Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Weaver v. Ward

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast "What you need to know"

CaseCast –  "What you need to know"

play_circle_filled
pause_circle_filled
Weaver v. Ward
volume_down
volume_up
volume_off

    Brief Fact Summary. Ward (Defendant) and Weaver (Plaintiff), both soldiers, were skirmishing with muskets when Defendant’s musket accidentally fired, injuring Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought an action of trespass of assault and battery against Defendant.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law. An inevitable accident is a defense to trespass.

    Facts. Plaintiff and Defendant were both soldiers. They were skirmishing with their muskets when Defendant’s musket accidentally discharged, injuring Plaintiff. Plaintiff brought an action of trespass of assault and battery against Defendant. Judgment was given for Plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

    Issue. Is an inevitable accident enough to constitute a trespass?

    Held. No.
    * Defendant claimed that Plaintiff ran into the musket when it was discharging. It appeared to the Court that the discharge and injury to Plaintiff had been inevitable. Defendant had committed no negligence to give occasion to the hurt.

    Points of Law - for Law School Success

    A claim of constitutional error that focuses only on the State's post-conviction remedy and not the judgment which provides the basis for the applicant's incarceration states no cognizable federal habeas claim.

    View Full Point of Law
    Discussion. The court does not define what is meant by an inevitable accident. Here, Defendant did not act negligently, nor did he possess an intent to harm.


    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following