Affirmative Duties

Question 1

*Buch

Answer 1

Good samaritan rule (really bad samaritan rule). Plaintiff trespasser in mill had hand crushed through no neg of mill, overseer tried to tell him to leave but plaintiff didn’t speak English and overseer didn’t forcibly remove him. No duty to warn or save, just like with innocent and trespassing toddlers getting tangled in windmills.

Question 2

*Hurley

Answer 2

Appellee physician was only one who could help decedent in time and for no particular reason didn’t. Court said a state license to practice doesn’t require practicing at all.

Question 3

Yania

Answer 3

Taunting business competitor to jump into dangerous trench of water and then not rescuing. Court said taunts do not rise to the level of physical pushing and how it physically puts someone in a perilous position.

Question 4

*Montgomery

Answer 4

Truck stalled on icy highway and plaintiff coming over hill couldn’t see until over crest; truck failed to put flares on top of hill. Court said negligent by act of omission if “the act of omission of a duty owed another, under the circumstances, is the direct, proximate, and efficient cause of the injury.” [once you even non-negligently create condition, omission is negligence]. This nonfeasance can be distinguished from other cases because failing to neutralize a dangerous condition defendant created.

Question 5

Newton

Answer 5

Defendant dug hole in highway and left unlighted at night. Not just omission of light but positive act of hole (so not nonfeasance).

Question 6

Weirum

Answer 6

Court said radio station could be liable for a contest encouraging people to get to a certain location first to answer questions for a prize (encouraged teens to race and accidentally forced someone off road). Court claimed it wasn’t opening Pandora’s Box

Question 7

*Kline

Answer 7

Kline assaulted in building that no longer had doorman and guards. Court said since crimes had been rising at the building and guarding against risk was entirely in landlord’s control, landlord had duty to minimize/mitigate risk. Theory is ability of one party to provide for own protection limited by submission to control of other, so duty on one with control to take reasonable precautions to protect from 3rd parties if could have been anticipated.

What do other landlords in DC now have to do? Case seems to imply they can a) never decrease their level of security and b) must meet standard of Kline or even higher safety standard, even though this is economically inefficient.

Other special relationships: landowner-invitee, businessman-patron, employer-employee, school district-pupil, hospital-patient, and carrier-passenger

Question 8

*Tarasoff

Answer 8

Patient told psychologist going to kill someone and then did. Psychologist also had a duty to the victim and negligently failed to warn her or others around her of her danger. Here, the special relationship was with the attacker, unlike Kline where the attacker was the 3rd party. The court says the strongest case for liability is where the special relationship is both ways [ex: parent knows child is dangerous but hires someone to babysit].