Duty To Rescue, LOO, NIED Flashcards
RST Duty to Rescue
Realizing action necessary for another’s aid does not itself impose duty to take action (can sit on dock and watch another drown)
Exceptions to no duty to rescue
Special relationship, created danger, began aid, prevent third person from aiding
Farwellvholding
Companions on social venture created special relationship
Farewell reasoning
RP would want duty, could assist without danger, high chance if helped, should know no one would find in car until morning
Chatterjee Farwell
Duty to rescue because started the rescue by putting him in car, put him in worse position
Harper holding
No special relationship giving duty to rescue/warn
RST special relationships 1
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
RST special relationships 2
Innkeeper similar duty
RST special relationships 3
Possessor of land who holds it open for the public
RST special relationships 4
Required by law or voluntarily takes custody of another under circumstances that deprive the other of his normal opportunities for protection
RST special relationships caveat
No opinion as to whether other relations that impose similar duty
Bullock holding
Even if driver couldn’t protect Ps from assault, could’ve foreseen danger in time to warn them
Bullock Florida rule
If prevention possible, highest degree of care to protect passengers or warn them Liable for injury from third party if reasonably anticipated
Ways Bullock breached duty
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
MN Good Samaritan Law 1
Duty to help if present at emergency and know another suffered grave physical harm + can assist without danger to self
MN Good Samaritan Law 2
Immunity for anyone who without expecting money gives care at emergency or in transit to medical care unless willful/wanton/reckless
Swenson holding
If transportation not protected with immunity, would discourage emergency responses
RST Created Danger
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
No duty to rescue third party aiding RST
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
Acted to Aid exception RST
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
LOOK traditional categories
Invitee, Licensee, Trespasser
Invitee definition
Invited (express or implied) by LOO who expects monetary benefit from their presence
Invitee duty of care
Reasonable care to make premises safe
Licensee definition and duty
Permitted but not invited, duty to warn of hidden danger and not willfully/recklessly injure
Trespasser definition and duty
Enter or remain without privilege, only duty to not willfully/wantonly/recklessly injure
Zinc holding
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
Attractive Nuisance RST 1
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
Attractive Nuisance RST 2
Condition LOO reason to know and should realize will involve unreasonable risk of death/serious bodily harm to such children
Attractive Nuisance RST 3
Children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk of meddling or coming within area made dangerous by it
Attractive Nuisance RST 4
Utility to LOO of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating danger are slight compared to risk to children involved
Attractive Nuisance RST 5
LOO fails reasonable car to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children
Banker RST application
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)
Rowland takeaway
Reject traditional LOO taxonomy
What test does Rowland use
Reasonableness under the circumstances considering type of guest, moral blame, preventing future harm etc
Rowland holding
When LOO know concealed condition + no precautions + unreasonable risk + other about to come in contact= can say failure to warn or repair is negligence
Rowland reasoning
Guest reasonably entitled to rely on warning so can take precautions
NIED four approaches
No recovery unless physical impact, Zone of danger rule, foreseeable rule, if no immediate risk of harm no recovery
Mitchell holding
No recovery for fright based injury unless immediate personal injury
Mitchell reasoning
Floodgate to easily feigned injuries
Why miscarriage fail proximate cause in Mitchell
Not ordinary and natural result of this negligence that could be foreseen
Falzone holdin
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)
Falzone reasoning
Possible fraud doesn’t justify barring all recovery
Dillon holding
Liable for emotional harms caused by negligence that are reasonably foreseeable, modern rule
Dillon reasoning
Zone of danger rule arbitrary, why should few feet be difference in recovery
Metro Commuter North Q
Is fear of cancer from asbestos dust physical impact?
Metro Commuter holding
Since P exposure to asbestos only poses some risk of future disease but no present or immediate risk of physical harm no recovery
MCN reasoning
Not in line with policy reasons for impact requirement (predictability, close floodgates, minimize fraud)
