Torts Flashcards
Elements of an intentional tort
Voluntary act Intent Causation Harm No privilege or defense
Battery defined
an intentional act that causes a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff or with something closely connected to the plaintiff (like plate s/he’s holding, or a hat s/he’s wearing)
Harm of offensive contact defined
the contact would inflict pain or impair any bodily function OR if a reasonable person would regard the contact as offensive
Need the plaintiff be immediately aware of the contact made for a battery?
No. Unlike assault, the plaintiff need not be immediately aware of the contact. He can learn about it after the offense.
Assault defined
The intentional act that causes the plaintiff to have a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.
The defendant must either:
(1) act with the desire to cause an immediate harmful or offensive contact or the immediate apprehension of such a contact; or
(2) know that such a result is substantially certain to occur.
Normally an assault would only be actionable if a reasonable person would also suffer as the plaintiff did. The one exception to that rule is:
If a normal and reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would not have experienced apprehension, but the defendant had knowledge of a particular weakness or vulnerability in the plaintiff and took advantage of it, liability will result.
False imprisonment defined
an intentional act that causes the plaintiff to be unlawfully confined or restrained to a bounded area against her will AND the plaintiff knows of the confinement OR is injured thereby. The duration of confinement is immaterial.
There must be no means of escape about which the plaintiff knows, and the plaintiff is under no duty to resist if there is a reasonable threat of force.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
the intentional or reckless act amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct that causes the plaintiff severe mental distress
Reckless element in Intentional infliction of emotional distress
the defendant acted with a deliberate disregard of a high degree of probability that emotional distress will follow
The element of extreme and outrageous conduct for Intentional infliction of emotional distress is satisfied if the defendant’s conduct is:
beyond the bounds of decency; conduct that a civilized society would not tolerate
In Intentional infliction of emotional distress cases, offensive or insulting language is generally not considered outrageous, except
in cases involving defendants who are common carriers or innkeepers, or plaintiffs with known sensitivity, such as the elderly, children, or pregnant women.
Trespass to land
an intentional act that causes a physical invasion into the plaintiff’s land. Mistake is not a defense to a trespass action.
EXAMPLE: Don believes that he is the rightful owner of a grove of pecan trees near his property line. However, the trees are actually on Pam’s property. Don cuts down several of the trees. Pam has an action in trespass.
The element of physical invasion under the law of trespass to land is satisfied if
- the defendant enters a third party’s land or causes a third person or object to enter the plaintiff’s land
- enters the plaintiff’s land lawfully, but then refuses to leave
- fails to remove an object from the plaintiff’s land when there is a clear duty to do so
NOTE: land includes both the air space and minarals below ground
Removal of Trees (timber trespass). A person who unlawfully or without authorization cuts, fells, destroys, or removes any trees growing or lying on another’s land is liable for three times the fair market value of the trees if the violation was committed:
- willfully and intentionally or
- in good faith, but under such circumstances that the violater should have known that his actions were without the consent of the owner of the trees
Conversion is
the unlawful interference with the ownership or possession of a movable (personal property).
The plaintiff is required to prove the fault on the part of the defendant under La.Civ.Code art. 2315
Under Louisiana law, a conversion occurs when
(1) possession is acquired in an unauthorized manner;
(2) the chattel is removed from one place to another with the intent to exercise control over it;
(3) possession of the chattel is transferred without authority;
(4) possession is withheld from the owner or possessor;
(5) the chattel is altered or destroyed;
(6) the chattel is used improperly; or
(7) ownership is asserted over the chattel.
Is there such thing as trespass to chattels in Louisiana?
No.
Mnemonic for defenses to intentional torts
POPCANS
defenses to intentional torts
POPCANS: Privilege, Defense of Others, Defense of Property, Consent, Authority, Necessity, Self-defense.
A privilege (i.e. a defense against an intentional tort) may exist where
- the person affected by the D’s conduct consented to the conduct
- some important personal or public interest was protected by the D’s ordinarily prohibited conduct AND protecting this interest justified the harm caused or threatened
- the D must act freely to perform an essential function
The defendant bears the burden of proving privilege
Consent (defense to intentional tort)
the consent must be effective, and the D must not exceed the scope of that consent
consent can be either express or implied (under the circumstances, a reasonable person would understand the person’s conduct to indicate consent)
Consent may be found to exist as a matter of law where the plaintiff is unable to consent, and:
(a) emergency action is necessary to prevent his death or serious injury;
(b) a reasonable person would be expected to consent under the circumstances; or
(c) no reason exists to believe that the plaintiff would not consent.
EXAMPLE: Della falls and hits her head, splitting it open. She is unconscious. A surgeon may operate to repair the damage under the premise that Della would have consented had she been awake.
When acting in self-defense, the degree of force allowed
A defendant otherwise acting in self-defense may only use the degree of force reasonably necessary to avoid the harm threatened by the plaintiff.
Even where there is actually no harm threatened against the defendant, he may successfully assert self-defense if
a reasonable person in the same circumstance would have believed that he was under attack. Thus, so long as the defendant subjectively (i.e., honestly and in good faith) believes that a sufficient threat exists to justify defensive force, and there is an objective basis for that belief (i.e., a reasonable person would believe so under the circumstances), self-defense is available.
A defendant may lose his self-defense privilege if
he becomes the aggressor by pursuing or inflicting bodily injury upon the original assailant beyond the necessary bounds.
The use of deadly force is reasonable where
serious bodily harm is threatened. The threat must be imminent.
To justify the use of deadly force in self-defense, the defendant’s fear of danger must be both genuine and objectively reasonable.
Is a person not engaged in unlawful activity and in a place where he has a right to be under a duty to retreat prior to using deadly force?
(Stand your ground rules)
No.
If a person acting in self defense inadvertently injures a third party, is he liable to that third party in tort?
No. Where a defendant otherwise properly acts in self-defense, he is not liable for an intentional tort if he thereby inadvertently inflicts injuries on innocent third persons.
(1) However, that defendant will be liable if he deliberately injures a third party, and may be liable for negligence if he unreasonably inflicts such injuries in the course of defending himself against an attack by the plaintiff.
Defense of others
A defendant is entitled to defend another person from an attack by the plaintiff to the same extent that he would be lawfully entitled to defend him or herself.
Defense of others, Reasonable Mistake Doctrine
Under the reasonable mistake doctrine, a defendant is relieved of liability where the third person would not be permitted to assert self-defense against the plaintiff if a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have believed that defense of the third person was justified, and that the defendant’s action was necessary to prevent harm to the third person.
Defense of property
a defendant can use reasonable force to prevent the plaintiff from committing a tort against the defendant’s property
Before using force in defense of property, a person must
demand that the plaintiff cease the conduct that threatens injury to his property before he can use force in defense, unless it would be futile or dangerous to make such a demand.
Is it ever permissible to use deadly force to protect one’s property from injury?
No.
A defendant may use reasonable force to promptly recover his personal property if tortiously dispossessed of that property by the plaintiff, but the defendant must
(1) The defendant must act with reasonable diligence to discover the dispossession and to recover his property. This has often been described by the courts as a requirement that the defendant be “in hot pursuit” of the tortiously dispossessing person.
(2) The defendant may also use reasonable force to recover such property from a guilty third party.
May a defendant use force to recover property taken under claim of right?
No. Even if otherwise proper, a defendant may not use force to recover property as to which the plaintiff came into possession under a claim of right.
Is reasonable mistake a defense against a plaintiff from whom he recovered property under the reasonable belief that the plaintiff tortiously dispossessed him of the property?
No.
If otherwise proper for the defendant to use reasonable force to recover property, the defendant may enter upon the land of the plaintiff or guilty third party in order to effectuate the recovery. However,
(1) Such entry must be at a reasonable time and must be accomplished in a reasonable manner.
(2) The same rule applies if the property is on the land of an innocent possessor, but the defendant will be held liable for any actual damage such entry causes.
EXCEPTION: A defendant may not enter upon the land of an innocent party and recover tortiously dispossessed property if that property has come to rest there as a result of the defendant’s fault.
The defense of necessitiy
a defendant is authorized to injure the plaintiff’s property if this is reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the public, to himself, or to his property.
(1) The defendant may successfully assert this defense if a reasonable person in the same circumstance would believe it necessary to injure plaintiff’s property.
(2) Mistake: If the defendant reasonably but mistakenly believes that his actions are justified under the objective standard set forth, he is privileged to act, even if it subsequently is established that there was no actual necessity.
If the defendant is acting to protect private, individual interests, he is justified in doing so if the threatened harm he is acting to avoid is substantially greater than the harm that will result from the action he actually takes.
But will the defendant be liable for damages?
Yes. In this case, the defendant is still liable for any actual damage to the plaintiff’s property, but is not liable for trespass.
If the defendant is acting to protect a public interest, he is justified in doing so only if the threatened harm is severe.
But will the defendant be liable for damages?
No. When acting out of public necessity, the defendant incurs no liability whatsoever for damage to the plaintiff’s property.
If a police officer has an arrest warrant and reasonably, but mistakenly arrests the wrong person, is he liable to that person for damages?
No.
Where a police officer or private citizen acts to prevent a felony that is being committed or appears is about to be committed in her/his presence, he is not liable for an intentional tort upon such arrest.
May a defendant assert this defense even if he was mistaken as to whether a felony was actually being committed?
- A police officer is not liable in tort for a warrantless felony arrest, even if he makes a mistake about whether a felony was committed or about the identity of the person who committed the felony, so long as the mistake is reasonable.
- Where a private citizen makes a felony arrest but makes a mistake about whether a felony was committed, the defense of authority is not available, even if the mistake is reasonable.
- If a felony was committed, but the private citizen making the arrest was mistaken about the identity of the person who committed the felony, the defense of authority is available if the defendant’s mistake as to identity is reasonable.
A police officer or private citizen is not liable for an arrest made without a warrant for a breach of the peace.
May a defendant assert this defense even if he was mistaken as to whether a breach of the peace was actually being committed?
A defendant may assert this defense even though s/he was mistaken in her belief that a breach of the peace was being or about to be committed, so long as the mistake is reasonable.
Merchant’s Privilege
Pursuant to La. Criminal Procedure Code article 215, a peace officer, merchant, or a specifically authorized employee or agent of a merchant, may use reasonable force to detain a person for questioning on the merchant’s premises, for a length of time, not to exceed 60 minutes, unless it is reasonable under the circumstances that the person be detained longer, when he has reasonable cause to believe that the person has committed a theft of goods held for sale by the merchant, regardless of the actual value of the goods.
A merchant may assert this defense, even if the detained plaintiff has not, in fact, stolen any property, so long as the merchant’s mistake is reasonable.
When determining whether the length of a detention under the merchant’s privilege is “reasonable under the circumstances”, Article 215 instructs that the following should be considered
(a) the value of the merchandise in question;
(b) the location of the store;
(c) time it takes the police to respond;
(d) the cooperation of the person detained; and
(e) any other relevant circumstance that should be considered with respect to the length of time a person is detained.
May teachers and others charged with maintaining discipline use force against another person’s child?
Yes, so long as the force used is reasonable under the circumstances.
Force that is reasonably necessary to maintain discipline varies according to the circumstances. Factors considered include:
- the nature of the conduct
- the age, sex, and physical condition of the disciplined child
- what the child did to warrant the discipline
The duty-risk analysis consists of
cause in fact duty breach scope of duty damages
For a plaintiff to recover on a negligence theory, all five inquiries must be affirmatively answered.
cause in fact
(1) Cause in fact is generally a “but for” inquiry; if the plaintiff probably would have not sustained the injuries but for the defendant’s substandard conduct, such conduct is a cause in fact. Stated differently, the inquiry is “Did the defendant contribute to the plaintiff’s harm or is the defendant a cause of the plain-tiff’s harm?”
(2) An alternative method for determining cause in fact, which is generally used when multiple causes are present, is the “substantial factor” test. Under this test, cause in fact is found to exist when the defend-ant’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in bringing about plaintiff’s harm.
Breach
Duty is a question of law. Simply put, the inquiry is whether the plaintiff has any law-statutory or juris-prudential-to support his claim.
Action within the scope of the duty owed?
There is no “rule” for determining the scope of the duty. Although Louisiana courts have used the terms proximate cause, legal cause, and duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty.
consider it an ease of association. was what happened foreseeable?
Duty refers to
an obligation recognized by law requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks.
Where a defendant engages in conduct that is claimed to have injured a plaintiff, the issue can be framed: Did the defendant have a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a certain standard of conduct?
In the Palsgraf case, Justice Cardozo articulated the rule that a defendant owes a duty only to
foreseeable plaintiffs. Justice Cardozo’s view is the prevailing view, and the view followed in Louisiana courts.
Under the American Rule, there is no general duty to aid a person in peril.
EXAMPLE: Cliff sees Norma injured by the side of the road. Late for an appointment, Cliff does not stop to help Norma. Norma bleeds to death. Norma’s estate does not have a cause of action against Cliff.
However,
if the defendant’s conduct is responsible for placing the plaintiff in a position where he requires aid, the defendant does incur a duty to take action to aid the plaintiff.
Are rescuers considered foreseeable plaintiffs?
Virtually all jurisdictions, including Louisiana, agree that rescuers are per se foreseeable plaintiffs, and thus are owed a duty of care.
(1) For a plaintiff to qualify under rescuer status, he must be attempting to protect human life.
Although a defendant ordinarily has no duty to take affirmative action to aid a plaintiff, once the defendant actually undertakes such action
he has a duty to exercise reasonable care and act reasonably to effectuate the rescue
The following relationships have been generally recognized as triggering the duty to care for a plaintiff:
(1) employer/employee during and in the scope of employment;
(2) common carrier and innkeeper/customer;
(3) school/pupil;
(4) parent/child;
(5) business/patron; and
(6) jailer/prisoner.
Professional Rescuer’s Doctrine
Police and firemen injured in the court of their duties assume the risk of such injuries and are generally not entitled to damages, subject to a few exceptions:
- the risk encountered is so extraordinary that the rescuer is deemed not to have assumed it or
- the defendant’s conduct is so blameworthy that the tort recovery should be imposed for the purposes of punishment or deterrence
A professional rescuer may also recover for an injury caused by a risk which is independent of the emergency or problem for which he has assumed the risk to remedy.
There is no duty to control the conduct of third parties as to prevent them from causing physical harm to another, unless:
(1) a special relationship exists between the actor and the third person that imposes such a duty upon the actor
EXAMPLE: Dean is in a movie theater sitting next to Perry. Dean and Perry do not know one another; they just happen to be sitting in adjacent seats. Perry gets very angry with the usher because the usher tells him to take his feet off the seat in front of him. If Perry decides to slug the usher, Dean has no duty to control him.
(2) a special relationship exists between the actor and the other person that gives the other person a right of protection.
EXAMPLE: Dean is in the movie theater sitting next to his son when Tina enters. Tina takes one look at Dean’s son, realizes that he is the kid who bit her child on the playground, and lunges at him. Dean has a duty to protect his son from Tina and to control her conduct.
Who is responsible for damages caused by unemancipated, minor children residing with their parents, or who have been placed by their parents under the care of others?
The parents are strictly liable
(1) If placed under the care of others, parents reserve recourse against those persons.
(2) Tutors of minors bear the same responsibility as parents
A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control his servant while acting outside the scope of his employment in order to prevent the servant from intentionally harming others, or creating unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, but only if
(1) the servant is:
(a) on the master’s land;
(b) on land where he is privileged to enter only as his master’s servant; or
(c) using a chattel of the master; and
(2) the master knows or should know:
(a) that he has the ability to control his servant
(b) has the opportunity to exercise such control
EXAMPLE: Darnell owns Silver Skates, an ice skating rink in Coldville. Ellie is a skating teacher at the rink. Darnell is in the office overlooking the rink one day when he sees Ellie, who is supposed be taking the day off, performing skating lifts with skaters that Darnell knows to be beginners. Darnell knows that beginning skaters are not ready to do lifts and can hurt themselves if they do. Darnell has a duty to intervene to protect the students if he is able to do so
One generally does not have a duty to protect a person from third party criminal conduct. However, a special relationship may trigger a duty, such as the relationship between a:
(a) parent and child;
(b) employer and employee;
(c) carrier and passenger;
(d) innkeeper and guest;
(e) shopkeeper and business visitor;
(f) restaurateur and patron;
(g) jailer and prisoner; or
(h) teacher and pupil.
EXCEPTION: Specifically in the context of a business owner and his patrons, although there is generally no duty to protect a person from third party criminal conduct, a duty may arise under limited circumstances wherein a business owner has a duty to take reasonable measures to protect its patrons from foreseeable criminal acts. The greater the likelihood of these acts, and the greater the severity, will lead to an obligation to take more significant measures.
A public entity, which includes all governmental bodies as well as housing authorities, plus any agents or subcontractors of a public entity, has a duty
care over property owned or in the custody of the entity.
A public entity has the duty to ensure
the public’s use and possession of the property, but it is not an insurer of the safety of members of the public. The entity must keep the property reasonably safe. Maintaining the property in perfect condition is not necessary.
A public entity is not liable for
damages resulting from a defective condition without proof that the entity had actual or constructive knowledge prior to the occurrence of the particular vice or defect causing the damage, AND the entity had a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect and failed to do so.
Under the general duty statutes, to bring a successful claim for being injured on public lands (tripped on uneven sidewalk) against a public entity, the plaintiff must prove that
the vice or defect is a condition that poses an unreasonable risk of harm, considered in light of all relevant moral, economic, and social considerations.
Under the La. Constitution, there is no sovereign immunity for government entities from suits in contract or tort.
But there is a cap on general damages for personal injury or wrongful death in suits against government entities, exclusive of property damage, medical care, and loss of earnings. What is it?
$500,000
Medical treatment following a personal injury judgment must be paid from a government reversionary trust directly to the health care provider.
La. Rev. Code 9:2798.1 gives public entities, officers, and employees immunity from liability when
performing policymaking or discretionary acts properly within the scope of their official duties
La. Rev. Code 9:2793.1 gives police officers, fire-fighters, and others immunity when
responding to an emergency, unless their actions result from willful or wanton misconduct or gross negligence.
The duty of a landowner is not to insure against the possibility of an accident on his premises, but rather to
act reasonably in view of the probability of injury to others.
Each case turns on its own facts, determining the extent of the duty owed, and the resulting degree of care needed to fulfill that duty.
The attractive nuisance doctrine creates a heightened standard of care for artificial conditions that have a foreseeable risk of unreasonable danger to trespassing children, where
the risk of such danger outweighs the utility of the artificial condition.
For the attractive nuisance doctrine to apply there must ordinarily exist a
hidden trap or inherently dangerous instrumentality peculiarly attractive to children.
A landowner owes no duty to warn of any hazardous condition or to keep his premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose, unless
the landowner operates a commercial recreational facility on the land.
EXCEPTION: The immunity provided by this statute does not apply to a landowner’s willful or malicious acts, which cause a plaintiff injury.
The owner or custodian of a thing is answerable for damage occasioned by its ruin, vice, or defect, only upon a showing that
- he knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known of the ruin, vice, or defect which caused the damage
- that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care
- that he failed to exercise such reasonable care.
Nothing in this Article shall preclude the court from the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur in an appropriate case.
In order for the plaintiff to recover against Owners or Custodians of Things such as Buildings, Elevators, and Sidewalks, she must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:
- a defect existed on the premises
- the defect caused the plaintiff’s damages
- the owner or custodian knew or should have known of the defect that caused the damage
- the damage could have been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care,
- the owner failed to use reasonable care
Defect defined
A defect under Art. 2317.1 is a condition creating an “unreasonable risk of harm.” The fact that a person fell or is injured on the premises of another does not elevate automatically the condition of the premises to that of an unreasonably dangerous defect.
To be a defect, the imperfection must pose an unreasonable risk of injury to those exercising ordinary care and prudence
Whether a defect is actionable depends on the trier of fact, who decides whether
the social value and utility of the hazard outweigh, and thus justify, its potential harm to others, which means the risk of harm is reasonable
A landowner is liable to his neighbor for any damage caused by activities performed on his land where
he knew, or through the reasonable exercise of care should have known that his works would cause damage
the damage could have been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care
the landowner failed to exercise reasonable care
Inconvenience: A landowner is permitted to conduct activities on his land that merely inconvenience his neighbor so long as
they don’t result in real damage.
The owner of a building has a duty to keep it in repair so that neither its fall nor that of any part of its materials causes damage to a neighbor or passerby. However, he is liable for damages only upon a showing that
he knew, or through the reasonable exercise of care should have known of the defect that caused the damage
the damage could have been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care
the owner failed to exercise reasonable care
Under Civil Code article 2321, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for damages for
injuries to persons or property caused by the dog, which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person’s provocation of the dog.
Absent a statutory standard, a defendant breaches his duty to a plaintiff if he fails to conduct himself as
a reasonable person would in like circumstances (i.e., failing to exercise ordinary care).
The reasonable person standard is applied as though the reasonable person possessed the same physical characteristics as the defendant EXCEPT
The conduct of defendants whose cognitive abilities are diminished due to mental illness, mental disability, or intoxication is assessed without such diminishment of abilities.
Reasonable person standard. In an emergency situation, the court considers
how a reasonable person would act while taking into consideration the excitement and confusion which normally accompany an emergency situation
Evidence of custom is relevant, but not conclusive, meaning
The trier of fact may find that the customary manner of behavior was not reasonable under the circumstances, or that a reasonable person would have engaged in behavior other than what is customary.
Deviation from custom; Compliance with custom
A plaintiff may introduce evidence of the defendant’s deviation from custom as evidence of the defendant’s unreasonable conduct. Conversely, a defendant may introduce evidence of compliance with custom to show the reasonableness of his conduct.
EXAMPLE: In trying to show that her landlord, Willie, was negligent for failing to install unbreakable glass in her shower, Penny may introduce evidence that most landlords use unbreakable glass. This evidence is persuasive, as it suggests that the burden of using unbreakable glass is not too great.
Where a defendant’s conduct also violates a duty created by a criminal statute, the criminal statute will serve as
a guideline for the court to determine the duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Civil liability will be attributed to the defendant based upon the standard of care delineated in the criminal statute if:
1) the injury caused by the defendant’s conduct is the type that the statute was intended to prevent; and
2) the plaintiff is a member of the class intended to be protected by the statute.
EXAMPLE: To prevent children from getting poisoned, the legislature passes a law making it a crime to sell toxic substances without a child-proof cap. Rat-Co fails to put a child-proof cap on its rat poison. Four-year-old Pablo finds the rat poison, drinks it, and suffers harm. Even though the statute is criminal in nature, it would become the standard of care because it was designed to protect children from ingesting poison.
A defendant’s violation of an applicable statute is excused if compliance with the statute
(a) would have resulted in a harm greater than the harm produced by the violation; or
(b) would have been impossible.
(2) A few statutes are regarded as so important that their violation cannot be excused as a matter of law (e.g., the statutory obligation to maintain a vehicle’s brakes in proper working order).
Compliance with a statute is regarded as
mere evidence on the issue of whether a defendant breached his duty of care, and does not raise any presumption of non-negligence in the defendant’s favor.
When applied to children, the reasonable person standard specifically takes account the child’s
age, maturity, intelligence, experience, and knowledge, both generally and as to the particular situation involved, which means that exceptionally bright children will be held to a higher standard than children of average or below-average intelligence.
EXAMPLE: Darlene is seven years old and is very intelligent. One day, she leaves her roller skates on the front walk. Patrick, who is walking down the walk, does not see the skates and slips and falls on them, breaking his leg. If Patrick sues Darlene, her act of leaving the skates on the walk will be compared with that of a seven-year-old with similar experience and intelligence.
Children engaged in adult activities are held to what standard of care?
An adult standard
EXAMPLE: Nine-year-old Francis takes his dad’s motorboat out for a spin. While driving the boat across the bay, he hits Joanne, a swimmer, and knocks her unconscious. Joanne drowns. If Joanne’s estate sues Francis, he will be held to the objective, adult, reasonable person’s standard of care.
General rule for standard of care for professionals
those who hold themselves out to be professionals must exercise the care and skill of a professional practicing in the same general locality
General rule for standard of care for public utilities
required to exercise the utmost care to reduce hazards to life as far as practicable
General rule for standard of care for common carriers
their heightened standard of care has been described as stringent
General rule for standard of care for innkeepers
must take reasonable precautions to protect their guests from the criminal activities of third parties
General rule for standard of care for hospitals
(1) A hospital must exercise the requisite amount of care toward a patient that the particular patient’s condition may require, depending upon the situation.
(2) In general, it is the hospital’s duty to protect a patient from dangers that may result from the patient’s physical and mental incapacities as well as from external circumstances peculiarly within the hospital’s control.
General rule for standard of care for physician
A physician must exercise the degree of care ordinarily exercised by licensed physicians practicing in the same community or locality under similar circumstances.
