Tort Law: Bridron V. Waldron

It is New Year's Eve. Brenda and Carl are neighbors, Carl had a New Year's Eve party at his house and when the New Year arrived, Carl and his friends shot illegal fireworks in the air. The one Carl shot malfunctioned and burned down Brenda's garden. In this case Brenda suffered a loss (her garden), Carl inflicted that loss with his negligent behavior, as neighbors Carl had a duty to not allow his negligence to affect Brenda and because this duty was violated Brenda saw fit to sue for her loss. I rule that he has to replace the garden by paying Brenda 350$. Waldron would approve of this ruling because Brenda is not asking for an unreasonable number, she is only receiving what she lost. Waldron’s critique on tort law is that sometimes it is a matter of luck and the person being sued is faced with a greater punishment than what they deserve. My ruling would avoid Waldron’s critique because Brenda is strictly receiving enough money to replace what she lost.

David’s great grandfather gave him a an old watch but the hands did not work.

Fiona was a friend of David and told him she could fix it. Fiona misplaced the watch so David decided to sue Fiona. I have ruled that Fiona is liable for the misplacing the watch and therefore must pay David 500,000$. It is appropriate that Fiona should be found liable because she was responsible for the watch after she agreed to fix it. Waldron would find this case unjust because the exact price of the watch is not 500,000$. Even though people lose things all the time under these circumstances that watch was of special value. I have ruled that Fiona is liable for the 500,000$ because the price of the watch does not determine the value to David, it was a family heirloom and held sentimental

value.
Even though Carl is the reason the garden caught fire, Carl is not the reason why it spread and destroyed the whole garden. Brenda’s garden appeared to be dying and some plants were dry and malnourished. If all of the plants were healthy, then Carl might be liable to pay 350$ but this is not the case. Carl should not have to pay for the dead plants, and furthermore he should not have to pay for the damage that these dead plants caused. Brenda’s negligence to her own garden was the cause of its demise. Carl should not have to pay the 350$ for a new garden when it was already dead and these dry plants caused the destruction of the whole garden, not Carl’s negligence. Therefore Carl is not liable.
You said Carl should not have to pay for the “dead plants” but malnourishment is not contagious, the dead plants did not “cause” the destruction, the fire did, the dry plants only spread it, but without the fire there is no destruction.