Questions Flashcards
D’s employee negligently aided a passenger boarding the train. D caused the passenger to drop a package, which exploded and caused a scale a substantial distance away to fall upon a second passenger. Under which Palsgraf case theory would D be liable for injuries to the second passenger?
Andrews view (minority view)
- Everyone is foreseeable
- D’s duty to P1 will extend to P2
- D was negligent towards P2
NOT Cardozo view (majority view)
- P2 was NOT in foreseeable zone of danger (substantial distance away)
- D’s duty only extends to those that reasonable person would have foreseen risk of injury towards
- D was NOT negligent towards P2
D was cycling with his son lapped on his back in the mountainside. Suddenly an eagle flew past him causing D to lose control as he swerved and his son fell down a cliff. A pedestrian, P, was walking by and saw his son fall into a lake. The pedestrian had to get through barbed wires to get to the lake to help D’s son and injured himself along the way. Is D liable to P for his injuries?
No
- D did NOT negligently place TP (son) in peril (eagle suddenly flew past)
- P recklessly caused himself injuries trying to help son (disregarded risk of crossing barbed wires)
- P was NOT foreseeable rescuer => D did NOT owe duty to P
D had finished cooking his food in the kitchen but forgot to turn off the stove. D left the apartment as the stove was heating up and eventually the building was on fire. One of the neighbours called the fire brigade who came round. A firefighter, P, went inside the building trying to rescue the neighbours when he was suddenly hit by the ceiling falling down on him. Is D liable to P for his injuries?
Unlikely
- Firefighters’ rule
- D does NOT owe duty to firefighters based on public policy/assumption of risk
- D was NOT negligent towards P
P was pregnant and went to a medical check-up from her doctor, D. D was not sure whether P could give birth because her son was not a viable fetus at this point, but P decided to go along with the pregnancy anyway. Ultimately, P’s son was born handicapped due to a defect that D could have treated. Who can sue P for what?
Neither P/P’s son
- P could sue for wrongful birth (failure to diagnose defect)
- BUT P’s son was NOT viable at time of injury
- P can NOT sue for child’s defect (emotional distress)
D is a farmer who entered into a contract with a supplier to cure some carrots without knowledge that the carrots were to be shipped to a grocery store. One day, a customer purchased carrots from the store and suffered poisoning. Other customers started shopping at a different store and the store suffered losses. Can the store sue D for negligence?
No
- Business transaction (carrot trade)
- Store (TP) was NOT intended beneficiary of economic transaction (D could NOT reasonably foresee TP’s economic loss)
- D did NOT owe duty to Store => D was NOT negligent towards Store
D had his arm amputated after a car accident. However, D was still willing to continue riding motorbikes as his hobby. One day, D rode his motorbike at night in the motorway when he suddenly lost control and crashed into a pedestrian, P, causing injuries. D argued it was not his fault because he could not drive properly with one arm. Can P sue D?
Yes
- D owes basic standard of care as reasonably prudent person would in D’s position (objective)
- D’s argument NOT relevant (subjective NOT relevant)
- Reasonable person with D’s same physical characteristics (amputated arm) would expect driving motorbike with one arm would likely cause accident
- D was negligent towards D
One day, there was a power cut in a bank and the computers were all switched off. The bank’s manager complained to the computer technician, D, for failing to fix the electricity supply. D denied liability as he was only responsible for fixing computers, although his former position was to maintain the power supplies. Can the manager sue D?
Yes
- D owes basic standard of care as reasonably prudent person would in D’s position (objective)
- D’s argument NOT relevant (subjective NOT relevant)
- Reasonable person with superior knowledge re electricity supply compared to others would fix the electricyt supply (even though D’s position is computer technician)
- D was negligent towards Manager
D is a doctor who was supplying a vaccine to a patient, P. D did not realise the needle was not sterilised. P then suffered injuries and sued D for not complying with conduct as other doctors across the world would. Can P sue D?
Yes (NOT international standard)
- D is professional (doctor) and must exercise special skill => D owes duty to P
- D negligently applied particular standard of care (not sterilise needle)
- D breached national standard of care (NOT international)
A patient, P, consented to an operation not necessary to save his life. D failed to warn P that he may not be able to run for a day or two. Can P sue D?
No
- D had NO duty to disclose risk of treatment (not run for day or two)
- Risk was NOT serious enough that P would have withheld consent
- D was NOT negligent towards P
A 16-year old boy thought it would be funny to leave marbles in the exam hall for the teacher to fall over. The teacher fell over and suffered injuries. Can teacher sue the boy?
Yes
- Child owed duty to Teacher
- Child judged by subjective standard based on his age (16), intelligence (would know person would slip on marbles and suffer injury)
- Child was negligent towards Teacher
A young boy found a lighter and played with it. He accidentally caused the house on fire and the neighbour suffered injuries. The boy turned out to be five years old. Can Neighbour sue Boy?
No
- Child is below 5 years old => NOT likely negligent
A mother decided it would be okay to let her 15-year old son drive her car. As he was driving, he crashed into a pedestrian by accident. Can Pedestrian sue Son?
Yes
- Son engaged in potentially dangerous activity (driving car)
- Son is held to adult standard of care => Son did not have driving experience
- Son was negligent towards Pedestrian
A taxi driver was driving his car one day when a robber suddenly got into his car and told him drive quickly away from the police. Driver drove quickly and accidentally crashed into a lamppost, causing Robber a small bruise on his shoulder. Can Robber sue Driver?
No
- Driver is common carrier
- Driver caused ‘slight’ negligence (small bruise) which is sufficient enough for negligence
- BUT Robber was NOT passenger (no consent in entering Driver’s car)
- Driver owed NO duty to Robber => Driver was NOT negligent towards Robber
A hotel manager invited his friend over for drinks at the hotel. The friend decided to sleep in one of the rooms without the manager knowing. However, a burglar somehow entered Friend’s room and stole $5 from Friend’s wallet while he was sleeping. Can Friend sue Manager?
No
- Manager is Innkeeper
- Friend caused ‘slight’ negligence (stole $5) which is sufficient enough for negligence
- BUT Friend was NOT guest (no consent in sleeping in Manager’s hotel)
- Manager owed NO duty to Friend => Manager was NOT negligent towards Friend
D decided to go out for the night and drive. His friend, P, asked whether he could come along. D said okay. They were on the motorway in the evening when they saw two police cars and an ambulance rush by as their alarm sounds were ringing. D assumed it was okay to continue driving. Suddenly, a wild bear appeared out of nowhere and hit D’s car. D swerved as he crashed and injured P. It turned out the wild bear was on the loose and hurt people, requiring police and medics to attend. Can P sue D?
