Liability

Question 1

Biercyznski v. Rogers

Drag Race

Answer 1

If two people are acting negligently and one causes the plaintiff injury, both can be held liable for any injuries resulting from their negligence.

Question 2

Coney v. J.L.G Industries

Worker Killed by Machine

Answer 2

Comparative negligence does not eliminate joint and several liability. Even if the plaintiff was negligent, they can still recover the full amount of damages.

Question 3

Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply

Sudden Braking

Answer 3

Comparative negligence eliminates joint and several liability. The damages owed by the defendant should be reduced by their percentage culpability. If one tortfeasor is unknown, the known defendant cannot be held liable for all of the damages.

Question 4

Bundt v. Embro

Vision Blocked by Roadworks

Answer 4

Once a plaintiff recovers the full amount in damages, the other joint tortfeasors are discharged from liability.

Question 5

Cox v. Pearl Investment

Injured at Goodwill

Answer 5

If a contract releases one joint tortfeasor from liability but specifies that the plaintiff can sue other tortfeasors, those tortfeasors are still liable for damages.

Question 6

Knell v. Feltman

Passengers Injured in Car Accident

Answer 6

A defendant can sue another party for contribution even if that party was not named in the original suit.

Question 7

Yellow Cab v. Dreslin

Taxi Collision with Wife

Answer 7

If a joint tortfeasor is not liable to the plaintiff then the other joint tortfeasor cannot seek contribution from them.

Question 8

Slocum v. Donahue

Vehicular Homicide

Answer 8

• Contribution and indemnification are mutually exclusive.
• If there is a release made between the plaintiff and one of the joint tortfeasors, the other joint tortfeasors cannot seek contribution from the released party.

Question 9

Bussard v. Minimed

Exterminator and Car Accident

Answer 9

Under the ‘going and coming’ rule, employers are generally not liable for torts which occur during their employees’ commutes. An exception to this is when an employee ‘endangers others with a risk arising from or related to work’.

Question 10

O’Shea v. Welch

Stopping at Auto Repair Shop

Answer 10

‘Slight deviation’ rule: employer is still liable for their employee’s torts even if the employee deviates slightly from the prescribed work unless the deviation involves something wholly personal and unrelated to work.

Question 11

Murrell v. Goertz

Battery for Newspapers

Answer 11

Independent contractors do not fall under the scope of respondeat superior.

Question 12

Maloney v. Rath

Poor Car Repair

Answer 12

Car maintenance is a non delegable duty. A party is liable for their independent contractor’s negligence if the contractor’s work was non delegable.

Question 13

Foster v. Preston Mill

Scared Minks

Answer 13

Strict liability is confined to those damages which result from that which makes the activity ultrahazardous.

Question 14

Rylands v. Fletcher

Flooded Mines

Answer 14

An owner is liable for his land and the alterations he makes to it even if he has not been negligent.

Question 15

Miller v. Civil Constructors

Shooting Range

Answer 15

A defendant is strictly liable for damages that result from an ultrahazardous activity which is ‘unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where it is maintained’.

Question 16

Indiana Harvor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid

Chemical Spill

Answer 16

Shipping hazardous chemicals is not an ultrahazardous activity.

Question 17

Golden v. Amory

Answer 17

A landowner is not strictly liable for damage caused by an act of God.

Question 18

Indiana Harvor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid

Chemical Spill

Answer 18

Shipping hazardous chemicals is not an ultrahazardous activity.

Question 19

Joint Enterprise

Answer 19

Elements:
1. Agreement between members of the group
2. Common purpose carried out by the group
3. Group has a monetary interest
4. Each member has equal power in decision-making

Question 20

Ultrahazardous Activities

Answer 20

Activities which are ‘unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where it is maintained’.
Factors:
1. Degree of severity of possible harm
2. Likelihood of harm
3. Ability to mitigate risk through reasonable care
4. Whether the activity is common usage
5. Inappropriateness of the activity to the location
6. Balance of value to the community and dangerous attributes

Question 21

Respondeat Superior

Answer 21

Employers may be held liable for the torts of their employees.
Elements:
1. There is an employer-employee relationship between the parties and the tort was committed by an employee.
2. The tort was committed while the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.

Question 22

Contribution

Answer 22

A defendant can sue another tortfeasor for compensation for all or part of the damages. Occurs between tortfeasors responsible for the same injury, arising from the same set of facts.

Question 23

Indemnification

Answer 23

An innocent defendant who must pay the plaintiff damages seeks compensation from the actual tortfeasor.

Question 24

Satisfaction

Answer 24

Acceptance of full compensation for an injury

Question 25

Release

Answer 25

Plaintiff drops the cause of action against a defendant

Question 26

Joint and Several Liability

Answer 26

If there are several tortfeasors, these parties can be sued jointly and the plaintiff can collect the full amount in damages split between the defendants or from any one defendant.

Question 27

Vicarious Liability

Answer 27

A party is held liable for another’s tort even if the party’s own conduct did not meet the elements of that tort.
Elements:
1. The defendant acts on behalf of the party
2. The defendant commits a tort while acting on behalf of the other party
3. Damages result from the tort

Question 28

Strict Liability

Answer 28

Liability without fault: plaintiff recovers for injuries caused by a defendant without needing to prove fault (breach is assumed)

Question 29

Strict Liability: trespassing domesticated animals

Answer 29

An owner is strictly liable for trespass and any damages resulting from the trespass if their livestock trespasses on land or chattels.

Question 30

Strict Liability: dangerous domesticated animals

Answer 30

An owner is strictly liable for a domesticated animal if they knew the animal had vicious propensities uncommon to that type of animal and the injury was the result of those vicious propensities.
Elements:
1. the defendant kept an animals
2. the animal was vicious
3. the defendant knew the animal was vicious

Question 31

Strict Liability: wild animals

Answer 31

An owner is strictly liable for the foreseeable harm an animal out of context for the environment may do. If there happen to be wild animals on your property and you do not try to domesticate them you are not liable for them.