Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

270 A.2d 173

Bennett v. Andree

Supreme Court of Delaware

Decided October 7, 1970

Supreme Court of Delaware · decided 1970-10-07

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We think it advisable, however, to note our disagreement with the comment made in the opinion below that ‘the presumption was treated as evidence’ in [Odgers v. Clark.) As we read that case, the significant holding was that there was no evidence whatever to show any negligence on the part of the deceased, but ample evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Staats ex rel. Staats v. Lawrence

Relies on Odgers v. Clark · Bennett v. Andree

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1970-10-07

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 2003

3 state decisions

101970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 The appellant, widow and administratrix of John N. Bennettt, III, brought an action in Superior Court against William C. An-dree and Libby McNeill and Libby, An-dree’s employer, for damages resulting from the collision of a truck driven by Mr. Bennett and another truck driven by M!r. An-dree. The jury found for the defendants. The plaintiff below has appealed, alleging error in the charge, in that the trial Judge declined to tell the jury that a presumption of due care existed in favor of the deceased. Instead, he charged to the effect that negligence is never presumed, but must be proven; that the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove defendants’ negligence; and that the burden was upon the defendants to prove negligence on the part of the deceased. In an opinion reported in 264 A.2d 353, the trial Judge set forth the pertinent facts and the reasons for his ruling. We agree with his conclusion for the reasons assigned by him.

¶2 We think it advisable, however, to note our disagreement with the comment made in the opinion below that “the presumption was treated as evidence” in Odgers v. Clark, Del.Super., 2 Terry 232, 19 A.2d 724 (1941). As we read that case, the significant holding was that there was no evidence whatever to show any negligence on the part of the deceased, but ample evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant.

¶3 The judgment below will be affirmed.

/270/a2d/173 · .json · Public domain