No Duty to Act Flashcards
1
Q
No Duty to Act
A
- duty is usually presumed to exist in negligence law -> no duty to act = exception
- cases where objection to def’s conduct is that he/she/they could’ve rescued pl from harm but didn’t
- normally, defs would be able to prevent the harm w/ little risk to themselves - if there were a duty, it would be very easy to find a breach
2
Q
No Duty to Act - Core Premise
A
- natural and legal persons who aren’t legally responsible for putting a victim in peril have no duty to act to protect that victim from peril
- def didn’t put pl in danger so shouldn’t be faulted for failing to protect them
- general duty not to put strangers at risk, but no general duty to protect strangers from risks for which we aren’t responsible
3
Q
No Duty to Act - Classical Doctrine
A
- classical doctrine really draws on this notion of lack of fault for the danger -> old rule was basically that you have no legal duty to act
4
Q
Exceptions Under Old Rule
A
No duty to help pl even if could have protected w/ reasonable care UNLESS:
- def undertakes rescue of pl
- relationship (privity of contract)
- causal responsibility (def’s negligence caused the dangerous situation)
Note that the rescue option sort of the only real exception - relationship is related to contract anyway and the causal relationship element is really just back to negligence
5
Q
Union Pacific Railway v. Cappier - Facts
A
- 1903 (old rule)
- Ezelle hit by moving railway car while trying to cross tracks - RR co. found not negligence in causing accident, but q about what they did afterwards -> train moved on, called for help across bridge, but employees didn’t immediately try to stop the bleeding
6
Q
Union Pacific Railway - Holding
A
- employees didn’t cause the accident, so not negligent even if they didn’t exercise reasonable care in tending to the wounds
- distinguished moral duty from legal duty (moral duty to help but no legal one)
- did note though that if had taken pl into their care, they would’ve had duty to provide best care possible under circumstances
7
Q
No Duty to Act- Modern Conception
A
- w/in my textbook notes, modern doctrine generally thought to accept same gen. rule as classical (no duty) but recognizes distinct circumstances in which exceptions to that general duty take hold
8
Q
Posner’s Exceptions to No Duty to Act
A
- w/in modern conceptions
Posner highlights 3 categories in which rescuer has either explicitly or implicitly accepted duty of rescue or has caused the injury:
- rescuer has assumed, either explicitly or implicitly, contractual duty to rescue victim or had created in the victim a reasonable expectation that he had assumed such a duty
- victim was in rescuer’s custody + w/o access to alternative resources (prison inmates, patients in mental hospitals)
- victim’s peril caused by putative rescuer (even if caused non-negligently)
9
Q
LS Ayers & Co. v. Hicks - Facts
A
- Supreme Court of Indiana, 1942
- boy gets fingers caught in an escalator at def’s department store –> alleges negligence on basis that escalator was so construed as to be dangerous to children + that store did not stop the escalator quickly enough after his fingers were caught
10
Q
LS Ayers & Co - Holding + Reasoning
A
- although there is no general duty to go to the rescue of a person in peril, there is a legal duty to take positive/affirmative steps to help one in peril when the def is “a master or invitor” or when the injury resulted from an instrumentality under control of the def
- duty may exist regardless of negligence in causing the original injury
- here, escalator was operated by def -> def liable
11
Q
O’Malley v. Hospitality Staffing Solutions - Facts
A
- California Court of Appeals, 2018
- Woman checked into hotel room -> didn’t answer phone calls from husband -> he called hotel saying he thought something had happened -> maintenance worker agreed to check the room + reported that no one was there -> husband several hours later discovered wife lying on floor of hotel room, having suffered brain aneurysm
12
Q
O’Malley - Holding + Reasoning
A
- suit against maintenance worker + his employer could proceed under “negligent undertaking” theory of liability
- basically, if def enters on affirmative course of action, def is reharded as assuming a duty to act + will be liable for any negligent acts or omissions
13
Q
O’Malley - Negligent Undertaking Liability Elements
A
- Evidence that actor undertook, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another
- The services rendered were of a kind the actor should have recognized as necessary for the protection of third persons
- Actor failed to exercise reasonable care in the performance of the undertaking
- Actor’s failure to exercise reasonable care resulted in physical harm to the third persons
14
Q
Variable Duty
A
- deals w/ landowners
- intersection of tort and property - duties that landowners owe entrants onto their property are informed by property rights of owners and occupiers
- classical doctrine held trespassers not owed duties of reasonable care
15
Q
Basso v. Miller - Facts
A
- 1976
- pl. gets injured in a motorcycle accident on Ice Cave Mountain -> q at trial of what pl’s status was while on the mountain (trespasser, licensee, or invitee?)
