Statutory Negligence Flashcards
Introduction
i. Anon
1) Holding
a) If a statute enacts or prohibits anything for the advantage of any person, that person shall have a remedy against the person, whose violation of the statute denied the benefit
ii. Thayer
1) Public wrong and Private Action
a) Statutes and custom are essentially the same thing, they replace the BPL analysis to make it easier for the Jurors to determine if NEG has taken place.
b) Hypo
c) Guy rides into town and forgets to hitch his horse up, but does not do so. The horse takes off and kicks someone in the head.
i) Town statute to tie your horse up.
ii) Tommy’s horse has been trained to not move at all and thus doesn’t need to be tied up, but
iii) Is tommy Liable when ?
One. Kids shoot the horse in the but with a P shooter takes off and horse kicks alex in the head
Two. Horse backs up and poops in the street, kids riding by slip in the poop and get hurt
Three. Tommy rides up and his girlfriend is getting raped, he runs into defend her and forgets to hitch his horse, horse bolts and kicks alex in the head.
iv) At what point is it acceptable to violate the statute?
You can violate the statute, if the purpose of the statute is not in proximity to the harm violating the statute created.
Schmitz v. Canadian
i. Holding
1) Judge was wrong to not instruct the jury that railway violated the statute. Jury should have been told this and if Jury would have known this then they would only have to decide whether the railroad violated the regulations and whether the violation was a cause of the injury.
ii. Notes
The statute is not designed to keep people from falling into hidden holes, but rather to keep vegetation of the tracks.
Clinkscales v. Carver
i. Holding
1) Traynor
a) No criminal culpability for running stop signs that were posted according to a defective statute, but still civilly culpable.
b) Any reason man should know that the public naturally relies upon their observance?
c) Guilty of NEG regardless of any irregularity with respect to authorization of the sign
ii. Notes
1) Would the judge instruct jury to find against the D?
a) Because of defective statute
b) Unreasonable to go through a stop sign
Leave it to jurors?
Osborne v. McMasters
i. Facts
1) D’s drug store clerk sold the P a bottle without properly labeling it poison. The P consumed the poison not knowing what it was and died. Labeling of the poison was required by statute.
ii. Issue.
1) Is the D violation of the statute requiring labeling the poison, NEG per se?
iii. Holding
1) It doesn’t matter if ones duty arises out of common law or statute, if a duty is breached and if the P’s injuries are caused or proximately caused by the breach, the P is entitled to recover for NEG
Violation of statute is NEG per se
SS 286
i. A statute may be adopted to govern standard of conduct/duty to
1) Protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded
2) To protect a particular interest which is invaded
3) To protect the particular interest against the kind of harm which has resulted
4) To protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results
ii. Notes
Boxing case with the minor applies.
Simpson v. Wellington service Corp
i. Facts
1) D drove a large truck over the city streets without a statutory permit; the truck was so heavy he broke several pipes that flooded the P property and caused a lot of damage. P sued D for NEG pursuant to violation of the statute
ii. Issues
1) Is the statute requiring a permission to drive trucks of a certain weight on city streets limited in its protection to the streets themselves such that violation would be NEG per se?
iii. Holding
1) No
a) The statute has a duel purpose
i) To protect roads; and
ii) To protect property
2) D failure to apply for a permit denied city officials from considering the damage that could have resulted from driving the truck, so the D is liable for NEG
iv. Notes
1) The primary purpose of the law was to protect the roads, not the individual.
However a secondary purpose could have been to protect the property next to the roads
Gorris v Scott
i. 1874
ii. Facts
1) D was transporting sheep and in violation of the Contagious Disease Act had not penned them properly. The Sheep washed overboard during a storm and the P is suing the D claiming damages resulting from Statutory NEG.
iii. Issue
1) Was the statute governing the proper penning of sheep in proximate enough relation to the resulting damage, to consider the D statutorily NEG?
iv. Holding
1) The statute was not designed to protect sheep owners from losses resultant from a storm, therefore there was not proximate enough relation for the P to claim the D was in violation of statutory NEG.
v. Notes TL
1) Interesting and important case
2) If there is no statute, look at BPL or custom to determine NEG
3) We are lucky because we actually know what the intent of the statute is.
