Torts Flashcards
The issue is whether the woman may be precluded from liability on a negligence claim because she was driving under the posted speed limit.
For a claim of negligence to be viable, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the actor owed a duty of care to the victim, (2) the actor breached that duty, (3) the actor’s actions were the cause of the victim’s injuries, and (4) the victim must have sustained damages. Additionally, for a successful negligence claim, the actor (defendant) must have no applicable defenses to assert.
The issue is whether the court could properly find the woman liable for damages resulting from the man’s infection.
If a person can establish duty and breach, they must also establish that the defendant is the cause in fact and proximate cause of the damages sustained. Cause in fact means but for a defendant’s breach, the person would not have been injured. Proximate cause looks at whether the damages were reasonably foreseeable from the breach.
A tortfeasor must take a plaintiff as they find him (the eggshell plaintiff)–so even if the damages were unexpected because of a unique condition of the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for all resulting damages.
Additionally, medical malpractice is generally a foreseeable outgrowth of any sort of injury that requires hospitalization.
The issue is whether the hospital can be liable for the damages the man sustained as a result of the infection he contracted.
Res ipsa loquitur is a theory of negligence applicable when a plaintiff is unable to prove the source of the negligence but suffers an injury as a result of negligence. The elements for res ipsa loquitur are (1) the injury does not generally occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the source of the injury was in the defendant’s control; and (3) the plaintiff did not contribute to the negligence.
The issue is whether the woman’s liability could be limited to $100,000 (the injuries sustained in the car accident and not the damages from the hospital infection).
Joint and several liability (the majority rule) allows a plaintiff to collect the full amount of damages from one defendant even if there are multiple defendants. In order for joint and several liability to apply, there must be multiple defendants and injuries stemming from the same claim. If a plaintiff collects the entirety of the claim against one defendant, the defendant can seek contribution from the other tortfeasors for their proportional share.
The issue is whether Library is a commercial seller.
Under strict liability, the seller or other distributor of a defective product may be liable for any harm to persons or property caused by such product. To be subject to strict liability for a defective product, the defendant must be in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products of the type that harmed the plaintiff.
The issue is whether Supermarket is subject to strict liability for selling a defective product or for failure to warn.
To be subject to strict liability for a defective product, the defendant must be in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products of the type that harmed the plaintiff. Included as a seller are the product’s manufacturer, its distributor, and its retail seller.
A product is defective when, at the time of the sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing defect, a design defect, or inadequate instructions or warnings. A defect for failure to warn exists if there are foreseeable risks of harm, not readily recognized by an ordinary user of the product, which risks could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings.
The issue is whether P may recover damages from A, B, or C under res ipsa loquitor when he cannot show who was negligent and caused his injury.
In general, a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeable be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances.
Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the trier of fact may infer the existence of negligence in the absence of direct evidence of such negligence. For the doctrine to apply, the plaintiff must prove that (1) the plaintiff’s injury or damage was caused by an instrumentality or condition that was under the defendant’s exclusive control or the defendant is responsible for all others in control at the relevant times, (2) the plaintiff’s harm would not have occurred if the defendant had used ordinary care while the instrumentality was under his control, and (3) the plaintiff was not responsible for his injury.
The issue is whether the physician is liable for breaching his duty to act with reasonable care.
A prima facie case of negligence requires proof of a duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages. In general, a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable persons who may foreseeably be injured by the defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person of ordinary prudence under the circumstances. A physician is held to a national standard and is expected to exhibit the same skill, knowledge, and care as an ordinary practitioner.
The issue is whether the man can recover from any of the U.S. companies without proof of which company caused the injuries.
a. Defective Product
Under strict products liability, the manufacturer, retailer, or other distributor of a defective product may be liable for any harm caused by the product. The plaintiff must prove (i) the product was defective (in manufacture, design, or failure to warn), (ii) the defect existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control, and (iii) the defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries when the product was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. A manufacturing defect is a deviation from what the manufacturer intended the product to be that causes harm to the plaintiff. The test is whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications.
