University:
University College London
Course:
LAWS0013 | Tort Law
Academic year:

2021
Views:

202

Pages:

1
Author:

ilikemyicons0y5

Van Camp v. McAfoos (Iowa Ct of Appeals, 1968) Parties: Van Camp was hit on leg by tricycle. McAfoos is 3 year old tricycle rider. Facts: McAfoos drove tricycle into rear of P on public sidewalk, striking her right leg and injuring her Achilles’ tendon. Procedural History: Trial ct sustained D’s motion to dismiss bc not alleged D was negligent, willful, or wrongful. Issue: Does P have a cause of action? Parties Arguments: P says has right to be on public sidewalk without being harmed. Mark must be liable bc he struck her and P says its liability without fault. Rule: Usually π must prove (by a preponderance of the evidence) three basic elements 1. Injury to π 2. Causation (𝚫’s action caused π’s injury) 3. Fault (𝚫’s injurious action was wrong/breached a duty) Holding: No, P has no cause of action. Reasoning: Ct has not extended liability without fault to acts by children. Fault must be discernible in pleading and proof. Mark’s action based on the story was not intentionally wrongful or negligent. P’s lawyer does not allege Mark intended to hit her and this is too hard to prove since it was likely an accident. Ct is trying to distinguish between accidents and intentional acts. Disposition: Case dismissed.