Liability Flashcards
Biercyznski v. Rogers
Drag Race
If two people are acting negligently and one causes the plaintiff injury, both can be held liable for any injuries resulting from their negligence.
Coney v. J.L.G Industries
Worker Killed by Machine
Comparative negligence does not eliminate joint and several liability. Even if the plaintiff was negligent, they can still recover the full amount of damages.
Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply
Sudden Braking
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.
Bundt v. Embro
Vision Blocked by Roadworks
Once a plaintiff recovers the full amount in damages, the other joint tortfeasors are discharged from liability.
Cox v. Pearl Investment
Injured at Goodwill
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.
Knell v. Feltman
Passengers Injured in Car Accident
A defendant can sue another party for contribution even if that party was not named in the original suit.
Yellow Cab v. Dreslin
Taxi Collision with Wife
If a joint tortfeasor is not liable to the plaintiff then the other joint tortfeasor cannot seek contribution from them.
Slocum v. Donahue
Vehicular Homicide
- 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.
Bussard v. Minimed
Exterminator and Car Accident
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’.
O’Shea v. Welch
Stopping at Auto Repair Shop
‘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.
Murrell v. Goertz
Battery for Newspapers
Independent contractors do not fall under the scope of respondeat superior.
Maloney v. Rath
Poor Car Repair
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.
Foster v. Preston Mill
Scared Minks
Strict liability is confined to those damages which result from that which makes the activity ultrahazardous.
Rylands v. Fletcher
Flooded Mines
An owner is liable for his land and the alterations he makes to it even if he has not been negligent.
Miller v. Civil Constructors
Shooting Range
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’.
Indiana Harvor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid
Chemical Spill
Shipping hazardous chemicals is not an ultrahazardous activity.
Golden v. Amory
A landowner is not strictly liable for damage caused by an act of God.
Indiana Harvor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid
Chemical Spill
Shipping hazardous chemicals is not an ultrahazardous activity.
Joint Enterprise
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
Ultrahazardous Activities
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
Respondeat Superior
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.
Contribution
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.
Indemnification
An innocent defendant who must pay the plaintiff damages seeks compensation from the actual tortfeasor.
Satisfaction
Acceptance of full compensation for an injury
Release
Plaintiff drops the cause of action against a defendant
Joint and Several Liability
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.
Vicarious Liability
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
Strict Liability
Liability without fault: plaintiff recovers for injuries caused by a defendant without needing to prove fault (breach is assumed)
Strict Liability: trespassing domesticated animals
An owner is strictly liable for trespass and any damages resulting from the trespass if their livestock trespasses on land or chattels.
Strict Liability: dangerous domesticated animals
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
Strict Liability: wild animals
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.
