Case Law

Question 1

Lakkaraju v. Edwards (1930)

Answer 1

Negligence is the failure to behave with a level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.

Typically consists of actions, but can also involve failure to act if the defendant owes a duty to the plaintiff(s)

Question 2

Bardhi v. Kroll (1955)

Answer 2

The elements of negligence are:
(1) The existence of a legal duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant
(2) The defendant’s breach of that duty
(3) Harm suffered by the plaintiff
(4) Proof that the defendant’s breach of that duty was the direct and proximate cause of the harm that the plaintiff suffered.

Question 3

Venezia v. Chintakayala (1980)

Answer 3

Defendants have a duty to act in a certain way (see Lakkaraju) if they
(1) Created the risk which resulted in the plaintiff’s harm
(2) The defendant volunteered to protect the plaintiff from harm
(3) The defendant knew or should have known that their conduct would cause harm to the plaintiff
(4) The business or voluntary relationship between the plaintiff and defendant creates a duty.

Question 4

Belloncle v. Rutecki (1985)

Answer 4

Proving the defendant, or the defense’s admission that the defendant owed a duty of care is not enough to prove negligence (see Bardhi).

A defendant breaches their duty by failing to act reasonably in fulfilling or attempting to fulfill their duty.

Question 5

Ying v. Toussimehr (1990)

Answer 5

A defendant fails to act reasonably (under Belloncle) for the purpose of negligence liability if they departed from conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances, irrespective of the specific abilities or traits of the defendant. (Someone who is always careless isn’t held to a lesser standard).

Question 6

Banuelos Tells Enterprises v. Sciarretti Kumar, Inc. (1991)

Answer 6

A defendant violates their duty of care if the burden of taking a precaution against the probability that harm occurs is less than the combined effects of (1) the nature and extent or foreseeable damage or injury if harm occurs and (2) the probability that harm would occur absent precautions.

Question 7

Smiles v. Based Pilots (1992)

Answer 7

If a company plane is being flown by an agent, owner, representative, or employee for public or private use, the company owes any passenger a duty of care (see Venezia).

Question 8

Louis-Ferdinand v. Allen (1993)

Answer 8

In determining reasonable behavior, the court may consider if the defendant followed standards prevailing in the industry or complying with customs in the community.

These factors are not dispositive.

Question 9

Alwardi v. Subramaniam (1999)

Answer 9

A defendant is not absolved from liability by following industry standards or community customs (see Louis-Ferdinand) if it was clear or should have been clear that the defendants conduct or situation was not considered by those standards or customs.

Question 10

Paul Dachtler LLC v. Joseph Comedy Club (2001)

Answer 10

All persons are required to give their surroundings the attention that a reasonable person (see Ying) would give their surroundings under the circumstances, allowing for things that would distract a reasonable person’s attention or perception

Question 11

Coughlin v. Kunde (2002)

Answer 11

Persons suffering from a disability, like partial or total blindness, are held to reasonable care permitting for their blindness.

Transitory (not permanent) loss of control due to physical or mental factors may also be considered in determining liability.

Question 12

Mayer v. Amare (2010)

Answer 12

In determining whether an actor is to be excused for an error of judgement occurring during a sudden emergency, courts must consider if the emergency was of the sort that was predictable and thus could or should have been addressed by appropriate procedures or training.

Question 13

Hopson v. Dawson

Answer 13

In rare circumstances, it is reasonable to take actions that involve a high degree of risk of serious harms to other, such as in emergencies. (e.g. driving 20mph over the speed limit in pouring rain to get a badly injured friend to hospital)

Additionally, it may be reasonable to take action in situations where otherwise dangerous action would be better than no action at all (e.g. providing first aid to someone in a remote area, even if you have no medical experience.)

The fact an actor’s conduct was not negligent after an emergency does not preclude liability if the actor’s own tortious conduct produced the emergency.

Question 14

Scanlon v. Burnett (2012)

Answer 14

Individuals w/ superior skills or knowledge are required to conduct themselves consistent with that superior capacity.

In a skill or profession, the standard of care is the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that trade or profession in good standing in similar communities.

Question 15

Allen v. Neptune Underwater Expedition (2013)

Answer 15

In trades and professions containing both professions and amateurs, professionals shall be held to a higher standard than amateurs (compare earlier case Scanlon)

Question 16

Messi v. Ronaldo (2022)

Answer 16

The standards in Scanlon and Allen still apply for individuals who were improperly trained. Therefore it is not relevant if the individual was improperly trained.

