The Peterson Problem: Editing Exercise

Rewrite the following statements. Consider whether something is missing, if the writer includes unnecessary information, or if the language is confusing.

a. The issue that we must explore in this case is the question whether the father is responsible for the injuries resulting from his son's misuse of hammer.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

b. In addressing the liability of David Peterson, in whether there is negligence as to injuries Phil Aarons suffering or not.

_________________________________________________________________

c. The current issue in the case of Peterson is whether David's father is liable for the actions of his son David, Jr., for injuring the defendant, a minor, Phil

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

d. In Smith v. Allen, which is about injuries occurred to plaintiff Judith Smith, age nine years, in result of Co-defendant Jimmy Allen's, age eleven years activity with a golf club lying in backyard.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

e. David Peterson is liable and legally responsible for his eleven years old son's negligence.

__________________________________________________________________

f. The case of Smith v. Allen is extremely consistent to our analysis of the legal question given because it has certain similarities with the case of David Peterson

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

g. In the case studied, the legal reasoning cannot lead to Smith v. Allen

__________________________________________________________________

h. Storing instruments in the basement of the suburban house is common because in every house could appear different small breakages that can be fixed by using the tools stored in the house.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

i. The reasoning used in the Smith case should be used in this case because David Jr.'s actions were also unforeseeable by Mr. Peterson and the tools used by David Jr. are not obviously and intrinsically dangerous neither.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

j. The court held that James Allen will not be held liable as James Allen was not negligent on his part, because golf club cannot cause harm to someone.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

k. We regard Smith as unpersuasive.

__________________________________________________________________

l. Comparing the factual matrices of the two cases in question, i.e., Smith v. Allen and the Peterson case, it is clear that the cases, while similar, are not analogous. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at in Smith v. Allen, cannot be arrived at in the Peterson case.

__________________________________________________________________

m. Peterson cannot be held liable as his actions were reasonable and tools which are properly stored cannot be considered as cause of action.

Smith v. Allen (precedent) Judith Smith alleges that James Allen owned a golf club which he left lying on the ground in the backyard of his home. On April 12, 2005, his son the co-defendant Jimmy Allen, age eleven years, was playing in the yard with the plaintiff, Judith Smith, age nine years. Jimmy picked up the golf club and proceeded to swing at a stone lying on the ground. In swinging the golf club, Jimmy caused the club to strike the plaintiff about the jaw and chin. Smith alleges that Jimmy Allen was negligent since he failed to warn her of his intention to swing the club and he swung the club when he knew she was in a position of danger. Smith also alleges that James Allen was negligent and that he is liable for his son's actions. She alleges that although Allen knew the golf club was on the ground in his backyard and that his child would play with it, and that although he knew or \"should have known\" that the negligent use of the golf club by children would cause injury to a child, he neglected to remove the golf club from the backyard or to caution Jimmy against the use of the golf club. James Allen demurred, challenging the sufciency of the complaint to state a cause of action or to support a judgment against him. The demurrer is sustained. A person has a duty to protect others against unreasonable risks. A person who breaches this duty is negligent and liable for injuries resulting from his negligence. No person, however, can be expected to guard against harm from events which are not reasonably to be anticipated at all, or are so unlikely to occur that the risk, although recognizable, would commonly be disregarded. Agolf club is not so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligence to leave it lying on the ground in the yard. Unlike a knife, for example, it is not commonly used as a weapon. Thus, the father cannot be held liable on the allegations of this complaint.[l] Peterson Problem David Peterson stored a tool chest on the floor in the basement of his suburban home. In it he kept three screwdrivers, two wrenches, a hammer and several boxes of nails. Last Tuesday afternoon, his eleven-year-old son, David, Jr., and a nine-year-old neighbor, Phil Aarons, were playing knock hockey in the basement. Their exertions were so strenuous they knocked the side rail loose from the baseboard. Phil, who was losing, was glad. He was tired of playing knock hockey and wanted to play with David's trains. David, however, wanted to continue the match. Spotting his father's tool chest lying on the floor in the corner, he decided to x the board. He took a hammer and a large nail out of the chest and, while Phil was playing with the train set, quietly set about repairing the damage. At rst the work went well. He placed the nail at the joint and hit it rmly on the head. It pierced the wood and held rm. Then disaster struck. On the next hammer blow, the nail ew out from the wood and struck Phil in the face, chipping his two front teeth, bloodying his nose, and gashing his cheek