Yes (most states)
- Automobile-driver
- Ordinary care
- D should have drove back when he saw police cars and ambulance rushing by (potential accident)
- D is negligent towards P
No (few states)
- Automobile-driver
- Guest statute
- D did NOT conduct wilful and wanton misconduct (ignoring police cars and ambulance)
- D is NOT negligent towards P
X asked his neighbour, Y, to take in X’s mail while he is on vacation. Y forgot to take in one of X’s mails. How likely is Y liable to X?
Not likely (common law)
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Sole benefit to X (X’s mail) => Y owes low standard of care (common law)
- Y owes ordinary standard of care (modern view)
- Y forgot to take one of X’s mails => Small negligence
- Y NOT breach low standard of care (common law) => Y is NOT negligent towards X
X lent his lawn mower to Y. Y accidentally cut a bit of the tyre in the mower. How likely is Y liable to X?
Likely (modern view)
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Sole benefit to Y (use of mower) => Y owes high standard of care (common law)
- Y owes ordinary standard of care (modern view)
- Y cut bit of tyre => Small negligence
- Y breached high standard of care (common law) => Y is negligent towards X
- Y breached ordinary standard of care (modern view)
X lent his lawn mower to Y. Y tried to connect the cord to an electricity supply when he received an electric shock. X was aware the cord was faulty. How likely is X liable to Y?
Likely
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Sole benefit to Y (use of mower) => X must disclose known defects to Y
- X failed to disclose faulty cord to Y => X was negligent towards Y
X lent his lawn mower to Y to mow both their lawns. Y tried to connect the cord to an electricity supply when he received an electric shock. X was not aware the cord was faulty. How likely is X liable to Y?
Likely
- Bailment (X asked Y to look after his personal property by possession, NOT title)
- Mutual benefit (mow lawns of X and Y) => X must disclose defects to Y that X knew/should have known
- X failed to disclose faulty cord to Y => X did not know of defect, BUT should have known (X would have faced similar problems when connecting the cord himself) => X was negligent towards Y
D saw a plane crash into the ground. D tried to remove the rubble and recover the passengers, when more rubble fell down because D removed the rubble. The rubble hit one of the passengers, P. Can P sue D?
No
- Emergency (D did NOT create)
- D acted as reasonable person would in rescuing P (remove rubble) in emergency => D was NOT negligent towards P
D was practising his fire juggling tricks when he accidentally lit his apartment on fire. The fire spread to the building. D tried to rescue his neighbour who was screaming for help. D wanted to smash his door down, but D’s neighbour told him to wait. However, D smashed it down and the door struck his neighbour’s son, P. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Emergency NOT relevant (D created - fire juggling tricks)
- D did NOT act as reasonable person would (smash door down despite neighbour telling him to wait) (emergency NOT relevant) => D was negligent towards P
A man was running away from the police and he jumped into a neighbour’s yard. The neighbour accidentally set his house on fire, causing Man to catch fire. The law imposes a duty on landowners to keep their premises in safe conditions. Can Man sue Neighbour?
No
- Man is NOT in protected class of persons (trespasser)
- Neighbour owed NO statutory duty to Man => Neighbour is NOT liable to Man
P decided to steal some clothes from D’s open store during the weekend. However, P tripped over and smashed his head on the floor. The law required that all stores be closed on weekends. Can P sue D?
No
- P’s harm is NOT intended to be prevented (accident in store NOT intended to be prevented, but rather for commercial reasons)
- D owed NO statutory duty to P => D is NOT liable to P
D was driving on the right side of the road. A young child darted across the road and D swerved onto the other lane. D was caught driving on the wrong side and was arrested. Should D be arrested under statutory law?
No
- D violated law (drove on wrong side of road)
- D’s compliance (driving on right side of road) would have caused more danger (hit child) than violation of law
- D’s violation should be excused => D is NOT liable for negligent driving
D was colourblind. D decided to cross the road although the light was red. Should D be arrested under statutory law?
No
- D violated law (crossed red light)
- D’s compliance (not crossing red light) would have been beyond D’s control (D is colourblind, cannot differentiate red and green light)
- D’s violation should be excused => D is NOT liable for negligent crossing
D grew some trees in his garden. The leaves were prickly and flew off the trees from time to time onto D’s neighbour’s garden. One day, Neighbour was struck by the leaf. Can Neighbour sue D?
No
- P was injured off D’s premises
- P was injured by natural condition (prickly leaf)
- D owed NO duty to Neighbour => D was NOT negligent to Neighbour
D was growing some apples on his trees. One day, a few apples fell from the tree onto P, his neighbour’s garden. P walked onto his garden and the apple fell on his head, which P was irritated by. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured off D’s premises
- P was injured by artificial condition (apple); Apple was NOT unreasonably dangerous
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
D was cleaning his roof and poured some of the water onto P’s garden. One day, the water froze and P walked onto his garden and slipped on the ice, hitting his head. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured off D’s premises
- P was injured by artificial condition (ice); Ice was unreasonably dangerous
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
D hired a builder to construct a shed on his garden. While the builder was constructing, the wood flew out of his hands onto D’s neighbour’s garden (P) and hit D’s neighbour’s head. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured off D’s premises
- P was injured by conduct of others on D’s premises (Builder)
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D was wearing earplugs and could not hear P coming onto his garden. P tried to run away when he slipped on some barbed wire in the garden that D installed to prevent robbers from escaping. P hurt himself. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- P NOT discovered (D had no notice - wearing earplugs)
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when a large tarantula bit P. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- NOT artificial condition (tarantula) => NO need to warn P of tarantula
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when he slipped on some barbed wire in the garden that D was not aware of. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- NO knowledge of barbed wire
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when he slipped over D’s child’s toys in the garden. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- NO risk of serious harm/death (toys)
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away when he smacked his head against the door of a treehouse left swung open that D was constructing. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- D owed reasonable care in active operations (constructing treehouse)
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
P secretly snuck onto D’s garden to steal his chairs in the evening, ignoring D’s signs that were posted on his fence ‘do not enter’. P tried to run away when he smacked his head against the door of a treehouse left swung open that D was constructing. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is trespasser (D NOT consent)
- P NOT discovered (D posted ‘do not enter’ sign - P NOT anticipated trespasser)
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
P, a young boy, secretly snuck onto D’s garden to swim in his swimming pool. D heard someone’s footsteps and looked out the window to see P. P tried to run away but he accidentally swallowed a plant in the water and choked. P wants to sue D. D claims he did not know the plants were in the water and P’s medical costs are not as high as the risk itself. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured on D’s premises
- Attractive nuisance doctrine applies
- P is child
- D should have known plant was dangerous condition (natural) => Could lead to choking in water
- D should have known P would frequent in vicinity of dangerous condition (swimming pool)
- Plant would likely cause injury (choke)
- Risk magnitude > Remedy expenses (even slightly above is sufficient)
- D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
P was invited by D to visit his house for a housewarming party. P slipped on some very sticky visible mud in D’s garden and hit his head against the ground. D was aware of the mud but refused to get rid of it. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is licensee (entered premises for P’s benefit)
- Natural condition was discoverable (very sticky mud) => D owed NO duty to inspect/repair mud => D was NOT negligent to P
P decided to visit D’s museum. P climbed the staircase when he stepped onto a large visible splinter and hurt his foot. D was aware of the splinter but refused to repair it. Can P sue D?
