Ch. 8 - Negligence, Strict Liability, and Product Liability

Question 1

Negligence

Answer 1

the ‘unintentional’ tort; harm that arises by accident

Question 2

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

Answer 2

Facts; Helen Palsgraf was waiting on a railroad platform. As a train began to leave the station, a man carrying a plain package ran to catch it. He jumped aboard but looked unsteady, so a guard on the car reached out to help him as another guard, on the platform, pushed from behind. The man dropped the package, which struck the tracks and exploded—since it was packed with fireworks. The shock knocked over some heavy scales at the far end of the platform, and one of them struck Palsgraf. She sued the railroad.

Decision: No, the railroad was not liable.

Reasoning: No one could foresee that what the guards did would harm someone standing at the far end of the platform. Therefore, it does not matter whether or not the guards were careless. For the railroad to be liable, Palsgraf had to show not just that a wrong took place, but that the wrong was to her. Negligence in the air is not enough. For example, if a driver speeds through city streets, it is easy to see that someone may be hurt. But, in this case, even the most cautious mind would not imagine that a package wrapped in a newspaper would spread wreckage throughout the station. The railroad employees owed Palsgraf a duty to be reasonably cautious and vigilant. They did not owe a duty to prevent all harm, no matter how unlikely.

Question 3

To win a negligence case, must prove…

Answer 3

Duty of due care
Breach
Factual cause
Proximate cause
Damages

Question 4

Duty of due care

Answer 4

Each of us has a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the circumstances

Question 5

Landowner lowest liability

Answer 5

Trespassing adults

Question 6

Trespasser

Answer 6

A person on someone else’s property without consent

Question 7

Landowner mid-level liability

Answer 7

Trespassing children

Question 8

Landowner higher liability

Answer 8

A licensee

Question 9

Licensee

Answer 9

A person on property for their own purposes, but with the owner’s permission

Question 10

Landowner highest liability

Answer 10

An invitee

Question 11

Invitee

Answer 11

A person who has a right to be on property because it is a public place or a business open to the public

Question 12

Professional Special Duty

Answer 12

The duties expected of someone within the profession to uphold

Question 13

Breach of duty

Answer 13

A defendant breaches their duty of due care by failing to behave the way a reasonable person would under similar circumstances

Question 14

Factual cause

Answer 14

The defendants break led to the ultimate harm

Question 15

Proximate cause

Answer 15

Refers to a party who contributes to a loss in a way that a reasonable person could anticipate

Question 16

Res ipsa loquitur

Answer 16

means “the thing speaks for itself” and refers to cases where the facts imply that the defendant’s negligence caused the harm

Question 17

Damages

Answer 17

The plantiff must persuade the court that they have suffered harm that is genuine, not speculative

Question 18

Assumption of risk

Answer 18

A person who voluntarily enters a situation of obvious danger cannot complain of they are injured

Question 19

Contributory negligence

Answer 19

A plaintiff who is even slightly negligent recovers nothing

Question 20

Comparative negligence

Answer 20

A plaintiff may generally recover even if they are partially responsible

Question 21

Strict liability

Answer 21

a high level of liability

Question 22

Ultrahazardous activity

Answer 22

A defendant engaging in such acts is virtually always liable for resulting harm

Question 23

Negligent design product liability

Answer 23

Designed improperly

Question 24

Negligent manufacture product liability

Answer 24

Design was adequate by failure to inspect/ sloppy conduct

Question 25

Failure to warn product liability

Answer 25

dangers of using these products if misused are not clearly stated

Question 26

When does the injured person need not prove that the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable?

Answer 26

In strict liability

Question 27

Defective products liable if …

Answer 27

• Defective condition was unreasonable dangerous to the user when it leaves their hands
• In the business of selling (only if they normally sell you this kind of product)
• Reaches the user without substantial change by an outside force

Question 28

Defective products not liable if…

Answer 28

• Has exercised all possible care
• No contractual relation

Question 29

Negligence issues…

Answer 29

necessarily remain in flux based on changing social values and concerns

Question 30

There is a collision between cars driven by Candy and Zeke. The evidence is that Candy is about 25 percent responsible, for failing to stop quickly enough, and Zeke about 75 percent responsible, for making a dangerous turn. Candy is most likely to win:
(a) a lawsuit for battery.
(b) a lawsuit for negligence, in a comparative negligence state.
(c) a lawsuit for negligence, in a contributory negligence state.
(d) a lawsuit for strict liability.
(e) a lawsuit for assault.

