Negligence Flashcards
Will the Simpsons prevail in a negligence suit against Luanne Vanhouten if (1) Simpsons and Vanhoutens did not find any dangerous conditions after a reasonable search before closing, (2) a few days after the sale, the kitchen caught fire when Marge was making dinner, (3) the Simpsons were able to escape but Homer suffered some burns and damage to his lungs, (4) fire was caused by unreasonably dangerous wiring, (5) Luanne said she was unaware of the faulty wiring?
No b/c Luanne was not aware of the faulty wiring - even though Luanne has a duty to disclose (1) known, (2) concealed and (3) unreasonably dangerous conditions (4) that the Simpsons are unlikely to discover - since she did not know about the faulty wiring, she is not liable in negligence
Can Smithers prevail in a suit against morticians if (1) morticians negligently attached Smithers’ father’s coffin to a crane to get it out of the quarry, (2) as the coffin was being transported, the negligently attached straps gave way and his corpse fell out back into the quarry, (3) Smithers Jr. was horrified and traumatized by the incident?
Yes b/c morticians are liable for negligent infliction of emotional distress - even though Smithers Jr. (1) wasn’t threatened by or within zone of danger of physical impact, and (2) didn’t suffer any physical symptoms, the fact that it was Smithers Sr.’s corpse that was mishandled allows Waylon to recover under negligent infliction of emotional distress b/c of the special relationship exception
Can Lenny prevail against Professor Frink in a suit if (1) Frink demonstrated destructive power of potassium and water in class, (2) student in his class broke into lab and stole a ton of potassium for fireworks display on the lake, (3) resulting explosion caused massive property damage and injured Lenny, (4) Lenny was able to show that Frink’s demonstration was the but for causation, (5) Lenny has valid claim against student for negligence, (6) Oregon is pure several liability?
No b/c Frink neither authorized or encouraged his student’s negligence - Frink didn’t breach any duty to Lenny b/c he didn’t instruct the student to put potassium in the lake and had no authority over the student that would have resulted in his vicarious liability, nor did he have an affirmative duty to prevent the student from behaving negligently - even though Frink was the but for cause of the injury, that alone is not sufficient if (1) he had no duty or (2) his breach was not the proximate cause - several liability is irrelevant here b/c Frink was not liable for anything