Yes
- P was injured on D’s premises
- P is invitee (entered premises for D’s benefit, public land)
- D had duty to reasonably inspect natural condition (large visible splinter) => D owed duty to P => D was negligent to P
P jumped into a lake in D’s undeveloped land. P did not realise the lake was shallow and P hurt his foot on a rock underwater. D did not intend for anyone to be injured. Can P sue D?
No
- P was injured on D’s premises
- Lake is recreational land (NO fee, open to public)
- D was NOT wilful/malicious in failing to warn P of rock
- D owed NO duty to P => D was NOT negligent to P
X leased his flat to Y. Y invited his friend, Z, over for dinner. Z was climbing the staircase when his foot suddenly got stuck in the wood. The wood turned out to be weak and was not visible to Z. Z injured his foot. Who can Z sue?
X + Y
- Lessor-Lessee
- X (landlord) + Y (tenant) should have known of defect (weak wood)
- X + Y should have known Z could not discover weak wood by reasonable inspection (not visible to Z)
- X + Y owed duties to warn of weak wood to Z => X + Y were negligent to Z
X sold his apartment to Y. After Y moved in, Y was climbing the staircase when his foot suddenly got stuck in the wood. The wood turned out to be weak and was not visible to Y. Y injured his foot. Can Y sue X?
Yes
- Seller-Buyer
- X (Seller) should have known of defect
- X should have known Y (Buyer) could not discover weak wood by reasonable inspection (not visible to Y)
- X owed duties to disclose weak wood to Y => X was negligent to Y
D negligently ran a red light and skidded to a stop inches away from P. P was properly crossing the street in a crosswalk. P was shocked from nearly being run over which caused her a heart attack. Can P sue D for negligent distress?
Yes
1) P was within zone of danger (inches away)
2) P suffered physical symptoms from distress (heart attack)
=> D caused negligent infliction of emotional distress to P
P was the mother of a young boy. They were sitting in a park when the boy decided to cross the road. D negligently ran a red light and hit the boy. P was asleep, but the boy came back hurt and cried to his mother. P was distraught. Can P sue D for negligent distress?
No
- P + boy were closely related (mother-child)
- P was present at scene (park)
- P did NOT personally observe event (asleep)
- NOT bystander case => D did NOT cause negligent infliction of emotional distress to P
P met a girl on their first date. They were sitting in a park and the girl went to cross the road to buy some food for them. D negligently ran a red light and hit the girl. P saw the accident and was distraught. Can P sue D for negligent distress?
No
- P was present at scene (park)
- P personally observed event
- P + girl were NOT closely related (dating)
- NOT bystander case => D did NOT cause negligent infliction of emotional distress to P
D was jogging when he saw P crying for help in a park. P was cycling and slipped over a rock, hurting his leg. D carried P to a chair in the park and tried to wrap a bandage around his leg. However, it hurt P even more. D then went to get medical assistance. An hour later, P’s leg was getting worse. Can P sue D?
Yes
- D assumed duty to aid P (carry P to chair in park)
- D acted with reasonable care (bandaging)
- D did NOT act with reasonable care (medical assistance for one hour) => D owed affirmative duty of care to P => D was negligent towards P
D is a doctor who was performing a leg surgery on P. D was using a needle on P’s leg when the light suddenly went out and D poked into P’s leg causing him to suffer. Can P sue D?
No
- D assumed duty to aid P (doctor)
- D did NOT use gross negligence (light suddenly went out)
- D acted with ordinary care (Good Samaritan statute) => D was NOT negligent towards P
D organised a boat trip with his colleagues in the sea. One of his colleagues, P, decided to jump out of the boat to swim in the sea. However, a shark bit P’s leg. Can P sue D for negligence?
Yes
- D placed P in peril (innocently) (in sea)
- D owed affirmative duty of care to P => D was negligent towards P
D and his son went out hiking in the mountains. D warned his son to walk behind him because there were other hikers passing by, but his son decided to run ahead and accidentally tripped over a rock. His son was hurt and D decided to look for help. After a few hours, D came back and his son was suffering more. Can D’s son sue D?
Yes
- Special relationship between D + Son (Parent-child)
- D owed affirmative duty of care to Son => D was negligent towards Son
P and his mates were staying at a small bnb for the night. That night, a group of thieves entered P’s room and tried to steal his money. P woke up and the thief pushed P against the wall, damaging his head. The bnb’s manager, D, claimed all the locks were safe and there was no way the thief could enter the rooms. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Special relationship between D + P (Place of accommodation + Guest)
- D owed affirmative duty of care to P (protect P from TP harm, even though locks were safe) => D was negligent towards P
D and his grandson went out hiking in the mountains. D was aware his grandson tended to get hyperactive and attack other people. However, D was disabled and sat on a wheelchair, but trusted his grandson would be fine. In fact, his grandson saw P and pushed him to the ground. Can P sue D?
No
- D knew Grandson could cause harm (hyperactive)
- D had authority to control Grandson’s actions (grandparent)
- BUT D had NO ability to control Grandson’s actions (on wheelchair, disabled)
- D owed NO affirmative duty of care to prevent TP (Grandson) from causing harm to others > D was NOT negligent towards P
D lent his camera to his friend for his friend’s wedding. During the wedding dinner party, D’s friend and D were sat at the table. Friend was taking pictures when he received a text message showing a picture of his wife been cheating with another guy, P. Friend lashed out and threw the camera at P on the other side of the table. Can P sue D?
No
- D had authority to control Friend’s actions (bailore-bailee)
- D had ability to control Friend’s actions (sat on same table)
- D had NO reason to know Friend would throw camera (camera intended for picture use, NOT injuring)
- D owed NO affirmative duty of care to prevent TP (Friend) from causing harm to others > D was NOT negligent towards P
D, a bank, was expected to provide accurate financial advice to customers, according to financial custom. One day, D gave negligent advice about financial savings to customer, P. Has D breached custom?
Not sure
- Custom/Usage determines standard of conduct, NOT breach
- Trier of fact to determine breach => Negligence
P was hit by a window that fell from D’s building. How can P sue D?
Res ipsa loquitor
- Inference of negligence (window would not fall from building unless D was negligent)
P went to the hospital to receive surgery on his liver. After the surgery, P detected an object was inside his body. Can P sue surgeon for negligence?
