Negligence Flashcards
Cause of action for intentional torts
Negligence
Adams v. Bullock
Major Topic Rule
A person who has taken reasonable action to prevent foreseeable dangers is not liable for negligence in extraordinary circumstances.
Business Practice Rule
A customer need not establish actual or constructive notice when the business practice of the store provides a continuous and foreseeable risk of harm
Rule
Restatement of Torts § 390
One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expert to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.
*Creates a higher burden because the supplier has to be on notice of the risk *
Somewhat combines duty and breach into one test
Negligent Entrustment
Peterson v. Halsted
The court declined to consider financial cosigners as direct providers of chattel and therefore do not have a duty to third parties injured by the other party.
Negligent Entrustment
Osborn v. Hertz Corp.
A car rental company does not have a duty to investigate the driving record of a sober customer with valid license, even if that person had previously been convicted of drunk driving.
Negligent Entrustment
West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.
A gas station did owe a duty when it had to assist a man in getting gas because was so intoxicated he could not do it himself and therefore can be liable for negligent entrustment.
Negligent Entrustment
Vince v. Wilson
Major Topic Rule
Under the theory of negligent entrustment, a party who entrusts an automobile to a driver the party knows to be incompetent may be held liable for injuries resulting from the driver’s incompetent operation of the vehicle.
Negligent Entrustment
Dicranian v. Foster
Major Topic Rule
Negligent entrustment arises through combined negligee, one in the conduct and the other in support the first in such conduct
Negligent Entrustment
Golembe v. Blumberg
Court found a father was liable for purchasing a car for his epileptic son as a proximate cause of injury
Negligent Entrustment
Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners
Leaving a truck unattended and unlocked overnight in a dangerous neighborhood was enough to impose a duty.
Prof noted potential racial implications with “dangerous neighborhood”
Neglingent Entrustment
Lucero v. Holbrook
A car owner who left her car running but unattended in her own private driveway while she ran inside to grab something did not have a duty.
Counters Palma v. Industrial Fasteners, also occurs in nicer area
Negligent Entrustment
Restatement of Torts (Third) § 46 Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm
An actor who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional harm to another is subject to liability for that emotional harm and, if the emotional harm causes bodily harm, also for the bodily harm.
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises Inc
If a reasonable person could find that a publisher who provided specific instructions on how to commit a crime specifically intended for the instructions to be used to commit the crime, the publisher may be held civilly liable for aiding and abetting the crime.
Book published was about how to be a hitman and someone used it to kill
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms International
Negligent entrustment requires that the entrustor must have ‘actual or constrictive knowledge that the specific person to whom a dangerous instrumentality is directly entrusbable is unfit to use it properly.”
Negligent Entrustment