The plaintiffs hope with statutory NEG is to try to ask for a definition of the statute as broad as possible; the broader the better for the P
Shadday v. Omni Hotels Management Corp
i. Posner
1) Why should a D get off scot free just because the harm caused was not foreseeable?
Given the D was under a legal duty to pen the sheep, why should they not be held liable for a harm that would have been avoided if only he had complied to his duty, regardless of the statutes intent.
Talley v. Danek
i. Facts
1) Well known doctor used a medical device manufactured by the D which subsequently failed. The P’s claim rested on the device not being approved by the FDA, P argued this violated a federal statute. P argues the violation of the statute should be considered Statutory NEG
ii. Holding
1) Where a statutory requirement does not itself articulate a standard of car but only requires regulatory approval or license, violation thereof is not a breach of the standard of care
iii. Notes
This is not a safety statute.
Brown v. Shyne
i. Facts
1) Unlicensed Chiropractor operates on the Ps back leading to paralysis. P asks that the D be held liable no matter what level of car was provided, because he was unlicensed and the injury would not have occurred if he had not attempted to treat her back
ii. Issue
1) Was the fact that the D was not licensed enough for him to be held in violation of statutory NEG?
iii. Holding
1) Lehman J.
a) The Protection the statute was intended to provide was against risk of injury by the unskilled or careless practitioner, the P’s injury was not caused by lack of skill or care and therefore the D is not Liable
2) Crane J. Dissenting
a) Yes there is NEG therefore trial judge jury instructing is wrong
i) Assumes D’s failure to obtain a license is the Direct and proximate cause of the P’s injury
ii) Assumes practitioners with out licenses are unskilled
iv. Notes TL
1) The licensure statute is not a safety statute, it is an anti-competition statute, forcing anyone who wants to practice any kind of medicine to have a medical doctors license.
Crane is saying the statute is applicable, even though it is not NEG per se, but at the minimum, they should consider the licensure to some degree.
k. J.I. Case Co. v. Borak
i. Holding
1) Shareholder has an implied CoA
Broad remedial purposes of statue that governed CoA is likely what provided CoA
m. Martin v. Herzog
i. Facts
1) P Son is driving buggy in nighttime without lights, D is driving in an automobile when he crashes into the P and kills him. The P is in violation of a local statute requiring lights on your buggy. The court rejects the D’s argument that there existed contributory NEG on the part of the P because he didn’t have lights.
a) The appellate court reversed this decision for error in the instructions to the jury to not consider contributory NEG in the ruling
ii. Issue:
1) Was the P operation of the buggy without lights in violation of statutory NEG? if so was the NEG cause or Proximate cause?
iii. Holding
1) Cordozo
a) P was held liable for contributory NEG therefore clearing the D of charges
b) Must be on guard to recognize the difference between establishing NEG and establishing the Causal connection between NEG and the P’s Injury
i) NEG conduct is not always Contributory NEG
iv. Notes TL
1) Views on violation of Custom
a) Custom is irrelevant to NEG
b) Custom has some relevance as possible evidence of NEG
c) Custom is conclusive evidence of NEG
2) Views on Violation of Statute
a) It is NEG per se or Statutory NEG
b) There is some evidence of NEG
Violation is irrelevant (jury not instructed with respect to the statute.)
Tedla v. Ellman
i. 1939
ii. Facts
1) P and deaf/mute brother walking along highway shortly after dark, WITH the flow of traffic in violation of a statute requiring them to walk the opposite of oncoming traffic. They were hit and the brother was killed.
iii. Issue:
1) Did the Ps action in being in violation of the statue constitute contributory NEG
iv. Holding
1) NO
a) Common Law custom was to walk in the same manner later required by the statute, custom had an exception (walk according to flow that was lightest)
b) At the time they were walking, there were fewer vehicles coming from the other direction. Therefore custom dictated it was safer to walk on that side of the road.
c) The Statutory intent was to make people safer, and walking on the other side of the road could have put them at more risk, therefore, we should follow the intent, not just the language.
v. Notes TL
1) Statutes are meant to codify the custom,
a) There exists an exception to the custom:
i) Walk against the traffic, unless the traffic is lighter on the other side of the road and will provide more safety.
