Chapter 12 - Negligent and Strict Liability Torts

Question 1

Negligent Torts

Answer 1

• Lack Intent
• Elements:
  1. DUTY OF CARE - act reasonable
  2. BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE
  3. DEFENDANT MUST HAVE CAUSED THE DAMAGE TO THE PLAINTIFF.
  4. DAMAGES

Question 2

Cause in fact v. Proximate Cause

Answer 2

• Cause in fact - You were actually the one that cause it to happen.
• Proximate Cause - You indirectly caused it. Was my act foreseeable that the party would be hurt?

Question 3

Good Samaritan Laws

Answer 3

-Provide that doctors, nurses, and other professionals who voluntarily aid someone in an emergency situation are protected for ordinary negligence claims by the injured person.

Question 4

Duty of Care

Answer 4

One must act reasonably

Question 5

Breach of Duty of Care

Answer 5

• Plaintiff has to show that the defendant was not acting reasonably.
• Negligence per se - failure to comply with a statute or ordinance. This is automatically negligence - plaintiff doesn’t have to prove.

Question 6

Causation

Answer 6

The plaintiff must show that it was the defendant who caused the injury.

• Cause in Fact - “but for”, 1st link?
• Proximate Cause - foreseeable damage/superseding cause?

Question 7

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Answer 7

• Man trying to get on a train. A guard tried to pull him in and one pushed at the same time.
• Man had a package that fell and exploded along side the railroad.
• The explosives caused damage to Mrs. Palsgraf.
• Mrs. Palsgraf sued the railroad.
• Did railroad have a duty of care? yes. Breach of duty? yes. Was railroad the proximate cause? no, cause in fact? maybe.
• Court said that the railroad WAS NOT the proximate cause.

Question 8

Damages

Answer 8

Plaintiff has to show they were damaged in some way.

Question 9

Defenses: Comparative Negligence

Answer 9

• The defendant will try to show that there was negligence on the plaintiff’s part too.
• In situations where 2 or more parties may be at fault, the comparative negligence concept is applicable.
• Court/Jury will break down into %’s who was most negligent.

Question 10

Defenses: Assumption of Risk

Answer 10

• Defendant may say that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury.
• If a person voluntarily participates in the activity and knows the risk inherent in participating.

Question 11

Strict Liability Tourts

Answer 11

• Even when a person or manufacturer exercises utmost care, some products may cause injury or be inherently ultra hazardous to cause liability to a defendant.
• Liability of the defendant even if care was taken.

Question 12

Product Liability

Answer 12

• When a consumer is injured by a product sold to them.

- May have a design defect, manufacturing defect, or inadequate warnings.

Question 13

Pannu v. Land Rover

Answer 13

• Land rover rolled and caused Pannu to be a quadriplegic.
• Pannu lost lots of money because couldn’t do business.
• Pannu sued land rover for defect.
• Land rover loses. PANNU WON.

Question 14

Defenses to Product Liability

Answer 14

1. Misuse
2. Assumption of Risk
3. Comparatively negligent

Question 15

Ultra hazardous Activity

Answer 15

• Very difficult to defend.
• No matter your using utmost care, if an injury occurs during a job, you will likely be subject to a strict liability claim.