Jim Whitney

Jim Whitney

Economics 357

Case brief: template

Case name:

ROBERT RICKARDS, v. SUN OIL COMPANY

Court:

SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Citation; Date:

January 19, 1945, Decided

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Trial court: SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY

Appeal court (if relevant):

Plaintiff:

ROBERT RICKARDS

Appellant:

Defendant:

Sun Oil Company

Respondent:

Facts of the case: All of the plaintiffs operated business establishments in the City of Brigantine, in the County of Atlantic, and State of New Jersey. These establishments ranged from a fishing pier and bar, hotels, cafes, gas station and repair shop, to produce and poultry. They all seek to recover losses from expectant gains. The negligent act of the defendant in crashing into the drawbridge which formed a part of the county highway between the Island of Brigantine and the Island of Absecon, in the County of Atlantic, and the resultant destruction of the bridge and the incident loss of utility of the bridge and the causeway pending reconstruction of the same, and that the said road (and the bridge forming a part thereof) is the only means of egress and ingress by roadway to Brigantine Island are accordingly admitted.

Remedy sought:

Plaintiffs are seeking to recover losses from expected gains. The defendant wishes to strike out the complaint of each defendant.

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):

The court in this case stated that there is a rule that "requires that the damage chargeable to a wrongdoer must be shown to be the natural and proximate effects of his delinquency". In other words, the barge had not been delinquent in regards to the losses of the plaintiffs. The city should have been responsible for taking action and fixing the road in a more timely fashion. It was the city who was responsible for opening up that road again. The barges responsibility had come to rest with its direct damage to the bridge. No ordinary prudent person would have been able to foresee the damages that resulted from the crash into the bridge.

Disposition of case:

There was no actionable negligence in response to the defendants lack of knowledge.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

Due to the fact that no ordinary prudent person could reasonably have been expected to have foreseen the resultant injurious consequences and therefore the defendants didnot have any knowledge of the wrong and resulting damages incurred by the plaintiffs, defendants cannot be held liable. This results in undercompensation. This is an attempt to keep rent seekers from filing suits when there has not been no proximate cause of injury. However, the island merchants were adversely affected by this and thus the defendant is not held liable for all the damages that resulted from his negligence. As a result, the test used by the courts for "natural and proximate" damages is inefficient when applied to cases like this.

Case name:	ROBERT RICKARDS, v. SUN OIL COMPANY
Court:	SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY
Citation; Date:	January 19, 1945, Decided

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Trial court: SUPREME COURT OF NEW JERSEY		Appeal court (if relevant):
Plaintiff:	ROBERT RICKARDS	Appellant:
Defendant:	Sun Oil Company	Respondent:

Facts of the case: All of the plaintiffs operated business establishments in the City of Brigantine, in the County of Atlantic, and State of New Jersey. These establishments ranged from a fishing pier and bar, hotels, cafes, gas station and repair shop, to produce and poultry. They all seek to recover losses from expectant gains. The negligent act of the defendant in crashing into the drawbridge which formed a part of the county highway between the Island of Brigantine and the Island of Absecon, in the County of Atlantic, and the resultant destruction of the bridge and the incident loss of utility of the bridge and the causeway pending reconstruction of the same, and that the said road (and the bridge forming a part thereof) is the only means of egress and ingress by roadway to Brigantine Island are accordingly admitted.


Remedy sought:	Plaintiffs are seeking to recover losses from expected gains. The defendant wishes to strike out the complaint of each defendant.

Court opinion (including key issues and arguments):
The court in this case stated that there is a rule that "requires that the damage chargeable to a wrongdoer must be shown to be the natural and proximate effects of his delinquency". In other words, the barge had not been delinquent in regards to the losses of the plaintiffs. The city should have been responsible for taking action and fixing the road in a more timely fashion. It was the city who was responsible for opening up that road again. The barges responsibility had come to rest with its direct damage to the bridge. No ordinary prudent person would have been able to foresee the damages that resulted from the crash into the bridge.

Disposition of case:
There was no actionable negligence in response to the defendants lack of knowledge.