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
DONNELLY, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion, the answer to the problem presented in this case lies in 2 Restatement, Law of Torts, Second, § 302 B. It reads as follows:
Ҥ 302 B. Risk of Intentional or Criminal Conduct
“An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the conduct of the other or a third person which is intended to cause harm, even though such conduct is criminal.”
*291 I would adopt the rule of liability stated in § 302 B, supra, and would reverse and remand the cause to permit plaintiff to seek recovery under said section. Zimmerman v. Associates Discount Corporation, 444 S.W.2d 396 (Mo.banc 1969).
I respectfully dissent.