Answer 30

In a contributory negligence state, a plaintiff who is even 1 percent responsible for the harm loses. Candy was 25 percent responsible. She can win only in a comparative negligence state.

Question 31

Marko owned a cat and allowed it to roam freely outside. In the three years he had owned the pet, the animal had never bitten anyone. The cat entered Romi’s garage. When Romi attempted to move it outside, the cat bit her. Romi underwent four surgeries, was fitted with a plastic finger joint, and spent more than $39,000 on medical bills. She sued Marko, claiming both strict liability and ordinary negligence. Assume that state law allows a domestic cat to roam freely. Evaluate both of Romi’s claims.

Answer 31

If Marko’s cat had bitten or attacked people in the past, this harm was foreseeable and Marko is liable. If the cat had never done so, and state law allows domestic animals to roam, Romi probably loses her suit for negligence. Her strict liability case definitely fails: A housecat is not a wild animal.

Question 32

T F There are five elements in a negligence case, and a plaintiff wins who proves at least three of them.

Answer 32

False

Question 33

T F Max, a 19-year-old sophomore, gets drunk at a fraternity party and then causes a serious car accident. Max can be found liable and so can the fraternity.

Answer 33

True

Question 34

T F Some states are comparative negligence states, but the majority are contributory negligence states.

Answer 34

False

Question 35

T F A landowner might be liable if a dinner guest fell on a broken porch step, but not liable if a trespasser fell on the same place.

Answer 35

True

Question 36

T F A defendant can be liable for negligence even if he never intended to cause harm.

Answer 36

True

Question 37

T F When Ms. Palsgraf sued the railroad, the court found that the railroad should have foreseen what might go wrong.

Answer 37

False

Question 38

T F Under strict liability, an injured consumer could potentially recover damages from the product’s manufacturer and the retailer who sold the goods.

Answer 38

True

Question 39

In which case is a plaintiff most likely to sue based on strict liability?
(a) Defamation
(b) Injury caused on the job
(c) Injury caused by a tiger that escapes from a zoo
(d) Injury caused partially by the plaintiff and partially by the defendant
(e) Injury caused by the defendant’s careless driving

Answer 39

(c) Injury caused by a tiger that escapes from a zoo

Question 40

Martha signs up for a dinner cruise on a large commercial yacht. While the customers are eating dinner, the yacht bangs into another boat. Martha is thrown to the deck, breaking her wrist. She sues. At trial, which of these issues is likely to be the most important?
(a) Whether the yacht company had permission to take Martha on the cruise
(b) Whether the yacht company improperly restrained Martha
(c) Whether Martha feared an imminent injury
(d) Whether the yacht’s captain did a reasonable job of driving the yacht
(e) Whether Martha has filed similar suits in the past

Answer 40

(d) Whether the yacht’s captain did a reasonable job of driving the yacht

Question 41

Dolly, an architect, lives in Pennsylvania, which is a comparative negligence state. While she is inspecting a construction site for a large building she designed, she is injured when a worker drops a hammer from two stories up. Dolly was not wearing a safety helmet at the time. Dolly sues the construction company. The jury concludes that Dolly has suffered $100,000 in damages. The jury also believes that Dolly was 30 percent liable for the accident, and the construction company was 70 percent liable. Outcome?
(a) Dolly wins nothing.
(b) Dolly wins $30,000.
(c) Dolly wins $50,000.
(d) Dolly wins $70,000.
(e) Dolly wins $100,000.

Answer 41

(d) Dolly wins $70,000.

Question 42

A taxi driver, hurrying to pick up a customer at the airport, races through a 20 mph hospital zone at 45 mph and strikes May, who is crossing the street in a pedestrian crosswalk. May sues the driver and the taxi company. What kind of suit is this?
(a) Contract
(b) Remedy
(c) Negligence
(d) Assault
(e) Battery

Answer 42

(c) Negligence