Res ipsa loquitor
- Negligence attributable to D (evidence can prove the surgery equipment that caused object to fall inside P’s body was in Surgeon’s exclusive control)
- Inference of negligence (accident would not normally occur unless surgeon was negligent)
D was driving his car in the motorway. At an intersection, D forgot to put the brakes on at a red light and another car ran into D without putting his brakes on as well. The two cars collided, hurting a passenger in D’s car. P cannot determine which car would have injured P. How can P still sue both drivers?
‘But for’ test
- Concurrent causation
- D + another car caused injury BUT neither alone would be sufficient to cause injury
- P can argue that ‘but for’ both cars, P would not have suffered injuries => Both cars were negligent drivers
D was having a birthday party at his house. D accidentally dropped a lighter setting the house on fire. The fire reached a nearby barn. However, another fire was caused by a group of drunk men near the barn as well. The barn caught fire. Either fire would have set the barn on fire. How can the barn’s owner sue both parties?
‘Substantial factor’ test
- Concurrent causation
- D + drunk men caused injury
- Either party alone would be sufficient to cause injury
- Substantial factors are known
- Owner can argue that both parties were substantial factors in causing barn on fire => Both parties were negligent
D and his friend baked some cakes for a charity event. P attended the event and ate their cakes. P then got food poisoning. Medical exam reports reveal P was food poisoned by the cakes. P sues D and his friend. D argues P does not know whether it was his cake that led to the food poisoning. Are both parties liable?
Alternatives causes approach (Summers v Tice)
- Concurrent causation
- D + Friend caused injury
- Either party alone would be sufficient to cause injury
- Substantial factor is NOT known
- D + Friend has burden of proof => Must prove neither was NOT negligent (NOT actual cause)
D was driving his sports car down a busy street at a high rate of speed. P, pedestrian, stepped out in the crosswalk in front of D. D swerved to one side to avoid hitting P, hit a parked truck and bounced to the other side of the street. The truck then hit another car that propelled into the street and injured P’s leg. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Direct cause - Foreseeable)
- D’s injuring P was foreseeable (high rate of speed, busy street)
- D’s injuring P was unusual (hit truck, hit car, hit P) BUT NOT relevant
- D negligently drove + injured P
D was driving his cab very fast. D threatened his passenger, P, with injury if P did not pay more money. Without warning, the section of the road that D was driving on suddenly collapsed and injured D. Can P sue D?
No
- NO proximate causation (Direct cause - Unforeseeable)
- P could argue but for D’s speeding, P would not have been on that section of the road
- BUT sudden collapse of road was NOT foreseeable harm (no warning)
- D NOT negligent
D crashed his car into P. P was then taken to hospital and received treatment on his leg. The surgeon accidentally used the wrong surgery technique, injuring P’s leg even more. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- Surgeon’s medical malpractice was intervening force that combined with D’s act => Normal response
- P’s injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D was jogging with P when they got into a fight. D accidentally pushed P over a cliff, injuring P. Another man came to help P and carried him to a hospital. However, the man tripped and hurt P even more. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- Man’s negligent rescue was intervening force that combined with D’s act => Normal response
- P’s injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D accidentally shot a paintball gun at P. P overreacted and pushed another man out of the way, who fell down and was injured. Can Man sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- P’s reaction (escaping gunshot) was intervening force that combined with D’s act => Normal response
- Man’s injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D crashed his car into P. P was then taken to hospital and received treatment on his leg. After the surgery, P started suffering some pneumonia. His doctor confirmed his injury exposed him to the condition. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- P’s subsequent disease was intervening force that combined with D’s act (placed P in weakened condition exposing him to disease) => Normal response
- P’s disease was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D crashed his car into P. P was then taken to hospital and had his right leg amputated. After the surgery, P had to walk on crutches. P slipped and broke his other leg. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- P’s accident was intervening force that combined with D’s act (amputation of right leg likely to cause accident) => Normal response
- P’s injury was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D negligently blocked a sidewalk. P, a pedestrian, had to get to work so P decided to walk on the pavement. A negligent driver crashed into P, injuring him. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Independent)
- D’s blocking sidewalk increased risk of P colliding with car while walking on PAVEMENT => Foreseeable
- Driver’s negligent driving (TP’s negligence) was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D was a parking lot attendant. P entrusted D with his keys to the car. D negligently left the keys in P’s car and the doors unlocked. A thief drove his car at night and took off. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Independent)
- D’s negligently leaving doors unlocked increased risk of Thief stealing P’s car => Foreseeable
- Thief’s stealing of car (TP’s crime) was foreseeable result => D was negligent
P asked D to clean his house for him while he was on vacation. One day, D left the doors unlocked. A sudden rainstorm caused flooding in P’s house. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Independent)
- D’s negligently leaving doors unlocked increased risk of rainstorm flooding P’s house => Foreseeable
- Flooding by rainstorm (Act of God) was foreseeable result => D was negligent
D failed to move ammonia gas from a storage facility. An unforeseeable bolt of lightning struck the facility, causing an explosion and injuring several workers. Can the workers sue D?
Yes
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- D’s negligently leaving ammonia gas increased risk of explosion harming others => Foreseeable result
- Bolt of lightning (unforeseeable) created foreseeable result => D was negligent
D failed to move ammonia gas from a storage facility. A man entered the facility one night to blow it up by fire, causing an explosion and injuring several workers. Can the workers sue D?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- Man’s arson (TP crime) was unforeseeable => D was NOT negligent
D accidentally shot a paintball gun at his friend. The friend panicked and took out a kitchen knife making wounds on his other friend standing next to him. Can the other friend sue D?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- D’s paintball gunshot did NOT increase risk of victim using kitchen knife to hurt others => Unforeseeable harm
- Friend’s knife actions were unforeseeable => Superseding action that broke causal chain => D was NOT negligent
D drove his passenger in his taxi recklessly during a violent windstorm. It was blowing large branches and other debris onto the road. D slammed on his brakes to avoid a large branch in the road, but swerved sideways onto the shoulder of the road. Before D could proceed, another branch crashed onto the roof of the cab, breaking a window and causing P to be cut by flying glass. Can P sue D for the glasscut?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Foreseeable)
- D’s reckless driving did NOT increase risk of window breaking and glass cutting P => Unforeseeable harm
- D was NOT negligent
D negligently blocked off the road, forcing P to take an alternate road. Another driver negligently collided with P on this road. Can P sue D?
No
- Proximate causation (Indirect cause - Unforeseeable)
- D’s blocking sidewalk did NOT increase risk of P colliding with another car on the ROAD => Unforeseeable
- Driver’s negligent driving was NOT foreseeable result => D was NOT negligent
D negligently drove into P. P suffered a concussion. Days later, P started suffering from amnesia due to an existing mental illness. D never expected P would suffer from amnesia. Can P sue D for the amnesia as well as the concussion?
