Photo by Paul Downy, Flickr, CC-BY license

Introduction to the Case

By Professor Lea Bishop

In the case that follows, Gary Garrison is seriously injured when he falls off of dumping ramp operated by the city.

The city had done nothing to make sure that citizens using the dump knew about the risk of a very bad fall. Not even warning signs.

On the other hand, the danger was pretty obvious to the naked eye. Gary admits that he perceived the danger.

What are your intuitive reactions?

Was the city negligent?
Should the city compensate Gary?
What personal perspectives shape your intuitive reactions?

Key Questions

Every case and hypothetical within the negligence unit, offers us an important opportunity to review and reinforce our understanding of all the elements previously covered: DUTY, BREACH, & CAUSE.

As you read Garrison v. City of Deschutte, keep these questions in mind:

DUTY

This part of an opinion will almost always use the word "duty." Look for a special relationship between the two parties.

Does the city owe a duty of care to Garrison?
Where do you see the rule that answers this question?
Does the city have an absolute duty to make the dump safe?
What exactly was the city's duty toward Garrison?
Is the duty higher or lower because Garrison is on city land?

BREACH

This is the "should have" part of the plaintiff's argument. This part of an opinion will almost always use the phrase "reasonable person" or "ordinary care."

Once you know what the city's duty was... did the city breach it?
What should the city have done differently, according to the law?

CAUSATION

A common mistake lawyers can make is to ask too loosely whether D's (in)actions caused the injury. Be careful: the defendant's BREACH of its duty must be the CAUSE of the plaintiff's injury.

Did the city's breach of its duty cause Garrison's injury? Why (not)?
If causation is supposed to be a jury question, why was summary judgement was appropriate in this particular case?

Fact Less, Law More

Tips for finding the rule(s) within a case:

Flag words: standard, doctrine, test, rule, precedent, common-law
The opinion is quoting a prior precedent or a treatise like Prosser
Abstract language not specific to the story of these parties.

Garrison v. Deschutes City

Supreme Court of Oregon (2002) (334 Or. 264)

[P]laintiffs contended that the county had a duty to warn of any known dangerous condition on its land and had failed to do so.

The trial court rejected plaintiffs ‘failure-to-warn claim, based on what the court termed a “lack of causation.”

The court observed that the danger was open and obvious and, in light of plaintiffs’ deposition testimony that they were well aware of the risk, the failure to warn did not expose them to any greater risk of harm than would have been present had they been warned.

Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no genuine issue of fact or evidence in the record from which a reasonable juror could have found that there was a causal link of any kind between the failure to warn and the accident that befell Garrison.

[T]he Court of Appeals agreed that the danger was an obvious one, that plaintiffs were fully aware of the danger, and, consequently, that the absence of a warning did not expose plaintiffs to any greater risk of harm than if they had been warned.

A private landowner or occupier of land in a position similar to the county’s would be required to take care to protect patrons on the premises from injuries resulting from known, dangerous conditions on the premises or, at least, to warn them of the danger. Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or. 548, 557-58 (1984). The court there stated:

In general, it is the duty of the possessor of land to make the premises reasonably safe for the invitee’s visit. The possessor must exercise the standard of care above stated to discover conditions of the premises that create an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee.

The possessor must exercise that standard of care either to eliminate the condition creating that risk or to warn any foreseeable invitee of the risk so as to enable the invitee to avoid the harm.

The Court of Appeals concluded that, on the undisputed evidence in this case, there was no causal link between the county’s failure to warn and the injuries that befell plaintiffs.

That conclusion is well supported by the evidence that plaintiffs were fully aware of the danger presented by the drop-off and the lack of a barrier at the edge of the platform.

In the present case, the evidence on summary judgment establishes that the county’s failure to warn did not expose plaintiffs to any greater risk of harm than if they had been warned.

Plaintiffs testified at length at their depositions that they had used the transfer station before, that they knew of and always had been concerned about the drop-off and the lack of a protective barrier at the edge of the platform, and that they had discussed the importance of being careful not to fall.

Given that testimony, no reasonable juror could find that a warning would have made a difference. The Court of Appeals was correct in so holding. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.

Descriptive Understanding Check

What rule defines the city's duty toward Garrison?
What must the city do to fulfill that duty?
Did the city breach that duty?
Did the city's breach CAUSE Garrison's injury? Why or why not?
What made summary judgment appropriate in this case?

Normative Critique

Did this outcome feel just to you? Why or why not?

Would you rather see a rule that duty + negligence + injury = compensation, without the requirement of causation?

Should the possessor's standard of care be higher when we are talking about a store or a government facility, rather than someone's home? Give some reasons for and against.

DUTY -> BREACH -> CAUSE

Notice how many (in)actions on the city's part contributed to the fall:

The city's decision to build the ramp
The city's decision to let amateurs do their own dumping
The placement of the railroad tie so close to the fall zone
The lack of fences or other safety devices
The lack of written warnings about the risk of a fall

But only ONE of these is BREACH of the possessor's DUTY to warn visitors of dangers, following common law precedent.

Remember, the DUTY's BREACH must CAUSE the injury.