Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt

You need to enable JavaScript to run this app. The jury awarded plaintiff $50, 000. Defendant's operation was not in a populated area, as was the situation in the Mann case. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 40 cubic feet per minute It forms a pile in the shape of a right circular cone whose base diameter and height are always equal How fast is the height of the pile increasing when the pile is 19 feet high Recall that the volume of a right circular cone with height h and radius of the baser is given by 1 V r h ft. Show Answer. When the hopper at the bottom of the car was opened for unloading, he was dragged downward and killed. The words, "general vicinity, " cover the entire premises, and that connotation embraces too much territory. If children ever played at the place near the lower end of the conveyor, the instances were extremely infrequent. That is exactly what the plaintiff did. At the upper or covered end of the conveyor belt housing there was a roadway where it could well be said the presence of boys and other people should have been anticipated, but that cannot be said of the lower end.

1. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 35 ft^3/min..? HELP!?
2. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt at a rate of 10 ft^3 / min?
3. Gravel is being dumped from a conveyor belt...?

Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt At A Rate Of 35 Ft^3/Min..? Help!?

It is such a fact and the imputed knowledge therefrom which give rise to foreseeability or anticipation. In view of the principles of law we have discussed in this opinion, we are of the opinion this instruction fairly presented the issue of negligence (although it might properly have been differently worded), and we cannot find it was prejudicially erroneous. Diameter {eq}=D {/eq}. It was indeed a trap. See Restatement of the Law of Torts, Vol. Since radius is half the diameter, so radius of cone would be. Become a member and unlock all Study Answers.

Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt At A Rate Of 10 Ft^3 / Min?

We held that the question should be submitted to the jury as to whether or not the defendant was negligent in maintaining a dangerous instrumentality so exposed that the defendant could reasonably anticipate that it would cause injury to children. It was also shown that children had played on the conveyor belt after working hours. It was also held there that the operator owed no duty to look into the car to discover the presence of any one before starting the machinery. Unlimited access to all gallery answers. A child went into that hole to hide from his playmates. See J. C. Penney Company v. Livingston, Ky., 271 S. 2d 906. That he was seriously injured no one can question. It is elementary that a jury is bound to accept and apply the law of the given instructions, whether right or wrong. It follows that the absence of knowledge of such a habit relieves a party of the duty to anticipate or foresee the presence of reckless or careless trespassers in a place of danger.

Gravel Is Being Dumped From A Conveyor Belt...?

Dissenting Opinion Filed December 2, 1960. 24, this quotation appears:"Foresight or reasonable anticipation is the standard of diligence, and precaution a duty where there is reason for apprehension. Does the answer help you? Last updated: 1/6/2023. That certainly cannot be said to be the law as laid down in the Mann case. Put the value of rate of change of volume and the height of the cone and simplify the calculations. The factual situation may be summarized.

Try it nowCreate an account. Defendant raises a question about variance between pleading and proof which we do not consider significant. I think that case is much in point here, and it seems to me the reasoning that governed its decision applies to the instant case. Defendant's insistence upon the requirement that plaintiff must prove a habit of children to frequent the housing is predicated on the assumption that the dangerous condition was not attractive to children. If children are known to visit the general vicinity of the instrumentality, then the owner of the premises may reasonably anticipate that one of them will find his way to the exposed danger. Of course, a place may well be in and of itself a dangerous place (as in the Mann case), but here the instrument was conveying machinery. He will carry the unattractive imprint of this injury the rest of his life. It is true we cannot know how this injury may affect his earning ability. Defendant's counsel does not otherwise contend. The defendant earnestly argues that since the instruction given required the jury to find a "habit" of children to play upon and around the belt and machinery at the point of the accident, it could not properly return a verdict for plaintiff under this instruction because this "habit" was not sufficiently shown. Only one witness testified he had ever seen a child on the belt in the housing.

Mon, 20 May 2024 00:30:11 +0000