Wright v. Standard Oil Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
470 F.2d 1280 (1972)
- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Albert and Grace Wright (plaintiffs) were visiting relatives. Albert took their five-year-old son, Douglas, across a nearby highway on foot to a small grocery store and left Douglas alone there. Douglas attempted to cross the highway alone and was hit by a Standard Oil Company (defendant) truck. Douglas was severely injured and left paraplegic. The Wrights filed suit, seeking damages for Douglas’s injuries. The driver (defendant) was found negligent, but Albert was also found contributorily negligent for not properly supervising Douglas. The trial court awarded damages related to Douglas’s medical care, both for direct medical expenses and for Grace’s loss of income from becoming Douglas’s caregiver, and for loss of Douglas’s earnings, divided equally between Albert and Grace. It then reduced these awards by two-thirds (the amount of Albert’s contributory negligence) on the reasoning that Albert, as the father, had the sole right to collect damages for Douglas’s medical expenses because a father is primarily legally responsible for the support of a minor child. The Wrights appealed the trial court’s decision on the grounds that Grace had a legally protected interest independent of Albert.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ingraham, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.