Statutes And Res Ipsa

Question 1

Martin reasoning

Answer 1

Per we because injury exact kind safety statute written to protect, if dif injury could be evidence of negligence but not per se

Question 2

Tedla takeaway

Answer 2

Absurd to require dangerous behavior

Question 3

Tedla held

Answer 3

Should follow common law exception allowing safer conduct

Question 4

Tedla distinguished from Martin because

Answer 4

Different from prescribing additional safeguards

Question 5

Statute in Tedla

Answer 5

Pedestrians walk facing traffic to codify safety statute

Question 6

Under restatement violating statute is not negligence unless

Answer 6

Construed not to permit such excuse

Question 7

Excused violation 1

Answer 7

Violation reasonable because of actor ‘s capacity

Question 8

Excused violation. 2

Answer 8

Neither knows nor should know of occasion for compliance

Question 9

Excused violation 3

Answer 9

Unable after reasonable diligence or care to comply

Question 10

Excused violation 4

Answer 10

Confronted by emergency not due to his own

Question 11

Gorris holding

Answer 11

Not negligence per se because statute designed to protect against infectious disease, wrong harm

Question 12

Rd Statute violations are negligence per se if.. 1

Answer 12

Actor without excuse violates a statute that is designed to protect against the type of accident actors conduct causes

Question 13

Rd Statute violations are negligence per se if.. 2

Answer 13

Victim within class of persons statute designed to protect

Question 14

Hypo all slow moving vehicles to the right. Im in left slow and someone crosses median and hits me

Answer 14

Probably not right kind of harm, stronger argument if car that hit going the right way

Question 15

Hypo: Driving without a license

Answer 15

One hand part of reason to promote safety, but not necessarily that particular kind of accident and non safety reasons too

Question 16

P normally bears burden …

Answer 16

Of proof (more probable than not D negligence caused harm) and of production

Question 17

D’s only affirmative burden is ..

Answer 17

Proof for affirmative defenses

Question 18

Howard holding

Answer 18

Pure probability can shift burden of proof when nothing else

Question 19

Howard reasoning

Answer 19

Not sure how P could get missing evidence, information forcing for D

Question 20

Howard problem

Answer 20

Enough evidence that employee rather than customer spilled soap for Jury Q

Question 21

Howard Hypo- what if soap there for 3 hours

Answer 21

Either employee did it or employee failed to clean up (B low PL high)

Question 22

Posner Hypo: 49% chance A, 51% B (Bus hit them)

Answer 22

Pure probability B, but P can find other evidence (routes, marking), need to investigate

Question 23

Byrne holding

Answer 23

Inferred negligence from mere fact accident happend

Question 24

Byrne reasoning 1

Answer 24

Barrels don’t just fall from sky even if D not immediate cause, smt negligent happened even if don’t know what

Question 25

Byrne reasoning 2

Answer 25

D still has ability to prove to the contrary

Question 26

Res Ipsa Hypo - slip on oil patch near neighbors house

Answer 26

Probably not, still need to show violation of duty and connect D to negligent conduct (more probable than not)

Question 27

Grajales Romero holding

Answer 27

Prosser standard for res ipsa, if airline not negligent countertop wouldn’t have come off when pulled

Question 28

Prosser standard 1

Answer 28

Unexplained occurrence cannot be res ipsa unless accident type that normally does not occur if no negligence

Question 29

Prosser standard 2

Answer 29

Causes by agent/instrumentality within exclusive control of D

Question 30

Prosser standard 3

Answer 30

Not be due by any voluntary action on the part of the P

Question 31

Ybarra holding

Answer 31

Court imputes res ipsa to treat group involved in negligent surgery as one actor,

Question 32

Ybarra reasoning 1

Answer 32

Not legally connected group (some contractors)

Question 33

Ybarra reasoning 2

Answer 33

Information forcing, worried conspiracy of silence

Question 34

Ybarra reasoning 3

Answer 34

P in same position as traditional res ipsa

Question 35

Res Ipsa is applied when … 1

Answer 35

Injury most likely result of negligence even if exact nature unknown (Byrne)

Question 36

Res Ipsa is applied when … 2

Answer 36

D most likely the negligent party rather than anyone else (Byrne, Grajales)