independant contractors and Intro to Strict Liability

Question 1

Defense of implied assumption of risk

Answer 1

voluntarily assumption of known risk (subjectively known the risk)

Question 2

Implied assumption of risk minority rule: reduction of plaintiffs’ recovery but not bar complete damages

Implied assumption of risk majority rule: a complete bar of damages.

Question 3

Vicarious liability: someone must be negligent
- based on the relationship between two parties and holding a third party liable for someone’s actions

Strict liability: there does not have to be negligence

Question 4

A defendant under respondeat superior

• employer and employee relationship between the defendant’s
• acting within the scope of their employment

Question 5

Frolick: outside of the scope of his employment

Detour: slight deviation that is sufficiently related to the employment to still fall within the scope of their employment.

Question 6

Murrell Case: Deciding if the dude was an employee or independent contractor. If a worker is an independent contractor, the company is not liable. If the worker is an employee a company can be found vicariously liable for the damages caused by an employee within the scope of the employment. To decide if someone is an employee a court must decide if the worker is under the control and direction of his employer. An independent contractor contrastingly does their job outside the control and specific direction of their employer. Employers are only concerned with the result of an independent contractor’s work, not the method.

Deciding if someone is an employee or an independent contractor is a fact-based analysis by the court. If a worker is closer internally to the company, they are more likely an employee. If they are outside of the company, and the worker provides their own tools and means to carry out the job, they are most likely an independent contractor.

Question 7

Maloney case: Exception to the general independent contract rule in Murrell case.
NONDELEGABLE DUTY: A plaintiff is liable even when an independent contractor was negligent if it is a nondelegable doctrine.
- where an independent contractor is hired to do an inherently dangerous activity. (an activity that involves peculiar risks of harm calls for more than ordinary precaution. ) The employer is liable.
- Negligence has to be collateral to risk

Question 8

Strict liability

Answer 8

What activities by the defendant will subject them to strict liability (where they are liable despite the absence of negligence.)

Question 9

Rylands v. Fletcher: Can damages be given to someone even though the plaintiffs were not negligent?

Answer 9

Yes, if damages occur to the plaintiffs from the willful, unnatural holding and natural escape of property that is likely to cause damage, the defendant should pay.

Think of the water in Rylands like the weird dangerous animals that result in strict liability against the defendant.

Question 10

Miller v. Construction (Strict liability from abnormally dangerous activity)

Answer 10

1. High degree of risk of harm to others
2. Likelihood that harm will be great
3. Inability to eliminate the harm by exercising reasonable care
   - we can eliminate the risk of guns with reasonable care (you gotta pull the trigger to create risks)
4. Inappropriateness of the activity
   - it is appropriate to use a gun in a remote firing range.
5. The extent to which activity is not a matter of common usage
6. The extent of activities’ value to the community is outweighed by danger.
   - cops doing target practice to ensure the safety of the public pulls away from strict liability

THIS IS A BALANCING TEST (the degree to which any of these factors is present)

(DECIDED BY MATTER OF LAW BY A JUDGE)

Question 11

Thursday is going to be great. Four more cases where we will practice applying different strict liability balancing factors. We do have class next week it is all review.