The statute requires owner of a car to have properly functioning brakes.
SS 288 & RTT 15
i. Violations of statute may be excused by necessity, by emergency or by reason of incapacity
Statutory CoA should be based on NEG rather than Strict Liability
Ross v. Hartman
i. Facts
1) D (in violation of local statute) left an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition, the car was stolen and the individual who stole it ran over the P. the P is now suing the D for NEG of leaving his keys in the car.
ii. Issue:
1) Is P violation of a city ordinance statutory NEG such that he can be liable for injuries sustained by a third party
iii. Holding
1) Edgerton J.
a) Yes the P is responsible!
2) Evident purpose of requiring moter vehicles to be locked is to promote the safety of the public in the streets
a) Safety statute
3) Violations of the statute allowed the third party to steal vehicle and injure the P. therefore the violation is proximate cause of P’s injuries.
iv. Notes TL
1) Did legislatures really intend to protect the public on the streets, and not the owners of the property?
2) D’s argument is that the statute is not a safety statute but it is designed to relieve the cops from tracking down stolen cars
Richards V. Stanley
i. Facts
1) Almost the exact same facts as ross
ii. Holding
1) Traynor
a) ITS NOT A SAFETY STATUTE!
b) No statutory NEG or common law NEG
i) CA ordinance prohibited use of the ordinance in torts action
ii) No proximate cause just because D left the keys in the car
One. Just because you left a key in the car does not ensure that it will be driven.
iii. Notes TL
1) Traynor’s argument
a) Is it NEG for TL to lend a car to your friend?
i) No, as long as you don’t have knowledge they are a bad driver (or have nefarious purposes)
b) Is it then NEG to leave your keys in a car when you have no knowledge that someone will kill someone?
i) No, because the likely hood the car will be driven is exceptionally low.
2) TL says Traynor BPL is inadequate because B is so blasted low that any PL will be higher
3) What if you leave your keys in the car in a nice neighborhood, would Traynor say the P was higher?
Yes
Nolan v. Morelli
i. 1967
ii. Holding
1) Under common law a person who sell’s alcohol to somebody who becomes drunk and injures somebody while DUI is not liable
a) One cannot be intoxicated by reason of liquor if he does not drink it
2) The statute eliminates the common law defense of proximate cause and makes the bar tender liable.
iii. Notes:
Common law says the accident was caused by the driver not the bar tender (Proximate Cause)
Uhr v. East Greenbush Central School District
i. Facts
1) NY education statute required districts to perform scoliosis exams at least once a school year students 8-16 YO; P student examined as an 8th grader, not as a 9th grader and in 10th grade, she was determined to have Scoliosis. The condition had progressed to the point where she needed surgery to correct it not just braces. Sued the D in violation of the statute
ii. Issues
1) Does the statute authorize P to a private right of action?
iii. Holding
1) No
a) legislative intent is to provide scoliosis test to students in the most inexpensive way
b) Three prong test to investigate possibility of private right of action if statue does not clearly state one
i) P one of the class the statute was aimed to protect
ii) Would recognition of private right of action further legislative purpose
iii) Would creation of such a right be consistent with Legislative scheme
2) Court holds that the legislature did not intend for the district to bear liability for program that benefits a far wider population
iv. Notes TL
1) When looking at statutes we really have a three part test
a) Is it a safety statute
b) Does the P fall within the class of people the statute is designed to protect
i) Then we fall into two types of JX
One. Statutory NEG; or
Two. Evidence of NEG
c) Does the recognition of a private right of action promote the legislative purpose/ consistent with the Legislative purpose?
2) How would the P’s attorney construct a clever argument with respect to the statute?
a) Legislature did not intend to restrict private right of action for nonfeasance but it did for misfeasance
The test did not satisfy in this case because it was not consistent with the legislative purpose
