Fault-Based or Strict Liability

Question 1

Hammontree v. Jenner

Answer 1

[Seizure car crash - Liability of driver rests on negligence not strict liability] The liability of a driver, suddenly stricken by an illness rendering him unconscious, for injury resulting from an accident occurring during that time must rest on principles of negligence, and not absolute liability.

Question 2

Derobertis v. Randazzo

Answer 2

[Dog bite infant - claims exist under common law and dog bite statute] Dog owners with scienter (prove that the dog was vicious and that the owner knew it) are subject to absolute/strict liability. Although owners of known vicious dogs should be absolutely liable even to trespassers, the conduct of the victim remains relevant to the determination of liability. Not all trespassers are alike; “trespasser” includes both the burglar and the uninvited infant. Some trespassers, such as those who enter premises for criminal purposes, ordinarily should have no claim upon an owner.

Question 3

Christiansen v. Sweson

Answer 3

[Employer Sued for Employee’s Crash – Respondeat Superior: A doctrine whereby employers are vicariously liable (The imposition of liability on one person for the actionable conduct of another, based solely on the relationship between the two persons) for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment] Summary judgment is inappropriate when reasonable minds could differ as to whether the defendant was acting within or outside the scope of her employment when an accident occurred. There are certain factors that can help a jury decide whether acts fall within the scope of an employee’s employment:
(a) Work-related conduct; Employee’s conduct is of the general kind the employee is hired to perform
(b) Employee’s conduct must occur substantially within the hours and ordinary
special boundaries of the employment.
(c) Employee’s conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of
serving the employer’s interest.