Intro Tort Liability_pg16-36

Question 1

Contingency fees are considered unethical because?

Answer 1

can result in frivolous or fraudulent litigation, the lawyers charge too much and take unfair advantage

Question 2

Contingency fees are considered good because?

Answer 2

Those who are poor can file suit when they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to sue otherwise, results in more jobs

Question 3

Why do so many injury victims fail to seek compensation after suffering injury?

Answer 3

they do not realize that injury was tortiously inflicted, can be overcome by guilt, have difficulty finding competent counsel, the probing into one’s private life, having to repeat testimony, and lawyers will only take easy-to-win cases

Question 4

writ for certiorari

Answer 4

The name of a writ issued by a superior court directing an inferior court to send up to the former some pending proceeding

Question 5

What are the 2 things the deceased can sue for?

Answer 5

1. their interest in their own bodily security

2. dependents interest in continued economic support

Question 6

What statute protects the deceased’s interest in their own bodily security? Describe it

Answer 6

the survival statute- they sue for any harm the deceased would have sued for if they were alive

Question 7

What statute protects the deceased’s dependents interest in continued economic support? Describe it

Answer 7

wrongful death statute- sue’s for the pecuniary loss the death may have caused them to suffer

Question 8

In a lawsuit on behalf of a dead victim, who handles the affairs of one who died intestate (w/o a will)?

Answer 8

an administrator

Question 9

In a lawsuit on behalf of a dead victim, who handles the affairs of one who died with a will?

Answer 9

an executor

Question 10

Christensen v. Swenson: facts

Answer 10

Swenson (defendant) worked as a security guard for Burns (defendant) at the Geneva Steel Plant. During their shifts, guards at the plant were permitted to take unscheduled lunch and restroom breaks lasting 10 to 15 minutes. The only restaurant accessible during these short breaks was the Frontier Cafe, located across the street from the plant and about 150 to 250 yards away from Swenson’s post. A menu for the cafe was displayed at Swenson’s post. On the day of the accident Swenson called the cafe from her post to place an order, then drove to the cafe, intending to return and eat lunch at her post. While returning from the cafe, Swenson collided with Christensen, a motorcyclist (plaintiff). Christensen sued Swenson and Burns, claiming that Swenson was negligent in her driving. The trial court dismissed Burns on summary judgment after finding that Swenson was not acting within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Swenson was not within the spatial boundaries of her employment at the time of the accident, because the accident did not occur on employer property. The case was elevated on appeal to the Supreme Court of Utah.

Question 11

Christensen v. Swenson: doctrine of respondeat superior

Answer 11

employers are vicariously liable for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their employment

Question 12

Christensen v. Swenson: When suit was brought against Swenson and Burns (employer), Burns moved for what action and used what reasoning? How did the court respond?

Answer 12

Burnss moved for summary judgement on the ground that Senson was not acting in the scope of her employment at the time of the accident; The trial court granted the motion and the court of appeals affirmed (agreed)

Question 13

Christensen v. Swenson: What are the 3 criteria for determining whether an employee is acting within their scope of employment?

Answer 13

1. the employee’s conduct must be of the general kind the employee is hired to perform
2. the employee’s conduct must occur substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of employment
3. the employee’s conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of serving the employer’s interest

Question 14

Christensen v. Swenson: What did the court of appeals hold?

Answer 14

Swenson was not substantially within the ordinary spatial boundaries of her employment because the accident occured on geneva property and did not address the 1st or 3rd criteria for determining whether an employee is acting within their scope of employment?

Question 15

Christensen v. Swenson: What facts applied to the 1st criteria for determining whether an employee is acting within their scope of employment (the employee’s conduct must be of the general kind the employee is hired to perform)?

Answer 15

Swenson claims that Burns hired her as a security guard to “see and be seen” on and around the geneva plant however, the deposition of another security guard stated that he considered lunch trips to the Frontier Cafe to be personal in nature, the company recognized that employees need to eat (allowing 15 min. break), the company knew employees went to the cafe yet never punished them for doing so, a menu for the cafe was posted in gate 4

Question 16

Christensen v. Swenson: What facts applied to the 2nd criteria for determining whether an employee is acting within their scope of employment (the employee’s conduct must occur substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of employment)?

Answer 16

Swenson’s actions occured within the hours of her employment, and while she was not on geneva property when it occured she was within the geographic area accessible during her 15 min. break, guards were not barred from leaving the facility

Question 17

Christensen v. Swenson: What facts applied to the 3rd criteria for determining whether an employee is acting within their scope of employment (the employee’s conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of serving the employer’s interest)?

Answer 17

Employers receive the benefit of productive, satisfied employees when employees take breaks and eat, and the company’s break policy placed a premium on speed and efficiency- going to that cafe was speedy and efficient

Question 18

Christensen v. Swenson: holding

Answer 18

reasonable minds could differ as to whether Swenson was acting within or outside her scope of employment when she collided with the plaintiff’s motorcycle. Thus, summary judgement is inappropriate. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Question 19

Christensen v. Swenson: issue

Answer 19

Was swenson acting within her scope of employment when colliding with Christensen on her route to the Frontier Cafe?