Fault Flashcards
A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor’s bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability.
Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?
A - city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.
B - Each of the three defendants are liable to the pedestrian for one-third of the damage award.
C The driver is liable to the pedestrian for 60% of the award, the neighbor is liable for 30%, and the city is liable for 10%.
A. The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award. Under joint and several liability, each defendant found by the trier of fact to be at fault for an indivisible injury is liable to the plaintiff for the entire amount of damages incurred, not just a portion of it. Thus, because the city has been found to be at fault for the accident, the pedestrian could recover the full amount of the damage award from the city.
*Conversely, the driver and the neighbor separately could be liable for full amount because of joint and several liability.
The owner of a boat took two friends out on a lake near his home. One of his friends was driving the boat when it struck a partially submerged rock that the owner of the boat had forgotten to tell him about. The owner of the boat and the other passenger were injured; the driver of the boat was not hurt.
In a jurisdiction that applies joint and several liability with comparative contribution, the passenger brought suit against both the boat owner and the driver, and the boat owner also sued the driver. The jury determined that the boat owner was 55% at fault and suffered $10,000 in damages, the driver of the boat was 45% at fault, and the injured passenger suffered $100,000 in damages. After entry of judgment, the boat owner paid the passenger her total damages of $100,000, while the driver of the boat has paid nothing.
How much, if anything, can the boat owner recover from the driver?
The boat owner can recover $45,000 through comparative contribution for the passenger’s claim and $4,500 on his own claim against the driver of the boat. Most comparative negligence states have adopted a comparative contribution system based on the relative fault of the various tortfeasors. Nonpaying tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable are required to contribute only in proportion to their relative fault. Here, because the jurisdiction retained joint and several liability, the boat owner had to pay the passenger all of her damages. Under comparative contribution rules, the boat owner can obtain contribution from the driver for 45% of that amount, because the driver was 45% at fault. In addition, the boat owner has a direct claim against the driver for his own damages of $10,000, reduced by 55%, the amount of his fault. Thus, the total amount that the boat owner can recover from the driver is $49,500.
What is contributory negligence?
This is when P’s own negligence contributes to their injury. It completely bars P’s claim to recovery (aka if at all negligent = no recovery).
There is a defense of “last clear chance” for whoever the hell still has this.
What is pure comparative negligence?
P’s own negligence contributes to their injury and P’s damages are reduced by % of fault attributable to them.
What is partial comparative negligence?
P’s own negligence contributes to their injury and P’s damage award is reduced OR it is barred if P’s % of negligence is above 50%.
T/F: On MBE assume that pure comparative negligence applies.
True.
A skier broke his leg when he was knocked down by the chair lift as he tried to avoid other skiers who had fallen off while disembarking. The ski resort employee operating the lift had not been paying attention and had failed to stop the lift. Ski patrol personnel placed the skier on a stretcher, which they then hooked up to a snowmobile to bring him down the mountain. The route down ran along the edge of a ski trail. Midway down, a novice snowboarder tried to see how close he could come to the stretcher without hitting it, but he lost control and landed on top of the skier’s leg, damaging it further. The skier filed a lawsuit against the snowboarder and the resort in a jurisdiction that has adopted a comparative contribution system in joint and several liability cases. At trial, the skier’s physician testified that the skier’s leg was permanently disabled, but that neither injury, by itself, would have caused the permanent disability and it was impossible to quantify how much each injury contributed to the disability. The jury determined that the damages from the permanent disability equaled $2 million, and that the snowboarder and the resort were each 50% at fault.
What amount of damages can the skier recover from the snowboarder for his permanent disability?
The skier can recover $2 million from the snowboarder because the snowboarder is jointly and severally liable for the injury. The doctrine of joint and several liability provides that when two or more tortious acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury to plaintiff, each tortfeasor will be jointly and severally liable for that injury. This means that plaintiff can recover the entire amount of his damages from any one defendant.
Each tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of the skier’s disability because but for either one of the acts, his leg would not have been permanently disabled. The snowboarder’s act was the proximate cause of the skier’s disability because the disability was the direct result of the snowboarder’s act. The fact that the extent of the harm was unforeseeable is irrelevant; i.e., the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him. Thus, the skier can recover the entire $2 million from the snowboarder.
A local entertainment section of a newspaper published a story on the town’s business district, accompanied by photos of various businesses in the district. A minister who happened to be walking on the sidewalk in front of an adult bookstore when a photo was taken for the story became very upset when he saw it in the newspaper, because the camera angle made it appear that he was exiting the bookstore.
If the minister sues the newspaper for invasion of privacy and establishes the above facts, is he likely to prevail?
The minister likely will prevail because unauthorized use of his picture that falsely makes him appear to be exiting the adult bookstore would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances and constitute a false light invasion of privacy. To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy based on publication by defendant of facts placing plaintiff in a false light, the following elements must be proved: (i) publication of facts about plaintiff by defendant placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and (ii) the “false light” must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances. Here, the photo created the false impression that the minister was exiting an adult bookstore. Publication of the photo conveying this false impression of the minister’s conduct would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances.
A company that was the leading supplier of home water filtration systems had a network of sales promoters who were under contract for two- or three-year terms and were compensated solely by commissions earned from sales and by occasional bonuses. Veteran promoters also earned commissions by recruiting other promoters for the company. One of the company’s veteran promoters was contacted by a former top sales representative for another manufacturer who was looking for similar sales opportunities in the region. The sales rep knew that the promoter might be able to get her a position with his company, which was looking for additional promoters. At the time he met with the sales rep, the promoter’s contract with the company had one more month to run. When the promoter’s contract with the company expired, he announced that he was forming his own business to market a different line of water filtration systems manufactured by a competitor of the company, and that the sales rep would be in charge of his promotional network.
The company brought an action against the promoter for interference with business relations for hiring the sales rep. At a preliminary hearing, the parties stipulated to the above facts and that the promoter was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the company. The promoter then filed a motion for a summary judgment in his favor.
Should the court grant the promoter’s motion?
A - Yes, because the sales rep had no business relationship with the company at the time the promoter’s alleged interference occurred.
B - Yes, because the promoter was an independent contractor rather than an employee of the company.
C - No, because the jury could find that the means the promoter used to obtain the sales rep were not privileged.
D - No, because the jury could find that the promoter breached his contract with the company by meeting with the sales rep.
(C) The court should not grant the promoter’s motion because the jury could find that the promoter used improper means, while working for the company, to divert the sales rep for his own purposes.
To establish a prima facie case for interference with business relations, the following elements must be proved: (i) existence of a valid contractual relationship between plaintiff and a third party or a valid business expectancy of plaintiff; (ii) defendant’s knowledge of the relationship or expectancy; (iii) intentional interference by defendant that induces a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (iv) damage to plaintiff.
Thus, a plaintiff has a cause of action for interference with probable future business relationships for which the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of financial benefit. On the other hand, an interferer’s conduct may be privileged where it is a proper attempt to obtain business for the interferer, particularly if the interference is only with a prospective business relationship rather than with an existing contract. What is proper depends on various factors, including the means of persuasion used. Here, the promoter’s conduct would not be privileged if the jury were to find that he improperly used his position with the company to develop a relationship with the sales rep.