Yes
- Proximate causation
- Eggshell-skull plaintiff rule: D must take P as he finds him
- D’s negligent driving aggravated P’s existing mental illness => Amnesia
- Unforeseeability of amnesia NOT relevant
- D is liable for concussion + amnesia
D negligently drove into P. P suffered a concussion. Days later, P started suffering from hallucinations due to a psychedelic he took at a party. D never expected P would suffer from the hallucinations. Can P sue D for the hallucinations as well as the concussion?
No
- Proximate causation
- Eggshell-skull plaintiff rule: D must take P as he finds him
- D’s negligent driving did NOT aggravated P’s hallucinations (NOT existing condition at time of accident)
- D is liable for concussion (NOT amnesia)
D manufactured an engine on his lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and a piece of metal struck his neighbour, P. P went to the hospital to receive treatment. P could not go to work because he felt depressed by the injury. P wants to sue D, but D argues it is not his fault he did not expect P to become depressed. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Personal injury suit
- Economic damages (medical expenses)
- Non-economic damages (emotional distress)
- Unforeseeability of emotional distress NOT relevant (D takes P as he finds him)
D manufactured a lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and smashed into P’s car window. P had to pay $1,000 to fix the window. P wants to sue D. The car window now costs $1,500. How much can P recover?
$1,000
- Negligence
- D damaged car window (property) => P can recover $1,000 (repair cost)
D manufactured a lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and almost destroyed P’s car window that was worth $1,600 at the time. P wants to sue D. The car window now costs $1,500 but $1,000 to repair. How much can P recover?
$1,600
- Negligence (Conversion)
- D nearly destroyed car (property) => P can recover $1,600 (fair market value at time of accident)
D manufactured a lawnmower. One day, D was mowing the lawn when the engine blew up and almost destroyed P’s car that was worth $1,600 at the time. P was so upset by this incident that he wanted to sue D. Can P recover for his distress?
No
- Negligence
- D nearly destroyed car (property)
- P can NOT recover emotional distress
D was driving his car with passenger P when his phone rang. D picked up the phone but saw a truck come towards him. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P. P wants to sue D not just for medical expenses, but also for punitive damages. Is this recoverable?
No
- D’s conduct did NOT involve wilful and wanton conduct/recklessness/malice
- D just picked up the phone
D was driving his car with passenger P when his phone rang. D picked up the phone but saw a truck come towards him. P told him to stop the car but D insisted it would be funny to see what happens. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P. P wants to sue D not just for medical expenses, but also for punitive damages. Is this recoverable?
Yes
- D’s conduct did involve wilful and wanton conduct/recklessness/malice
- D intentionally failed to stop car
D was driving his car with passenger P when his phone rang. D picked up the phone but saw a truck come towards him. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P. P managed to obtain health insurance and his company allowed him to take sick leave with compensation. P still wants to sue D, but D claims P’s benefits already compensated him for his injuries. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Collateral Source rule
- P’s benefits (health insurance, sick pay) will NOT reduce P’s damages
D was driving his car when his phone rang. D picked up the phone and could not see there was a red light. D failed to stop and crashed, injuring P and damaging his car who was in front of him. P was bleeding badly but decided to go home and treat his wounds. P also left his car in its damaged state although he had insurance to cover it. Can P still sue D for damages?
No
- P had duty to mitigate damages
- P’s injuries: P should have gone to hospital to effect cure + get treatment (avoid aggravation of injuries)
- P’s car: P should have found appropriate cover
- P can NOT recover damages
D was driving his car faster than usual. P was smoking marijuana when he didn’t see D driving towards him. D crashed into P and P suffered injuries. P wants to sue D. What defences can D assert?
P’s violation of statute
- P violated statute (drug law)
- P’s contributory negligence => Defence to D’s negligence
D was driving his car faster than usual when a young child was running to school and accidentally bumped into D’s car. Child suffered injuries. Child wants to sue D. What defences can D assert?
None
- D violated statute (speeding)
- Child’s contributory negligence can NOT be used as defence to D’s violation of statute
- Child was intended to be protected by statute (incapacity)
P hired his assistant to deliver some goods to a customer using P’s car. P’s assistant was driving at faster than usual speed when D suddenly drove into P’s car, causing damages. P wants to sue D. What defences can D assert? Can P still sue D?
Imputed contributory negligence
- P’s assistant acted within his scope of employment (delivering goods)
- P’s assistant’s negligence may be imputed to P (employer-employee)
- P can still sue BOTH + Assistant as joint tortfeasors
P was a partner in a large law firm. His co-partner accidentally failed to include an important figure in their financial statement report. He still sent the report to the client who relied on it and entered a merger deal. However, the deal went awry and caused losses towards P’s firm. P wants to sue Client. Can Client assert defences? Can P still sue Client?
Imputed contributory negligence
- P’s co-partner was negligent (failure to send proper report)
- P’s co-partner’s negligence may be imputed to P (partners)
- P can still sue BOTH D + Client as joint tortfeasors
P was driving his car with his wife. His wife kept showing P some pictures from their honeymoon, which distracted P. Suddenly P crashed into D’s car. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
NO imputed contributory negligence
- P’s wife’s negligence can NOT be imputed to P (spouses)
P was driving his car with his wife. His wife kept showing P some pictures from their honeymoon, which distracted P. Suddenly P crashed into D’s car. P wants to sue D for his wife’s loss of consortium and services. What defence can D assert?
Derivative contributory negligence
- P is suing on behalf of P’s wife
- P was negligent => P’s negligence will bar P’s recovery
NO imputed contributory negligence
- P’s negligence can NOT be imputed to P’s wife (spouses)
P was driving his car with his daughter. His daughter kept crying for food, which distracted P. Suddenly P crashed into D’s car. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
NO imputed contributory negligence
- P’s daughter’s negligence can NOT be imputed to P (parent-child)
P asked his friend to deliver some goods for him, as a friend. His friend was driving faster than usual and suddenly D’s car smashed into P’s car. P wants to sue D. Can D assert imputed contributory negligence by P?
NO imputed contributory negligence
- Friend’s negligence can NOT be imputed to P (automobile owner-driver)
- Friend was NOT employee (NO vicarious liability)
P asked his friend to deliver some goods for him, as a friend. P decided to come along with him. His friend was driving faster than usual and suddenly D’s car smashed into P’s car. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
P’s contributory negligence
- P was passenger in own car => P should have stopped Friend driving so fast
P negligently parked his car on the railroad tracks. D, train engineer, saw P in time to stop the train but failed to do so. D crashed into P causing injuries to P. P wants to sue D. What defence can D assert?
NO last clear chance
- P was contributorily negligent (negligently parked car on railroad tracks)
- D had last clear chance (could have stopped train) BUT failed => D is negligent
P managed to make it to the final rounds of the basketball tournament. During the match, P and another opponent, D, collided against each other. P damaged his teeth. P wants to sue D. Can D assert any defences?
