Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/164

 THEORY AND DOCTRINE OF TORT

141

party") of intent to harm as the only ele omitted, something which in itself and on ment of wrongfulness, B (or the stranger its face, or with its result, was a breach of in the belladona case) is prima facie liable legal duty. As these remarks indicate, the to A. The motive of B would be immaterial. illegality of the act or omission is sometimes In some cases of the kind, the motive might dependent upon damage resulting, some conceivably be good; as where in the case of times not. the chandelier, the article being light in There is still another class of cases, in weight and of little value, was unsafely hung to fall on and slightly hurt A as a which the defendant's conduct was in no warning to him to be careful, where he had ordinary, and indeed in no proper, sense been careless, in attending to the lamps. wrongful, and yet because of the special But that would make no difference. B danger attending or following it, it is thought would have to justify in this and the other proper that he should be liable for any cases, if he could, by facts bringing him damage which may result. In other words, he is justified if no damage follows; his acts within some special rule of law. are at his peril. Finally stripping away malice, negligence, wrongful means — everything necessary in § 4. CLASSIFICATION OF BREACHES OF DUTY IN TORT. other cases to turn rightful into wrongful conduct — it is plain that all that will be In accordance with the foregoing line of left will be cases in which there can be thought the classification of breaches of duty nothing lawful in the defendant's conduct in tort may be put fundamentally as follows : so far as his conduct itself, or his conduct Breach of duty (in connection with other together with its consequences, is concerned. ingredients) by, The defendant was not doing or omitting I. Wrongful Means. anything which, apart from the way of II. Negligence. doing or omitting it, was lawful —- he was III. Malice. doing or omitting what in itself, or with its IV. Illegal Acts. consequences, was unlawful. The plain V. Damage from Acts at Peril. tiff no longer has to show that the defendant Thus, the unfolding of the conception of was inspired by an evil motive,*or that he legal right, with which we started, spreads failed to exercise care, or skill, or diligence, out into the whole law of torts. or that he resorted to wrongful measures; BOSTON, MASS., February, 1906 he simply shows that the defendant did, or