In this case, there was clearly a manufacturing defect. Because the herbal tea was produced for human consumption, the presence of a highly toxic pesticide was not part of the defendants’ own specifications.
b. Breach of Warranty
The implied warranty of merchantability warrants that the product being sold is generally acceptable and reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is being sold. Any product that fails to live up to this warranty constitutes a breach, regardless of any fault by the defendant. Here, the herbal tea was not fit for its ordinary purposes because reasonable consumers would not expect herbal tea to cause severe and permanent liver damage. Thus, the defendants may be subject to a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim.
c. Causation
Regardless of the theory of liability, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the specific defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries. There are several theories of liability under which a plaintiff can recover when there are multiple tortfeasors or multiple possible causes for the plaintiff’s harm, but in this case the man will not be able to recover under any of them.
Under the market share liability doctrine, if the plaintiff’s injuries are caused by a fungible product and it is impossible to identify which defendant placed the harmful product into the market, the jury can apportion liability based on each defendant’s share of the market. In this case, the man will not succeed under this theory because the teas are not truly identical. The investigation established that the levels of contamination and toxicity varied substantially between the packages and some packages had no contaminants at all. Thus, the man cannot rely on this theory of liability.
Under the alternative causation doctrine, if the plaintiff’s harm was caused by (i) one of a small number of defendants, (ii) each of whose conduct was tortious, and (iii) all of whom are present before the court, then the court may shift the burden of proof to each individual defendant to prove that his conduct was not the cause in fact of the plaintiff’s harm. Here, the man cannot rely on this theory because none of the defendants were negligent in failing to discover the contamination.
Under the concert of action doctrine, if two or more tortfeasors were acting pursuant to a common plan or design and the acts of one or more of them tortiously caused the plaintiff’s harm, then all the defendants will be held jointly and severally liable. Here, there is no evidence that the companies were acting together or tortiously. Thus, the man cannot recover under this theory.
In sum, none of the U.S. companies can be held liable for the man’s injuries because they did not act negligently, and there are no other theories of liability to prove the companies caused the man’s injuries.
The issue is whether the health-food store is strictly liable for selling a defective product.
To be subject to strict liability, the defendant must be in the business of selling or otherwise distributing the product. Here, the man can prove all the elements required for strict products liability, including causation. The man purchased all of the defective tea at the same health food store, which is in the business of selling such products. Thus, the man can recover from the health food store.
The issue is whether Penny can establish a battery claim against Dennis.
In a battery action, a plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant intended to cause contact with the plaintiff’s person, (2) affirmative conduct caused such a contact, and (3) the contact caused bodily harm or was offensive to the plaintiff. A defendant’s contact is intentional if he acts with the purpose of bringing about the contact or engages in an action knowing that contact is substantially certain to occur to the victim. In most jurisdictions, the defendant need only intend to cause contact, not that the contact be harmful or offensive (single-intent rule).
The issue is whether Penny can establish a negligence claim against Dennis.
In a negligence action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff, that the defendant breached that duty, that the defendant caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and that damages exist. Generally, the standard of care imposed on a defendant is that of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. A person is required to exercise the care that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would recognize as necessary to avoid or prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to another person.
The issue is whether the Flies are vicariously liable for Dennis’s conduct.
Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability in which one person is liable for the negligent actions of another. An employer is liable for the tortious conduct of an employee that is within the scope of employment.
In this case, Dennis was hired to play baseball for the Flies’ team. Dennis was acting within the scope of his employment when he hit a baseball. However, Dennis’s conduct was not tortious. Thus, the Flies are not vicariously liable for Dennis’s conduct.
The issue is whether Penny can establish a negligence claim against the Flies.
A person is required to exercise the care that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would recognize as necessary to avoid or prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to another person. In deterimining if there has been a breach, courts apply one of two approaches: the traditional approach or the cost-benefit approach.
The majority of courts follow the traditional rule and will compare the defendant’s conduct with that of a reasonably prudent person. The modern trend is to perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the defendant has acted in accordance with the standard of care. This analysis considers (1) the foreseeable likelihood that the defendant’s conduct would cause harm, (2) the foreseeable severity of any resulting harm, and (3) the defendant’s burden in avoiding the harm. Evidence of custom in an industry may be offered to establish the standard of care, but such evidence is not conclusive.
The issue is whether Penny can recover damages for the neurological harm resulting from a preexisting condition.
The defendant is liable for the full extent of the plaintiff’s injuries due to the plaintiff’s preexisting physical or mental condition or vulnerability, even if the extent is unusal or unforeseeable.
