Running head: CASE REVIEW

CASE REVIEW
Alma Young
EDLD 8431: Higher Education Law
Dr. Maura Copeland
Georgia Southern University

CASE REVIEW

2
Case Review

ADAMS v. KLINE, Superior Court of Delaware, 1968 239 A2.d 230

Tort Liability
According to Alexander, Tort is a group of civil wrongs, other than breach of contract, for
which the court may provide remedy in form of damages (2011). According to Merriam Webster,
the word tort originated from the words tortum from Medieval Latin, and tortus from Latin,
both meaning twisted. Tort actions are conveyed to compensate individuals for harm caused by
responsible individuals who did not stop a probable injury. Although tort is not a crime, the
responsible individual, in this case, a university employee, is liable to civil action by the injured
party.
Facts
The plaintiff, Gary Adams, sued Loren Kline and the University of Delaware, alleging
that he suffered injuries as a result of their negligence. The accident occurred on November 13,
1964. At the time, plaintiff was 19 years old, a student at the University of Delaware, and a
member of its soccer team. On that date, the team was to play in a soccer game against Temple
University in Philadelphia. The team departed from the University in two vehicles, the leading
car was driven by the defendant Kline, the coach. The second vehicle, which was a Universityowned Ford Econoline van driven by the plaintiff. The Econoline carried six other players and
the equipment. The Kline vehicle carried the reminder of the players.
After leaving the campus, the vehicles proceeded along the Kirkwood Highway with
Klines vehicle in the lead. When the vehicles approached the Milltown Road intersection, the
light turned amber and the Kline vehicle stopped suddenly. The plaintiff then applied the brakes

CASE REVIEW

of the Econoline. According to him, the brakes were ineffective to stop the vehicle and to
prevent it from crashing into the Klines vehicle. As a result of the crash, the plaintiff suffered
injuries.
Issue
In this particular case, there were two main issues: (1) whether defendants gave the
plaintiff a vehicle which they knew or should have known had defective brakes, and (2) whether
they allowed him to overload the vehicle when they knew or should have known that the
overloading would prevent from stopping of the vehicle within save distance. Both of these
issues are important and relevant to higher education as both of these claims, if substantiated,
would validate the claims against the University and Kline, in his role as a teacher, had the
responsibility to exercise due care under all circumstances.
Answer
In order for the court to find Kline liable of the allegations of negligence, the evidence
must show that Kline knowingly put the defendants life in danger. However, the court found that
(1) Klines duty of care did not involve being in responsible of inspecting or testing the brakes or
any other part of the vehicle. Since Kline duties do not involve testing or inspecting vehicles, he
cannot be held liable for failure to do so. Kline also had no knowledge regarding any apparent
problem with the brakes, therefore, there was no way for him to know if the brakes were
defective. The court declines to hold as a matter of law that the defendants behavior in this
respect was not negligent.
Additionally, the plaintiff claims that (2) Kline negligently allowed the Econoline to
become overloaded. According to the plaintiff, the carrying capacity of the Econoline was

CASE REVIEW

approximately 900 pounds, however, the plaintiff says that it was carrying between 1300 and
1400 pounds. From this fact, the jury might find it possible that the additional weight would
cause the brakes to be less effective at stopping under strain. Based on the allegations of
overloading the vehicle, the defendants motion for summary judgement will be denied.
Reasoning from the Court
Based on all the submitted evidence on the two main issues, the court did not find Kline
or the University of Delaware negligent on the count that they knew or shouldve known that the
vehicle had defective brakes. This was due to the fact that there was no evidence that the
defendant knew or should have known, by exercising due care that the brakes were defective.
They did however, find that it was foreseeable that overloading the car would make the brakes
less effective. While the defendants tried to argue that a summary judgement should be granted
in all allegations as the record shows that the plaintiff was in part at fault for his own injuries, or
contributory negligent. The court stated, however, that since contributory evidence shows that
more than two conclusions can be drawn as to contributory negligence, therefore, summary for
judgement was not granted. At the end, partial summary judgement was granted in favor of Kline
and the University of Delaware on all specifications of negligence with the exception of those
counts related to overloading the vehicle.
Conclusion
While most employees at institutions of higher education exercise good judgement
around students at all times, there is always room for accidents. This case highlights the
consequences of the conduct, or lack thereof, of employees in higher education and how it can
cause injury to those in their care. Not to mention the consequences that come from those

CASE REVIEW
actions. While this case showed that the situation was more than likely an accident, failure to
notice details, such as the maximum capacity of a vehicle, can bring tragic consequences for all
of those involved.

CASE REVIEW

6
References

Adams v. Kline, 239 A. 2d 230 - Del: Superior Court 1968

Alexander, K. W., & Alexander, K. (2011). Higher education law: Policy and perspectives. New
York, NY: Routledge.