted portion of the petition supports is that Joyner was an unexpected trespasser; not a guest. I say that because it is contrary to all experience that defendant would invite into her home a person against whom she saw fit to protect it with a shotgun.
I would hold that the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.