Assumption of risk
1) Knowledge of risk (sports)
2) Voluntarily (impliedly - sports)
P was riding a bus. The bus driver, D, gave a ticket to P. On the back of the ticket, it read that the bus company is not liable for any injuries to P. However, the bus driver was driving faster than usual and hit a large tree, injuring P. P wants to sue D. Can D assert any defences?
NO assumption of risk
- NOT implied (common carriers can NOT avoid liability)
P was a regular employee at a finance company. One day, the office started smelling of fumes. P kept coughing and eventually suffered a disease. P wants to sue Finance Company, but they claim they limited their liability under their employment contract, in which P assumed such risk. Can P still sue FC?
Yes (NO assumption of risk) - NOT implied (P is under statutorily intended protected class of persons - Employers should obey health regulations)
P signed up for a rowing activity. The organisor, D, entered an agreement with P limiting his liability from any injuries sustained by P during the activity. While they were rowing, P and D got into an argument and D tried to hit P. He missed, but P fell off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims their agreement limits his liability. Can P still sue D?
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
- P’s assumption of risk NOT defence to D’s intentional tort (assault)
P signed up for a rowing activity. The organisor, D, entered an agreement with P limiting his liability from any injuries sustained by P during the activity. While they were rowing, D could not find his phone. He stood up and somehow hit P in the face, making P fall off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims their agreement limits his liability. Can P still sue D?
NO (Assumption of risk)
- P’s assumption of risk is defence to D’s reckless conduct
P signed up for a rowing activity. Before setting off, the organisor, D, told P ‘whatever happens, it’s all on you mate’. P did not understand what D meant, but decided to row anyway. While they were rowing, the boat hit a large rock. P fell off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims he warned P beforehand and P agreed. Can P still sue D?
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
- NO knowledge of risk (D’s ambiguous statement)
P signed up for a rowing activity. Before setting off, the organisor, D, told P ‘you either accept that I’m not liable for anything that happens to you, or I’m not paying you back’. P reluctantly agreed. While they were rowing, the boat hit a large rock. P fell off the boat and hit his head. P wants to sue D, but D claims P agreed he will take responsibility. Can P still sue D?
Yes (NO assumption of risk)
- NOT voluntary (D threatened P by not paying him back)
D negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. P sued D for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 70% liable and D was 30% liable. Can both parties recover in a pure comparative negligence state?
$40,000
- Pure comparative negligence (presumed)
- P is 70% liable (contributory negligence)
- P should recover 30% (100% - 70%) of $100,000 = $30,000
- D should recover 70% (100% - 30%) of $100,000 = $70,000
- Court will offset P’s damages vs D’s damages => $70,000 - $30,000 => D should recover $40,000 (P should recover nothing)
D negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. P sued D for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 70% liable and D was 30% liable. Each is entitled to damages of $100,000. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. Can both parties recover?
NO
- Partial comparative negligence
- P is 70% liable (contributory negligence) => Bars P’s recovery => P recovers nothing
- D is 30% liable => D recovers 70% (100% - 30%) of $100,000 = $70,000
D negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. P sued D for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 40% liable and D was 60% liable. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. Can both parties recover?
$60,000
- Partial comparative negligence
- P is 40% liable (contributory negligence) < 50% => NOT bar P’s recovery
- P recovers 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000
- D is 60% liable > 50% => Bars D’s recovery
D1 negligently drove in a motorway and crashed into P’s car. P was also driving negligently. Another driver, D2, drove into both cars. P sued D1 and D2 for $100,000. The court concluded that P was 40% liable and D1 was 35% liable and D2 was 25% liable. The state adopts partial comparative negligence rules. Can all parties recover?
$60,000 (from D1 or D2)
- Partial comparative negligence
- P is 40% liable (contributory negligence)
- P recovers 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000 (ALL from EITHER D1 or D2 - BOTH are jointly and severally liable to each other)
- D1 recovers 25% of $100,000 = $25,000 (from D2)
- D2 recovers 35% of $100,000 = $35,000 (from D1)
P negligently parked his car on the railroad tracks. D, train engineer, saw P in time to stop the train but failed to do so. D crashed into P causing injuries to P. P sued D for $100,000. The court ruled that P was 40% liable and D was 60% liable. D argues P should be more liable because he had the last clear chance. How much should each recover?
- Pure comparative negligence (presumed)
- P is 40% liable (contributory negligence)
- P should recover 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000
- D should recover 40% (100% - 60%) of $100,000 = $40,000
- Court will offset D’s damages vs P’s damages => $60,000 - $40,000 => P should recover $20,000 (D should recover nothing)
- P’s last clear chance NOT defence
P and D were competing in a professional football match. P and D ran for the ball when D slid into P’s ankle. P sued D. The court ruled that P was 20% liable and D was 80% liable. P was entitled to $100,000. D argues P should be more liable by an additional 20% because he assumed the risk of being injured in a sports match. How much should each recover?
- Pure comparative negligence (presumed)
- P’s assumption of risk is defence (P impliedly assumed risk; D owed limited duty of care to P during professional sports match; D did NOT breach such duty by injuring P’s ankle)
- P is now 40% liable (20% + 20%) (contributory negligence)
- P should recover 60% (100% - 40%) of $100,000 = $60,000
- D should recover 40% (100% - 60%) of $100,000 = $40,000
- Court will offset D’s damages vs P’s damages => $60,000 - $40,000 => P should recover $20,000 (D should recover nothing)
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. D1 was responsible for P’s leg, which cost $10,000 for surgery. D2 was responsible for P’s leg and arm, which cost $20,000 for surgery. How much should P sue both Ds for?
Several liability (NOT joint)
- Ds acting separately: Divisible injuries
- D1: Leg ($10,000 only)
- D2: Leg + arm ($20,000 only)
D1 and D2 agreed to go speed driving in the motorway and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. D1 was responsible for P’s leg, which cost $10,000 for surgery. D2 was responsible for P’s leg and arm, which cost $20,000 for surgery. How much should P sue both Ds for?
Joint + several liability
- Ds acting by agreement: Divisible injuries
- D1: Leg + arm ($30,000)
- D2: Leg + arm ($30,000)
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. P sued D1 for $100,000. D1 was 60% liable and D2 was 40% liable. P was able to recover all $100,000 from D1. Can P still sue D2?
No
- P recovered ALL damages from D1 => Satisfaction
- P can NOT recover further more other tortfeasors (D2)
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. P sued D1 for $100,000. D1 was 60% liable and D2 was 40% liable. P agreed to release D1 for $60,000 with no further agreement for discharge. How much can P still sue D2?
