Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Yania v. Bigan | 155 A.2d 343 (1959)

A person has no general duty of care to rescue another who’s in a position of peril. However, a person may have an affirmative duty to rescue another based on a statute, contractual duty, or special relationship requiring that person to render aid. In the classic 1959 case Yania versus Bigan, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considered whether a coal worker had a duty of care to rescue a business acquaintance who jumped into a deep, water-filled trench at work.3

On September 25th, 1957, John Bigan was operating a coal strip-mining operation in Shade Township, Pennsylvania. On the property being stripped were deep trenches that Bigan had created for purpose of removing coal deposits from underneath the land. One particular trench contained water that was eight to ten feet deep with side walls that were sixteen to eighteen feet high.

At approximately 4:00 p.m. on the same day, Joseph Yania, the operator of another coal strip-mining operation, went onto Bigan’s property to discuss a business matter with him. While on the property, Bigan asked Yania to help him start up a pump to remove the water from the trench. From a distance, Bigan began taunting and enticing Yania to jump into the water in the trench. Tragically, Yania jumped into the trench and drowned.

Subsequently, Yania’s widow brought a wrongful death and survival action against Bigan in the court of common pleas based on negligence. Specifically, Yania’s widow claimed that Bigan was negligent in causing Yania’s death by urging, enticing, taunting, and inveigling Yania to jump into the trench. Additionally, the widow claimed Bigan was negligent in failing to warn Yania of the dangerous condition on the land. Further, Yania’s widow claimed Bigan breached a duty of care by failing to rescue Yania after he jumped into the trench.

In response, Bigan filed a demurrer, claiming that the complaint didn’t state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The court of common pleas agreed and dismissed the complaint. Yania’s widow then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть