Torts Flashcards
Definition of neg
failure to heed to a duty of reasonable care to a person whom that duty is owed and causes an injury
Respondeat superior
Respondeat superior – employers are held vicariously liable for employees negligence
Injury - types
physical (bodily and property), emotional distress, loss of wealth
Duty - general
general duty to foreseeable π heaven v pender - duty “to act with reasonable care when pursuing an affirmative action” malfeasance
reasonable foreseeability
a person of ordinary sense would recognize that careless conduct on his part would create a danger to the person or property of another
common law duty to rescue and protect
no duty
exceptions to no duty
- imminent peril caused by ∆ 2. voluntary undertakings - if you start, finish with reasonable care 3. special relationships - rel pre tort gives a duty
invitee
person who goes on the premises of another on the answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner for their mutual advantage o Entitled to reasonable care o there is a Duty to keep premises safe and warn of hidden dangers
licensee
one who enters the property of another on his own convenience, pleasure or benefit pursuant to the license or implied permission of the owner o Entitled to warning of hidden dangers the owner knows or should know about but not reasonable care
trespasser
enters premise without license, invitation or right, intentionally enters property without actual or implied permission o No duty of care is owed except to avoid willful and wanton injury (Extreme departure from ordinary standards of care and must involve a conscience disregard of a known serious danger)
trespasser exceptions (2)
o Limited duty to inform known adult trespassers of risk of physical harm posed by artificial conditions on the land o Attractive Nuisance – children don’t understand the danger of attractive things so there is a duty to protect them from them
rowland factors for a duty
- Foreseeability of harm 2. Degree of certainty that the π suffered the injury 3. Closeness between the ∆s conduct and the injury suffered 4. Moral blame attached to ∆ conduct 5. Policy preventing future harm 6. Extent of the burden to ∆ and community of imposing the duty 7. Availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk associated
pure economic loss
injury that is not accompanied by bodily injury or property damage
generally no duty in pure economic loss because
o Expensive o Low proportionality between the injury and the tort o Heavy burdens would be placed on people and the system because everyone can be harmed by one act
types of pure economic loss claims
- blockages - aikens 2. Damage to person or object π being the 3rd party - hockey 3. Damaged product sold to π by ∆ - Manufacturer doesn’t have a duty for injury to business just to the person 4. bad info 3 Approaches that Prevail 1. NY standard – pro ∆ - π must be in privity of contract with ∆ or have been in mind when report was created 2. Foreseeability analysis – pro π – every foreseeable π 3. Restatement section 552 – mix between 2 – if ∆ intended to benefit from π it creates a duty DOMINANT APPROACH
policy can limit duty: case and reason
strauss, too big to fail
breach - jury instruction standards (3)
- lay 2. professional (need expert) 3. common carrier
breach standard - ordinary person
objective - dont want length of the foot adjudication - menlove wanting stupid person standard EXCEPT sudden incapacaties
breach standard - kids
somewhat subjective - judged on a reasonable child of similar age and circumstance
breach standard - physical disability
somewhat subjective - reasonably blind person
breach standard - mental disability
objective - WHY o Allocating losses between 2 innocent parties to the one who caused the loss o Providing incentive to family members and other guardians of people with mental disabilities to control the behavior of those people o Removing inducements for alleged tort feasors to fake mental disabilities to escape liability o Avoiding administrative problems that are created by requiring courts and juries to identify and asses the significance of the disability o Forcing people with disabilities to pay for damage they cause if they are to live active lives
custom generally
NOT STANDARD FOR BREACH - – conformity to custom and departure from it are treated the same… both may be used as evidence by jury to determine if there was a breach but CANNOT be used on its own - jury decides if its reasonable
med mal - custom
is standard for breach Proof of compliance – through an expert – does establish reasonable care. just needs to prove that he complied with SOME custom in the profession not the custom of the π expert
med mal - expert standards (2)
locality - must be from a SIMILAR locale but need not be from the same community national - holding everyone to same standard
med mal - custom is standard exceptions
helling - eye puff obvious things - myers, walmart, leaving things in patients
med mal - informed consent definition
no problem with the way the services were rendered just that patient was not informed about the risks
med mal - informed consent standards (3)
o Subjective – what individual patient would want to know (patient’s right to self-determination) - Too demanding on physicians – patients can benefit from hindsight o Objective – reasonable physician – professional standard - Too protective of doctors o Objective – prudent patient – what would normal people do? - Middle ground – objective standard as applies to individual patient
med mal - informed consent - exceptions
- unconcious person 2. holding back for paternalistic reasons (jury decides if its okay)
Hand formula
B < PL b - burden p - prob of injury l - extent of injury if its less then not doing it IS a breach
Disproportionate Cost Test
- At the time of the act, the likelihood the conduct would cause the kind of harm π sustained was not probable – no obligation to take precaution against it 2. If risk of harm was not too far-fetched but still really small – obligation to take precaution UNLESS taking them would cause a burden completely disproportionate to the harm 3. Risk was substantial or material then actor was obligated to do everything possible to prevent harm even if it is very expensive
3rd restatement cost benefit analysis
o Foreseeable likelihood o Foreseeable severity of harm might ensue o Burden of precautions to prevent the harm
res ipsa - elements
- Circumstance bespeaks negligence 2. ∆ has control and could have stopped the injury 3. Injury did not arise from acts of carelessness on the part of the π
res ipsa - smoking out
used to induce defendants to provide information concerning accident, lest they all be held liable
actual cause normal test
but for
but for exceptions
- loss of chance 2. multiple nec 3. multiple sufficient (normally just fires)
daubert test
- relevance 2. reliability - was scientific evidence.. - tested - subjected to peer review and publication - rate of error known - accepted by relevant scientific community
toxic torts
present the problem of proving that you got it from the toxin OR there is a general linkage then you must prove that your illness is the instance of the linkage
identification of tortfeasor (2 alt)
- summers – hold all ∆ liable because we KNOW one of them was the cause and neither are innocent 2. market share - dangerous product ∆ will pay however much stake they had in the market of the product when the injury occurred
