Duty To Rescue, LOO, NIED Flashcards

1
Q

RST Duty to Rescue

A

Realizing action necessary for another’s aid does not itself impose duty to take action (can sit on dock and watch another drown)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Exceptions to no duty to rescue

A

Special relationship, created danger, began aid, prevent third person from aiding

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Farwellvholding

A

Companions on social venture created special relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Farewell reasoning

A

RP would want duty, could assist without danger, high chance if helped, should know no one would find in car until morning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Chatterjee Farwell

A

Duty to rescue because started the rescue by putting him in car, put him in worse position

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Harper holding

A

No special relationship giving duty to rescue/warn

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

RST special relationships 1

A

A common carrier duty to take reasonable action to protect passengers against unreasonable risk of physical harm, give them first aid after know or should know harmed, and care for them until can be cared for by orhers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

RST special relationships 2

A

Innkeeper similar duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

RST special relationships 3

A

Possessor of land who holds it open for the public

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

RST special relationships 4

A

Required by law or voluntarily takes custody of another under circumstances that deprive the other of his normal opportunities for protection

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

RST special relationships caveat

A

No opinion as to whether other relations that impose similar duty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bullock holding

A

Even if driver couldn’t protect Ps from assault, could’ve foreseen danger in time to warn them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bullock Florida rule

A

If prevention possible, highest degree of care to protect passengers or warn them Liable for injury from third party if reasonably anticipated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Ways Bullock breached duty

A

Didn’t advise of segregation, driver should’ve explained reasons for move, shouldn’t have told third party of their place and position on bus

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

MN Good Samaritan Law 1

A

Duty to help if present at emergency and know another suffered grave physical harm + can assist without danger to self

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

MN Good Samaritan Law 2

A

Immunity for anyone who without expecting money gives care at emergency or in transit to medical care unless willful/wanton/reckless

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Swenson holding

A

If transportation not protected with immunity, would discourage emergency responses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

RST Created Danger

A

When actor prior conduct, even though not tortious, creates continuing risk of physical harm of type characteristic of the conduct, actor duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent or minimize the harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

No duty to rescue third party aiding RST

A

Knows should know third person giving aid or ready to give aid necessary to prevent physical harm and who negligently prevents or disables third person subject to liability for physical harm caused by the other by absence of aid

20
Q

Acted to Aid exception RST

A

One who under no duty to do so takes charge of another helpless to aid or protect himself subject to liability for bodily harm caused to other by failure to exercise reasonable care to secure safety of the other OR actor’s discontinuing aid if by doing so left the other in a worse position than when actor took charge

21
Q

LOOK traditional categories

A

Invitee, Licensee, Trespasser

22
Q

Invitee definition

A

Invited (express or implied) by LOO who expects monetary benefit from their presence

23
Q

Invitee duty of care

A

Reasonable care to make premises safe

24
Q

Licensee definition and duty

A

Permitted but not invited, duty to warn of hidden danger and not willfully/recklessly injure

25
Q

Trespasser definition and duty

A

Enter or remain without privilege, only duty to not willfully/wantonly/recklessly injure

26
Q

Zinc holding

A

May be held to knowingly expose unfenced to children something certain to attract them is invitation to them but not adult but not here since not next to road and not known other children swam 5ere

27
Q

Attractive Nuisance RST 1

A

LOO liable for physical harm to children trespassing caused by artificial condition upon the land if place with artificial LOO reason to know children are likely to trespass

28
Q

Attractive Nuisance RST 2

A

Condition LOO reason to know and should realize will involve unreasonable risk of death/serious bodily harm to such children

29
Q

Attractive Nuisance RST 3

A

Children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk of meddling or coming within area made dangerous by it

30
Q

Attractive Nuisance RST 4

A

Utility to LOO of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating danger are slight compared to risk to children involved

31
Q

Attractive Nuisance RST 5

A

LOO fails reasonable car to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children

32
Q

Banker RST application

A

Subdivision so should know children will trespass, should know unreasonable risk of bodily harm to children, child due to age didn’t know risk of getting in pool, burden to D of eliminating slight (fill hole or put up signs)

33
Q

Rowland takeaway

A

Reject traditional LOO taxonomy

34
Q

What test does Rowland use

A

Reasonableness under the circumstances considering type of guest, moral blame, preventing future harm etc

35
Q

Rowland holding

A

When LOO know concealed condition + no precautions + unreasonable risk + other about to come in contact= can say failure to warn or repair is negligence

36
Q

Rowland reasoning

A

Guest reasonably entitled to rely on warning so can take precautions

37
Q

NIED four approaches

A

No recovery unless physical impact, Zone of danger rule, foreseeable rule, if no immediate risk of harm no recovery

38
Q

Mitchell holding

A

No recovery for fright based injury unless immediate personal injury

39
Q

Mitchell reasoning

A

Floodgate to easily feigned injuries

40
Q

Why miscarriage fail proximate cause in Mitchell

A

Not ordinary and natural result of this negligence that could be foreseen

41
Q

Falzone holdin

A

If negligence causes fright from fear of immediate personal injury + fear results in physical injuries= recovery even without direct contact (no injury at all too speculative)

42
Q

Falzone reasoning

A

Possible fraud doesn’t justify barring all recovery

43
Q

Dillon holding

A

Liable for emotional harms caused by negligence that are reasonably foreseeable, modern rule

44
Q

Dillon reasoning

A

Zone of danger rule arbitrary, why should few feet be difference in recovery

45
Q

Metro Commuter North Q

A

Is fear of cancer from asbestos dust physical impact?

46
Q

Metro Commuter holding

A

Since P exposure to asbestos only poses some risk of future disease but no present or immediate risk of physical harm no recovery

47
Q

MCN reasoning

A

Not in line with policy reasons for impact requirement (predictability, close floodgates, minimize fraud)