The Boundaries of Care

Question 1

Harper v. Herman

Answer 1

[boat accident -
obligation to assist] A boat owner who is a social host does not owe a duty of care to warn a guest on the boat that the water is too shallow for diving.

Question 2

Farwell v. Keaton

Answer 2

[injury, left in grandparents driveway - obligation to assist] When an individual comes to the aid of another, he is subject to the duty to take no action that would leave the victim worse off than before; and friends spending time together socially are under the affirmative obligation to come to each other’s aid in an emergency (spec relationship).

Question 3

Rowland v. Christian

Answer 3

[faucet injury - Rejecting common law categories of invitee, licensee and trespasser as a measure of a landowner’s duty to others] An owner/‌occupier owes the duty to warn others of known dangerous conditions which are known to the owner/occupier or to repair the conditions in order to prevent the risk of unreasonable harm to others.

Question 4

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

Answer 4

[Therapist case] Once a therapist does in fact determine, or under applicable professional standards reasonably should have determined, that a patient poses serious danger of violence to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger.

Question 5

Vince v. Wilson

Answer 5

[car accident and 3rd party suit - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT] The doctrine of negligent entrustment, under which liability arises out of the combined negligence of the incompetent driver and the person that sold him the car, is applied to anyone who sells, lends, leases, or gives a car to an incompetent driver, as well as anyone who finances a car for an incompetent driver.

Question 6

Reynolds v. Hicks

Answer 6

[Minor Drinking at wedding caused accident] A social host that supplies a minor with alcohol does not owe a duty of care to third persons. Unlike commercial vendors, social hosts are not capable handling responsibilities of guests’ alcohol consumption. Has pecuniary (monetary) and proprietary interests in exercising supervision: Commercial proprietor profits and should be expected to exercise greater supervision then in a non-commercial social setting (also they have more $ usually to do so). Social host liability would have far-reaching implications: While there are only a limited number of bars, liquor stores, etc., there is a much greater number of adult Washington residents that throw parties. Social host liability would affect almost every adult in every state.

Question 7

Strauss v. Belle Realty

Answer 7

[Injury during blackout] A public utility does not owe a duty of care to those who do not have a contractual relationship with it. The public interest in lower electricity rates would not be served if Con Ed (D1) were exposed to massive liability for injuries caused by its negligent failure to provide electricity. It also determined that it could protect Con Ed (D1) from such liability by requiring that in order to maintain a negligence suit against Con Ed (D1), a plaintiff must be in privity of contract with Con Ed (D1).

Question 8

Heins v. Webster County

Answer 8

[Hospital fall - abolishing invitee/licensee distinction] Nebraska courts will no longer apply the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees; instead, landowners will owe a duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors. (1) the foreseeability or possibility of harm; (2) the purpose for which the entrant entered the premises; (3) the time, manner, and circumstances under which the entrant entered the premises; (4) the use to which the premises are put or are expected to be put; (5) the reasonableness of the inspection, repair, or warning; (6) the opportunity and ease of repair or correction or giving of the warning; and (7) the burden on the land occupier and/or community in terms of inconvenience or cost in providing adequate protection.

Question 9

Carter v. Kinney

Answer 9

[Bible study fall - traditional approach to premises liability] A guest at a weekly social gathering in a private home is not an invitee, but rather a licensee; and the homeowner is not subject to the elevated duty of care owed to persons entering his property in order to do business with him.

Question 10

Posecai v. Walmart

Answer 10

[Sam’s Club robbery - BALANCING TEST] This is a case where they deviate from Rowland factors in deciding whether D has a duty of care. Although there is no general duty to protect others from the criminal activity of third persons, businesses have the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect their customers the criminal acts of third persons. This duty only arises under limited circumstances when the criminal act was reasonably foreseeable to the owner. Sam’s owed no duty to protect Mrs. Posecai from the criminal acts of third parties under the facts and circumstances of this case.

Question 11

Radi W v. Muroc Joint Unified School District

Answer 11

[Misrepresented letter of recommendation for teacher that would go on to sexually abuse student - uses Rowland factors] Writer of a letter of recommendation has a duty not to misrepresent the facts in describing the qualifications and character of a former employee, if making these misrepresentations would present a substantial, foreseeable risk of physical injury to third persons. Misrepresentation is an exception to the general rule of no duty