Damages & Defenses Cases Flashcards
P was moving a house via the highway and pulled over to adjust; created a one lane highway. McGee and Staggs (also Ps) were going into the lane when he smashed into them, speeding and his overweight truck. The car hit the house and killed both Ps.
Can a punitive damages award be upheld?
No. No punitive damages because D didn’t know brakes were faulty —> no evidence of intent or willful inference towards P.
An award of punitive damages requires evidence that D proceeded intentionally after knowing the act was naturally and likely to cause injury.
National By-Products, Inc. v Searcy House Moving Co (1987)
D owned and operated a motel. Ps (bro and sis) we’re guests there and bitten by bedbugs. Substantial evidence that the hotel lied to guest and continued to rent out infected rooms.
Can the hotel be charged with punitive damages for failing to disclose the bedbug infestation even though compensatory damages are much less ?
Yes. Here Motel cannot have rented any of its rooms if they disclose infestation —> fraud and possible battery. Motel’s actions amounted to willful conduct supporting award of punitive damages.
Evidence of willful and wanton is conduct is required for punitive damages (not solely acting carelessly)
Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. (2003)
P employed at iron workshop where he had to shield himself with a sheet of iron to access the crane controls to dip items into a large tank filled with molten metal without being spat on. one day he looked out and was burned —> developed cancer, which killed him
Should the employer be liable for the burn that eventually caused cancer and death of the employee as a result of the circumstance of the workplace, where he had to use a makeshift roof to operate a crane to lower articles into a tank of molten metal ?
Yes. D is liable for damages, even though P’s cancer may not have been foreseeable. Here, it was reasonably foreseeable to D that one of the crane operators would look around the iron shield so as to expose himself to burn.
Court will look at whether D could reasonably foresee the type of injury suffered, even if the extent of injury is not foreseeable. Eggshell plaintiff case foreseeability does not limit the degree of damages.
Smith v. Leech Brain & Co, Ltd. (1962)
D’s careless woodstacking caused P’s injury, but P’s careless driving also called P’s injury
Who’s liable?
Where P was at fault, careless D is not a cause of injury
When D and P both at fault for P’s injury, P loses. Contributory negligence is a complete defense to negligence (not intentional torts)
- at the time, courts treated certain forms of intervening third-party misconduct as superseding cause
- “Doctrine of last clear chance” exception: if D had the last clear opportunity to prevent an accident resulting from careless acts on both D & P, D cannot claim contributory negligence defense
Smith v. Smith (1824)
p was severely/permanently disabled due to brain damage at birth, sues delivering obstetrician D and treating pediatrician Dr. Harris for malpractice. Jury assigned 80% fault to doctor and 20% fault to Harris. Harris sought to limit damages recoverable.
With their joint and several liability was properly imposed upon D or neither D acted in concert or nor concurrently a single individual injury—Brain damage—was negligently inflicted?
No evidence to determine which parts of P’s injury were attributable to which acts—> injury is indivisible. P can choose to collect full amount from either D because joint and several liability.
- Joint & several liability and comparative responsibility are compatible
Where multiple tortfeasors not acting concurrent ir in concert, substantially contribute to causing an individual injury, and there is no evidence to identify the part of the injury caused by each tortfeasor, joint and several liability may be imposed
- Comparing fault is not necessarily aportion damages
- jury’s determination of culpability merely defines the amount of contribution D’s may claim from each other and does NOT prevent P from collecting the entire judgment award from either D
Ravo v. Rogatnick (1987)
An incident occurred a nightclub in which an unknown man’s struck P, no bouncers intervened. P sued the club, club manager and unknown assailant.
Is the club liable for failure to protect the patron of the club and can they assign an unnamed D with comparative fault?
Yes, they are liable but cannot assign unnamed with fault. D properly bears the burden of identifying absent tortfeasors, especially in this case.
(1) Juries should be required to compare all parties “fault” even if one party was careless and another an intentional wrongdoer
(2) under state law, liability may not be a portion to a fictitious defendant who is not part to the suit (most states disallow the phantom defense to lower fault/liability)
Bencivenga v. JJAMM, Inc (1992)
P suffered injury in a plane crash while skydiving under contract with D. contract contain exculpatory clause
Can the skydiving company be held liable for negligence when they have an exculpatory clause exempting them from liability from damage or injury to customers?
No. D is not liable. The services provided by D were not essential, nor a common carrier. The contract was fairly entered into (not an adhesion contract) and the exculpatory provision was clear and unambiguous)
An exculpatory provision in a contract for nonessential services relieves the defendant from liability for negligence, for the contract was fairly entered into and the intent of the provision was clear and ambiguous.
- pro-contract case: a fully-informed transaction to purchase service with associated risks
Jones v. Dressel (1981)
D is a ski resort and requires skiers to sign an exculpatory agreement. P skied, signed agreement, and was seriously injured after colliding with a negligently placed metal pole.
Can the skiing companies exculpatory agreement be held void under public policy?
Yes, the exculpatory agreement is void because it violates the policy interests in protecting skiers from the ski resorts and negligence. if a business invites, a large number of skiers to purchase tickets and use premises the business meets prong (1). the ski resort is better equipped to correct dangerous conditions, and skiers.
As a matter of public policy, a commercial business that opened itself to the public will generally not require invitees to sign a waiver releasing the business from liability for negligence
- Outside of extreme sports waivers of personal injury and property damage claims are often unenforceable (back-of-ticket waivers)
Dalury v, S-K-I, Ltd. (1995)
P went to skating rink and noticed there were no guard rails and signs were posted “skate at your own risk”. She broke her wrist when she fell off the rink to avoid a child and sued, but rink argued implied assumption of the risk.
Did the patron implicitly assume the risk of injury after knowing there were no guard rails, and elevated skating platform, and “skate at your own risk” signs?
Yes, P was shown to have voluntarily skated despite knowing that (1) there were no guard rails, (2) children/inexperienced skaters were present, and (3) the skating and surrounding areas were of different surfaces/elevations. Court not convinced P was unaware of the hazard caused by combo of risks.
P assumes the risk of injury so as to waive defendants of care when P voluntarily participates in the area of risk after becoming aware of the risk
- Implicit Assumption of Risk = complete bar to D’s duty of care many states
Smollett v. Skayting Dev. Corp (1986)