$100,000
- NO express agreement to discharge D2
D1 was speed driving and crashed into P. D2 was also speed driving and crashed into P. P broke his leg and arm. P sued D1 for $100,000. D1 was 60% liable and D2 was 40% liable. P agreed to release D1 for $60,000. P also agreed that D2 would be discharged by $60,000. How much can P still sue D2?
$40,000
- Express agreement to discharge D2 => D2’s liability is reduced by agreed amount ($60,000)
- D2 should still pay $40,000 ($100,000 - $60,000)
D and his friend went for a drive. They thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D’s wife was on her way back home from work. D suddenly crashed into D’s wife. D’s wife sued D and his friend for $100,000. D was 60% liable and D’s friend was 40% liable. How much can D’s wife sue D? The state recognises spousal immunity.
Nothing
- Spousal immunity applies => D’s wife can NOT sue D
- D’s wife can sue D’s friend for $100,000 (joint + several liability)
- D’s friend can NOT recover $60,000 from D (contribution NOT imposed on D)
D hired an assistant to prepare financial statements for a client, P. D’s assistant failed to prepare correctly. P sued D, who paid his assistant’s entire damages. Can D recover from D’s assistant?
ENTIRE damages
- Vicarious liability (Employment)
- D’s assistant should indemnify D for entire damages
D crashed into P’s car by accident. P was taken to hospital for treatment. P sued D immediately. A few months later, P died. P’s executor wishes to sue on his behalf, but D claims P already died so he cannot recover anything. Can P’s executor still sue D?
Yes
- Personal injury: P’s claim survives P’s death
- P can recover damages between P’s injury + P’s death (medical expenses)
D made a false rumour about P and spread to his friends. P sued D immediately. A few months later, P died. P’s executor wishes to sue on his behalf, but D claims P already died so he cannot recover anything. Can P’s executor still sue D?
No
- Defamation: P’s claim does NOT survive P’s death
- P can NOT recover damages between P’s defamation + P’s death
D went for a drive. D thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D suddenly crashed into P, who was also driving fast. P died leaving his wife, step-son and brother. They all wanted to sue D for their pain and suffering, as well as loss of P’s support due to P’s death. P’s bank also wanted to sue for not repaying an outstanding loan. The court ruled that D was 60% liable and P was 40% liable. Who can sue D? For how much?
P’s wrongful death
- P’s wife + brother (next of kin) can sue D
- They can sue for pecuniary injury (loss of support), NOT pain and suffering
- Their damages will be reduced by P’s contributory negligence (40%)
- P’s step-son + Bank can NOT sue D
D went for a drive. D thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D suddenly crashed into P. P was injured and could not go to work. P’s husband and son wanted to sue D for loss of P’s consortium. Can they both sue D?
P’s husband (spouse) can sue D
P’s son (Child) can NOT sue D
D went for a drive. D thought it would be fun to drive very fast. D suddenly crashed into P who was driving fast with his wife. P’s wife was injured and could not go to work. P wanted to sue D for loss of P’s wife’s consortium. The court ruled that P was 60% liable and D was 40% liable. The state adopts partial contributory negligence rules. How much can P recover?
None
- Partial contributory negligence: P is at least 50% liable => Bars P’s recovery
- P’s derivative action on behalf of P’s wife => P’s contributory negligence is derivative to P’s wife’s consortium (NOT imputed to)
- P is entitled to nothing
- D is entitled to 60% from P
D was riding his bicycle with his brother. D did not look at the red light and crashed into a driver. D and his brother suffered injuries. Can D’s brother sue D?
No
- Intra-family tort immunity
- Personal injury: Family can NOT sue family
D and his brother were fixing his brother’s bicycle. D accidentally smashed the hammer into the bicycle’s wheel, deflating it. Can D’s brother sue D?
Yes
- NO intra-family tort immunity
- Property damage: Family can sue family
D was riding his bicycle with his wife. D did not look at the red light and crashed into a driver. D and his wife suffered injuries. Can D’s wife sue D?
Yes
- NO intra-family tort immunity
- Spouse can sue Spouse
D went to a playground with her young son. D let her son ride on a large swing. D’s son fell off the swing and hurt himself. Can D’s son sue D?
No
- Intra-family tort immunity
- Parent supervision: Child can NOT sue Parent
D took her son on a ride to the mountains. D did not look at the GPS as she believed she was going the right way. However, D ended up crashing into a tree and both were injured. Can D’s son sue D?
Yes
- NO intra-family tort immunity
- Automobile: Child can sue Parent
A federal officer attended a meeting with a citizen about his federal rights. They got into an argument and the officer threatened to hurt the citizen. The citizen wanted to sue the government for assault. Is this allowed?
No
- Governmental tort immunity (Citizen can NOT sue Fed for battery/assault)
A state officer enacted a law prohibiting citizens from obtaining driving licences before the age of 22. A citizen wanted to sue the government in tort. Is this allowed?
No
- Governmental tort immunity (Citizen can NOT sue State for legislative decision-making ‘discretionary’ act)
D ran a shoe selling business. D hired an assistant to deliver shoes purchased by a customer in Brooklyn. Assistant was driving towards Brooklyn when he decided to go for a quick coffee in LeBronx only for five minutes. On his way, Assistant was texting on his phone and crashed into Pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
No
- NO vicarious liability
- Employment relationship (D + Assistant)
- Assistant made substantial deviation (not minor) (frolic of his own) in terms of geographic area (LeBronx, NOT Brooklyn) => Assistant did NOT act within scope of employment
- D is NOT vicariously liable for Assistant’s act
D hired a bouncer at his nightclub. One night, a drunk teenager tried to skip past the line. The bouncer told him to go back, the teenager refused. The bouncer pushed him to the ground. Can Teenager sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Bouncer used force as authorised in employment (intentional tort) => Bouncer acted within scope of employment
- D is vicariously liable for Bouncer’s act
D hired a debt collector to demand one of his clients to pay up. The collector kept sending emails and went to Client’s house. Client refused. Collector began sending more notifications. Can Client sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Debt Collector created friction as authorised in employment (intentional tort) => Debt Collector acted within scope of employment
- D is vicariously liable for Collector’s act
D was the manager of an accounting team. D recently hired a new accountant from an anonymous website without checking his profile. D started training Account on how to review the client’s statements. However, Accountant made a mistake and Client wants to sue D. Can Client sue D for Accountant’s mistake?
