What is LawBrain?
It's a living legal community making laws accessible and interactive. Click Here to get Started »

Adams v. Bullock

From lawbrain.com

Adams v. Bullock, 125 N.E. 93 (N.Y. 1919), is a classic torts [1] case helping to define reasonable care and foreseeable risk.

  • This LawBrain entry is about a case that is commonly studied in law school. You can find, contribute to, and create other common 1L, 2L, and 3L cases in the Law School Cases category. And you can use the Opinon tab above to discuss hypos. For more information on editing, visit the LawBrain edit help page.


Summary of Case Facts

Plaintiff was walking across the defendants trolley line on a bridge when he was swinging a wire that came into contact with the trolley wire and was shocked and injured.


Whether the defendant in reasonable care and foresight should have abandoned the overhead system?

Holding and Law

There is no evidence that the defendant did not adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize injury. Defendant was in lawful exercise of his franchise & the plaintiff was found to not be exercising ordinary care. To hold the defendant liable would be treating him as insurer. Defendant should be held to anticipate was it usual rather than what is exceptional.

Related Cases and Resources on LawBrain


FindLaw AHK, FindLaw LES