Negligence Flashcards
A statute requires that any pilot who flies passengers for hire must have a commercial pilot’s license. An experienced pilot who had only a private pilot’s license and not the commercial license required by statute was hired by an attorney to fly her to another city to close a deal. The attorney knew that the pilot did not have a commercial license but the only commercial flight to the city was at an inconvenient time. The pilot flew the attorney through bad weather and landed safely, but because of a minor navigational error he landed at an airport a few miles away from the airport he was heading for. As he was going to start taxiing toward the hangar, another plane struck the aircraft. The student pilot of that plane had ignored the control tower’s instructions and gone onto the landing runway instead of the takeoff runway. The attorney was injured in the collision.
If the attorney sues the pilot for her injuries, who will prevail?
The pilot will prevail because the conduct of the other plane’s student pilot constituted a superseding intervening force that relieves the pilot from liability. To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the attorney must show that the pilot’s breach of his duty to her was the actual and proximate cause of her injury. The attorney can establish actual cause because but for the pilot’s error, she would not have been injured. However, not all injuries “actually” caused by a defendant will be deemed to have been proximately caused by his acts.
Here, the pilot’s navigational error did create a greater risk of collision with other planes in the process of landing, but it did not increase the risk of a plane using the landing runway to take off in disregard of the control tower’s instructions once the pilot was safely on the ground. Hence, the student pilot’s unforeseeable conduct was not within the increased risk created by the pilot’s negligence and constitutes a superseding force that breaks the causal connection between the pilot’s conduct and the attorney’s injury, enabling the pilot to avoid liability to the attorney.
A motorist driving home one night on a desolate two-lane road stopped when he saw a person lying on the road next to a bicycle. The cyclist had slipped and fallen off his bicycle, and was knocked unconscious when he hit his head on the pavement. Not wishing to get involved and seeing that no one else was around, the motorist got back into his car and drove away without making any effort to help the cyclist, even though he had a cell phone with which he could have summoned aid. The cyclist remained lying in the same place and was later struck by another car.
If the cyclist brings suit against the motorist for injuries suffered when he was struck by the other car, will the cyclist prevail?
A - No, because the motorist was not responsible for causing the cyclist to be lying by the side of the road.
B - No, because the cyclist’s injuries were caused by the negligence of another driver.
A. The cyclist will not prevail because the motorist was not responsible for putting the cyclist in a position of danger. While one whose conduct places another in a position of peril has a duty to assist the person, there is no general affirmative duty to rescue, except by a professional rescuer. Also, once any person decides to assist in a rescue, he must act as a reasonable person in an emergency situation. Here, the motorist was under no duty to assist the cyclist, and his actions when he stopped and got out of his car did nothing to make the cyclist’s situation worse (such as causing others not to stop because they believed the cyclist was receiving assistance).
*(B) is wrong because the fact that another driver negligently injured the cyclist would not preclude the motorist from also being liable if he had been responsible for putting the cyclist in a position of danger.
A motorist was driving to a luncheon in a car that he knew did not have operating headlights. On the way there he was rear-ended by another driver who had been driving 20 m.p.h. over the speed limit posted on that stretch of road. He suffered personal injuries and his car was extensively damaged. The jurisdiction makes it a misdemeanor to drive a vehicle that does not have operating headlights.
If the motorist brings an action against the other driver and the above facts are established, will he prevail?
The motorist will recover all of his damages because the other driver’s violation of the statute constituted negligence per se. A clearly stated duty created by a criminal statute may replace the more general duty of care if the proponent of the statutory standard shows that (i) he is in a class intended to be protected by the statute, and (ii) the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm that was suffered. Here, the motorist can establish that the statutory standard regarding speeding should be applied against the other driver because the speed limit was posted, the motorist, as a fellow driver, is in the class intended to be protected by the statute, and it was designed to prevent accidents such as that which occurred. No excuse for violating the statute is present in the facts; thus, violation of the statute establishes negligence per se (i.e., duty and breach of duty). The motorist has established causation and damages, completing the prima facie case.
*Not having operating headlights does not mean motorist will recover less - irrelevant to issue.
A plumber working for a company providing plumbing services to commercial and industrial establishments was required to be “on call” for emergency plumbing services 24 hours a day, and was required to drive his company van home each night so he would have all of his tools and equipment at hand for any calls. However, he was not permitted to use the company van for personal errands. On his way home one afternoon, he took a detour toward a supermarket a few blocks away to pick up some items for dinner. While entering the supermarket parking lot, he drove negligently and struck a pedestrian, seriously injuring him. The pedestrian filed suit against the plumber’s company in a jurisdiction that maintains traditional common law rules regarding contribution and indemnity, and the jury awarded him $100,000 in damages, which the company paid.
If the company sues the plumber to recoup its loss in the lawsuit, which party will prevail?
A - The company can recover 100% of the judgment as an indemnity, because the plumber was negligent, not the company.
B - The company will prevail, because the company had a rule against using company vehicles for personal errands.
The company can recover 100% of the judgment under common law indemnity rules. The principle of indemnity permits a shifting between the tortfeasors of the entire loss (i.e., the payment made to satisfy plaintiff’s judgment). This is in contrast to contribution, which apportions the loss among those who are at fault. Indemnity is available in vicarious liability situations, where one party is held liable for damages caused by another simply because of his relationship to that person. Hence, an employer such as the plumber’s company that has been held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior can obtain indemnification from the employee (the plumber) whose conduct actually caused the damage.
(B) is incorrect because the company need not show that the plumber breached a company rule before it can obtain indemnity. The fact that the plumber’s negligence caused the injury and that the company was liable for the judgment solely because of its relationship to the plumber permits indemnification here.
A driver and his passenger were involved in an automobile accident when the driver ran a red light and crashed into another car. Due to a manufacturing defect in the automobile’s airbag system, the passenger side airbag did not deploy. The passenger was killed on impact. The passenger’s estate brought suit against the driver and the airbag’s manufacturer. At trial it is established that the driver was negligent in running the red light.
What effect would such proof have on the claim of the passenger’s estate against the airbag manufacturer?
A - reduce recovery by the estate if the action against the manufacturer is based on negligence.
B - bar recovery by the estate if the trier of fact finds that the driver was the sole legal cause of the passenger’s death.
C - bar recovery by the estate if it is shown that the driver is the sole legal heir of the passenger’s estate.
D - no effect on recovery by the estate as long as the action against the manufacturer is based on strict liability.
The driver’s negligence would bar recovery if it was the sole legal cause of the passenger’s death. Regardless of the theory that the plaintiff is using in a products liability action, actual and proximate cause must be established. If the driver’s negligence is the sole legal or proximate cause of the passenger’s death, it would preclude the estate’s suit against the airbag manufacturer because the defect was not a legal cause of the passenger’s death.