Yes (NOT for Accountant’s mistake)
- Client can sue D for his negligent supervision (mistake despite training)/selection (anonymous hiring source)
- Client can NOT sue D for Accountant’s act (NO vicarious liability)
D hired a contractor to replace the pavement walk next to a kindergarten school. The contractor had to first drill large holes and fill it with toxic tar. One day, a young girl left the school when she was hit in the face by the contractor’s truck. She also suffered from the toxic tar. Can the girl’s mother sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Independent Contractor
- Inherently dangerous activity (construction next to kindergarten school)
- D is vicariously liable for Contractor’s act
D was constructing its house. D decided to delegate its duty to a contractor and to keep its premises safe. One day, D’s neighbour was hit in the face by the contractor’s nails. Can the neighbour sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Independent Contractor
- Non-delegable duty (public policy - keep premises safe)
- D is vicariously liable for Contractor’s act
D wanted to find a builder to construct his new home. Someone slipped a letter through D’s door recommending a builder without further information. D rang up the builder and hired him. Builder started constructing D’s new house when D decided to go to the shop. However, Builder kept throwing his wrenches in his toolbox and accidentally hit Neighbour. Can Neighbour sue D for Builder’s acts?
Yes (NOT for Builder’s acts)
- Neighbour can sue D for his negligent supervision (going to shop)/selection (anonymous letter)
- Neighbour can NOT sue D for Builder’s act (NO vicarious liability)
D was about to drive to the corner shop. His son told him to take the passenger seat because he wanted to drive it himself. D had no choice but to let him drive and D took the passenger seat. On his way, D’s son was texting. They suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- NOT vicarious liability
- Family car doctrine does NOT apply (D did NOT give consent for Son to drive
- Negligent entrustment
- D was in car + D could have stopped Son’s texting => D is liable (NOT for Son’s texting)
D was about to drive to the corner shop. His son told him to take the passenger seat because he wanted to drive it himself. D thought his son was old enough to drive so he let him do so. On his way, D’s son was texting. They suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Family car doctrine applies (D gave consent for Son to drive) => D is liable for Son’s driving
D was about to drive to the corner shop. His son told him to take the passenger seat because he wanted to drive it himself. D reluctantly let him drive and D decided to stay at home. On his way, D’s son was texting. He suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
No
- NOT vicarious liability
- Family car doctrine does NOT apply (D did NOT give consent for Son to drive)
- NO negligent entrustment (D was NOT in car)
D was driving along the road at night. D noticed the wheel was not working properly. A man came out of nowhere and told D he can fix it for him if he can drive it to the garage and bring it back to D. D agreed and the man took off. On his way, Man was texting. They suddenly crashed into a pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Permissive use applies (D gave consent for Man to drive) => D is liable for Man’s driving
X lent his lawn mower to Y. Y tried to pull out the switch from the mower when it came off the machine and Y hit his neighbour in the face from behind. Can Neighbour sue X?
Yes
- NOT vicarious liability (NOT in bailment)
- Negligent entrustment of mower => X is negligently liable to Neighbour (NOT for Y’s act)
D asked his young son to buy some flowers for his mother as it was mother’s day. As his son rode on his bicycle to the store, he didn’t pay attention and crashed into Pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- D’s son acted as agent for Parent (D) => D is liable for Child’s act
D’s daughter asked if she could ride his motorbike. D said ‘go ahead’. She rode the bike without paying attention and crashed into Pedestrian. Can Pedestrian sue D?
Yes
- D’s own negligence (NOT vicarious liability)
- D consented to Daughter driving motorbike => D is liable to Pedestrian (NOT for Daughter’s act)
D was selling absinthe at a local store. A customer came to buy two bottles. The customer then shared the bottles with his friend. Friend got so intoxicated he passed out. Can Friend sue D?
Yes
- Vicarious liability
- Dramshop Act: Vendor (D) is liable for TP’s (Friend) intoxication, caused by Vendee’s act (Customer) => D is vicarously liable to Friend for Customer’s act
D was selling absinthe at a local store. A customer came to buy two bottles. He looked incredibly young but D did not bother asking for his ID and sold the bottles to him. Customer got so intoxicated he passed out. Can Customer sue D?
Yes
- Negligence
- Vendor (D) foresaw risk of serving minor (Customer) => D is negligently liable to Customer
P purchased a lawn mower from D. P noticed the engine on the mower looked slightly different to others. P tried to turn the engine on, but could only turn it on eventually after a few seconds than normal. P is dissatisfied. Can P sue D?
No
- NO manufacturing defect (different appearance BUT few seconds switching on
is NOT beyond ordinary expectation)
- NO product liability
P purchased a swiss army knife from D. P expected the knife would be safe as it looked the same as any other swiss army knife. However, P cut himself with the knife as it had a slight cut at the tip. P requested D to reimburse for another one which was safer. D argued the new knife could not be any safer due to its sharp features. Can P sue D?
No
- Design defect (same line of products + more dangerous propensities)
- Feasible alternative approach: No less dangerous modification because knives are always likely to cause injuries
- NO product liability
P purchased a lawn mower from D. P tried to turn the engine on, but the engine lost control and the bolts flew out hitting P in the face. P requested for a safer design from D. D claimed it would cost him more than twice the amount to replace it with a better design. Can P sue D?
No
- Design defect (same line of products + more dangerous propensities)
- Feasible alternative approach: No economically feasible alternative if at least twice as expensive
- NO product liability
P purchased a lawn mower from D. P tried to turn the engine on, but the engine lost control and the bolts flew out hitting P in the face. P requested for a safer design from D. D claimed he complied with requisite government regulations, which shows conclusive evidence the engine did have not have any defects. Can P still sue D?
Yes
- Compliance with government safety standards => NOT conclusive evidence (rebuttable)
P purchased a toaster from D. The instructions in the box that came with the toaster warned that P should avoid placing his fingers in the toaster when using it. However, P switched the toaster on and noticed it was not heating up. P then placed his fingers in the toaster and burnt his fingers. Can P sue D?
No
- D gave adequate warnings (box)
- Risks of heating fingers was ‘apparent’ to P => NO design defect
- NO product liability
P went to his physician for a leg x-ray scan. The physician performed the scan, but it turns out P suffered from some radioactivity that P nor the physician was not aware of. Physician claims he was never told by the company that manufactured the x-ray scanning machine. Who can P sue?
Physician can sue Manufacturer
- Learned intermediary rule: Manufacturer failed to warn Physician re radioactive risks of using x-ray machine
- NO need to warn Patient => P can NOT sue Physician
P purchased a liquid furniture polish provided for home use from D. P had left the polish on the kitchen table when his young son took the polish and spilt it on his fingers. His son tasted the polish and fell sick. P complained to D. D argues he did not expect a young child to play with the polish and it would require installing a child proof lid. P argues the lid only costs a few dollars. Can P sue D?
Yes
- Reasonable misuse: Child spilling polish
- Feasible alternative appoach: Economically feasible (few dollars to install child proof lid)
- Product liability
P had stomach cramps and went to a pharmacist to purchase some ibuprofen. The pharmacist, D, sold some recently new products of ibuprofen that appeared to be safe. P took some but suffered further cramps. Reports later revealed the product is defective. D claims there was no signs of defects before they were sold. Can P sue D?
No
- NOT scientifically knowable risk (at time of marketing)
- NO product liability
