Negligence - Basics

Question 1

Negligence

Answer 1

Objective standard:

• omission to do something which a reasonable person, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do
• OR doing something a prudent and reasonable person would not do

Question 2

Steps for Analyzing a Negligence Claim

Answer 2

• Phase 1: look to defendant’s conduct to see if it is subpar/unreasonable
• Phase 2: assuming there is something unreasonable about def’s conduct, look to pl’s conduct
• Phase 3: look to connection between plaintiff’s injury and defendant’s action - causation

Question 3

What does a reasonable person do?

Answer 3

• BALANCING
• prudential ability to think about the future (rational ability to connect means + ends)
• at time of act, what would a person reasonably do, balancing risks against burdens?
• ethical side (neither an altruist nor an egoist)

Question 4

Hand Formula

Answer 4

• way of measuring/balancing whether or not act was reasonable
• B (burden of taking a precaution) vs. PL (probability of harm x magnitude of loss) -> negligence when B less than PL
• marginal effect of additional B determines whether or not you should take it

Question 5

Chicago, B & Q RR v. Krayenbuhl

Answer 5

• attractive nuisance claim
• 4 yr old pl gets leg cut off b/c def fails to lock turntable up
• def’s burden of locking up minimal, so D is liable

Question 6

Van Skike v. Zussman - Facts

Answer 6

• minor and mother sue for negligence regarding toy lighter + lighter fluid that were bought from D1 (machine operator) and D2 (store), respectively
• boy lit self on fire w/ the toy + the fluid -> suing Zussman as operator of the toy machine + Rivera as operator of convenience store
• claims D1 negligent for failing to foresee child’s lack of judgment

Question 7

Van Skike v. Zussman - Holding

Answer 7

• court says foreseeability must be reasonable
• mere possibility that injury might occur doesn’t meet threshold necessary to establish foreseeable risk of harm -> says in this case, it was possible but not reasonably foreseeable that boy with toy light would then purchase + ignite lighter fluid
• complaint against store owner also fails - lighter fluid not so inherently dangerous as to impute knowledge of injurious consequences to store owner who sells it

Question 8

Van Skike - Rule

Answer 8

• fact that def knows pl’s actions/harm to pl are a possibility is not sufficient to charge def w/ negligence - harm to pl must be “reasonable foreseeable”

Question 9

Analysis of B’s in Van Skike

Answer 9

D1: (court largely ignores these options - says PL infinitesimal b/c little P, although counterarg that L very large)

• warnings on toy
• other prizes instead of a lighter
• having machines elsewhere

D2:

• don’t sell dangerous articles to minors
• don’t sell lighter fluid in a store that dispenses toy lighters
• don’t sell lighter fluid to a kid that just bought the toy lighter (ie. ask them)

Question 10

Plaintiff’s General Goals vs. Defendant’s

Answer 10

• pl trying to narrow B as much as possible so it has lowest cost possible (vs. def trying to enhance magnitude of costs)
• def would want to show the precautions would make the trade non-lucrative + also that making judgments onerous (ex in Van Skike, do I sell to 12 yr old but not 6 yr old? Do I have to see if kid is lying when I ask them if they just bought a toy lighter?)

Question 11

Davis v. Consolidated Rail - Facts

Answer 11

• Davis was repairing RR cars -> was under a car + had legs cut off when train was started w/o bell being rung
• Consolidated RR says Davis was negligent b/c failed to put up a blue flag you’re supposed to put up when doing repairs

Question 12

Davis - Rule/Significance

Answer 12

• PL = package of risks (not just looking at the risk of the particular injury in the case, looking at other harms that could’ve been avoided by the B as well)

Question 13

Davis - Holding

Answer 13

• court ruled for pl, saying $3 million in damages, but pl 1/3 at fault so only got $2 million

Question 14

Snyder v. AABB - Facts

Answer 14

• between 1983 and 1985, there was a debate about how to test blood -> leading researchers in 1983 were saying AIDS transmitted through blood, but AABB didn’t change testing method -> Snyder got transfusion + contracted AIDS during this period + sues for negligence

Question 15

Snyder v. AABB - Holding

Answer 15

• court rules for Snyder, but only 30% of damages b/c that corresponds to the extent to which his risk of contracting HIV was attributable to AABB’s negligence (risk would’ve been reduced by 30% if they’d adopted the testing measures)
• deals w/ enhanced risk doctrine