Statutes And Res Ipsa Flashcards
Martin reasoning
Per we because injury exact kind safety statute written to protect, if dif injury could be evidence of negligence but not per se
Tedla takeaway
Absurd to require dangerous behavior
Tedla held
Should follow common law exception allowing safer conduct
Tedla distinguished from Martin because
Different from prescribing additional safeguards
Statute in Tedla
Pedestrians walk facing traffic to codify safety statute
Under restatement violating statute is not negligence unless
Construed not to permit such excuse
Excused violation 1
Violation reasonable because of actor ‘s capacity
Excused violation. 2
Neither knows nor should know of occasion for compliance
Excused violation 3
Unable after reasonable diligence or care to comply
Excused violation 4
Confronted by emergency not due to his own
Gorris holding
Not negligence per se because statute designed to protect against infectious disease, wrong harm
Rd Statute violations are negligence per se if.. 1
Actor without excuse violates a statute that is designed to protect against the type of accident actors conduct causes
Rd Statute violations are negligence per se if.. 2
Victim within class of persons statute designed to protect
Hypo all slow moving vehicles to the right. Im in left slow and someone crosses median and hits me
Probably not right kind of harm, stronger argument if car that hit going the right way
Hypo: Driving without a license
One hand part of reason to promote safety, but not necessarily that particular kind of accident and non safety reasons too
P normally bears burden …
Of proof (more probable than not D negligence caused harm) and of production
D’s only affirmative burden is ..
Proof for affirmative defenses
Howard holding
Pure probability can shift burden of proof when nothing else
Howard reasoning
Not sure how P could get missing evidence, information forcing for D
Howard problem
Enough evidence that employee rather than customer spilled soap for Jury Q
Howard Hypo- what if soap there for 3 hours
Either employee did it or employee failed to clean up (B low PL high)
Posner Hypo: 49% chance A, 51% B (Bus hit them)
Pure probability B, but P can find other evidence (routes, marking), need to investigate
Byrne holding
Inferred negligence from mere fact accident happend
Byrne reasoning 1
Barrels don’t just fall from sky even if D not immediate cause, smt negligent happened even if don’t know what
Byrne reasoning 2
D still has ability to prove to the contrary
Res Ipsa Hypo - slip on oil patch near neighbors house
Probably not, still need to show violation of duty and connect D to negligent conduct (more probable than not)
Grajales Romero holding
Prosser standard for res ipsa, if airline not negligent countertop wouldn’t have come off when pulled
Prosser standard 1
Unexplained occurrence cannot be res ipsa unless accident type that normally does not occur if no negligence
Prosser standard 2
Causes by agent/instrumentality within exclusive control of D
Prosser standard 3
Not be due by any voluntary action on the part of the P
Ybarra holding
Court imputes res ipsa to treat group involved in negligent surgery as one actor,
Ybarra reasoning 1
Not legally connected group (some contractors)
Ybarra reasoning 2
Information forcing, worried conspiracy of silence
Ybarra reasoning 3
P in same position as traditional res ipsa
Res Ipsa is applied when … 1
Injury most likely result of negligence even if exact nature unknown (Byrne)
Res Ipsa is applied when … 2
D most likely the negligent party rather than anyone else (Byrne, Grajales)