However, the extent of an individual’s training and what it entailed are still relevant considerations in a negligence case.

Question 17

Yanka v. Edwards Industries (1961)

Answer 17

Midland’s version of establishing the “but-for” doctrine. Essentially, if someone hoping to prove direct and proximate cause can relate the chain of events leading to the plaintiff’s harm to a something that would not have otherwise happened “but for” the defendant’s wrongful conduct, the chain of causation exists.

Example: But for the defendant’s decision to drive 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, they would not have hydroplaned over that puddle on the highway, and therefore would not have hit the plaintiff’s car” is an example of the “but-for doctrine”

Question 18

Whalen v. Wilkerson (1975)

Answer 18

Foreseeability does not mean that the defendant foresaw the particular type of harm or action, but just that they could have forseen the general risk that caused a particular type of harm or agreement.

Question 19

Smith v. Marx (2018)

Answer 19

Plaintiff in civil case must establish all elements by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)

Question 20

Trapp v. Smith (2020)

Answer 20

Defendant pursuing affirmative defense must establish all elements of its affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)

Question 21

Wilde v. Pugh (2022)

Answer 21

A defendant only needs to prove their burden of an affirmative defense (see Trapp) if they do not contest/conceed negligence occurred. Otherwise, any evidence that something else happened can go to disproving the plaintiff’s burden (see Smith), without establishing an affirmative defense. It does not mean you cannot present an affirmative defense if you contest negligence, simply that the burden is not on you unless you chose to accept it.

Question 22

Block v. King of the Cosmos (2023)

Answer 22

Contesting/conceding negligence under Wilde DOES NOT occur if the defendant doesn’t say anything about negligence. They must expressly state they concede/will not contest negligence for their affirmative defense burden to automatically come into play and be the deciding issue. Otherwise the fact-finder still needs to determine the plaintiff met its burden before it can even begin to consider if the defendant met their burden.

Question 23

Murray v. Harney (1969)

Answer 23

Intervening and superseding cause doctrine occurs when an act occurs between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s harm. Must be
- Sufficient by itself to produce the plaintiff’s harm
- Not reasonably foreseeable to defendant
- Not a direct result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct.

Burden to prove on defense that raises it. Is an affirmative defense.

Question 24

Zhang v. Fritsch (1976)

Answer 24

Fireworks do qualify as an intervening and superseding cause, pursuant to Murray. Does depend largely upon the facts in question though.

Question 25

Zafft v. Price (2000)

Answer 25

Mechanical malfunction is an intervening and superseding cause, pursuant to Murray. This occurs whenever the malfunction itself happens after the defendant’s wrongful conduct, regardless of when the actions causing the engine to fail occur.

Question 26

Spencer v. Malikarjunan (2009)

Answer 26

Sudden incapacitation is when a pilot suffers from a sudden, unforeseeable medical emergency, causing the pilot to lose control of the plane and crash.

In Midlands, this can be used as an intervening and superseding cause pursuant to Murray AND ALSO as a method of rebutting negligence itself without creating an affirmative defense burden (see Wilde, Block).

Cannot be used if risk or sudden incapacitation was known or should have been known by defendant.

Question 27

Simien v. Shelton (2010)

Answer 27

Assumption of risk defense requires a showing of actual, subjective awareness on the part of the plaintiff – they do not assume the risk unless they actually know of its existence and appreciate its unreasonable character.

Question 28

Ornstein v. Smough (2011)

Answer 28

A person must have sufficient piloting experience or training to appreciate the risks associated with negligent piloting. Simply knowing that planes can crash or that a pilot may be risky is not sufficient knowledge, as the person would not know the specifics of the plane.

Question 29

Vendrick v. Alonne (2014)

Answer 29

Persuant to Ornstein, a decedent with pilot training may be capable of appreciating the risk of flying in a given plane, even if they are not capable of legally flying an aircraft at issue.

Question 30

Sage v. Pontiff (2016)

Answer 30

Under an assumption of the risk defense, the person assuming the risk must be able to appreciate and accept the risk at a time when they can chose to assume the risk or walk away – the point of no return is the last point a person can assume a risk for the purposes of this defense, per say.