Source: http://parallelewelten.info/free-law-essays/contract-law/goal-of-tort-and-negligence-and-exceptions-contract-law-essay.php
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:40:28+00:00

Document:
Duty – Does D owe a duty to the plaintiff?
A) When D’s conduct creates a foreseeable risk there is a duty.
i) If a special relationship exists between plaintiff and D, D may be held liable for failure to act.
Social Co-venture – Engaged in a common pursuit and each is understood to watch out for the other. (Farwell v. Keaton) – Friends cruising for chicks, one guy gets beat down & friend leaves in back seat of car.
Person who has custody of another under circumstances where that person is deprived of normal opportunities of self-protection.
ii) D is liable if leaves plaintiff in worse position than when D undertook to provide care.
– The action can be a small action.
– Reliance on the promise can be enough for an undertaking.
(Tarasoff v. U.C. Regents) – Therapist owed a duty to warn victim of dangerous conduct of patient D.
– Guest is a minor. Duty is only owed to the minor, not anyone the minor may injure.
– Knowledge of a trespasser creates a duty. A warning is sufficient burden.
ii) Licensee: All who enter land with express or implied permission. No duty to inspect.
– (Carter v. Kinney) – Bible study group. Man was an licensee, no duty to inspect for ice.
believe the property is safe from known and unknown dangers and those revealed by inspection.
– Discretionary (Riss v. City of New York) – No duty for ex-boyfriend who stalked and attacked.
– Is there a policy?
fraught with public policy concerns.
iii) Thing/Dillon Rule – Bright line rule. Strictly enforced.
– Must experience distress beyond that which a normal uninterested bystander would experience. Response must not be abnormal.
(People Express Airlines v. Consolidated Rail Co.) – Airline was able to recover because of chemical spill by D railroad company.
Particular Foreseeability: D owed a duty to take reasonable measures to avoid risk of economic damages to an identifiable class that D knows or has reason to know are likely to suffer from act.
– Parents can recover pregnancy costs only. A few jx. allow for some child rearing costs.
– Child cannot recover for economic or emotional distress. Doctor has no duty.
Breach – Did D breach his or her duty by failing to meet the appropriate standard of care?
v) Common carriers – some jx. Hold to a higher standard. (Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc.) – CA jx.
statute is OK if adherence to statute puts you in more danger than breaking it.
higher standard, that standard must be used.
set the standard, but it is rebuttable.
i) Actual Notice – D knew of problem and negligently ignored it.
ii) Constructive Notice – Used to show passage of time, someone should have known of negligence.
evidence. It shifts burden from P to D. In most jx. D must come forward with rebutting evidence.
group working on patient while unconscious can be sued collectively under res ipsa loquitur.
(Byrne v. Boadle) – Barrel falls out of window onto his head.
(McDougald v. Perry) – Spare tire falls off of truck, hits car.
i) Higher than the reasonable person standard. Based on the minimum qualified member.
(Sheely v. Memorial Hospital) – Expert witness set the standard. National Standard.
iv) If there are conflicting schools of thought, doctor is held to his own school of thought.
meet the inference of negligence by giving explanations of their conduct.
– Conduct must be motivated, at least in part, for the purpose of serving the employers interest.
(Christensen v. Swenson) – Guard left post to get lunch and hit a motorcycle, respondeat superior found.
(BMHS v. Sampson) – Doctor was an independent contractor, hospital not liable for negligence.
reasonably believe agent was employee and relied on appearance of agency.
Causation – Can the plaintiff show that defendant’s negligence caused the harm?
– but for must be more likely than not.
(Zuchowicz v. United States) – Smokey Robinson Navy Navy case. Allowed recovery, although sketchy.
Court found it was the double overdose that caused the death.
– some jx. allow this.
allowed recovery under lost chance.
jointly and severally liable, despite only one causing damage.
damage. Both were held accountable.
– except for concerted action, where one party does damage, but both are held liable.
– Usually used in drug cases to establish causation of injuries from the drug.
(Hymowitz) – NY jx. Joint and several liability. Defendant cannot absolve themselves, they are liable.
within the increased risk caused by their acts. Based on foreseeability.
i) Unexpected Victim – Was the victim foreseeable?
(Palsgraf) – Fireworks caused scale to fall on woman. Majority said no recovery.
ii) Unexpected Type of Harm – Was the type of harm foreseeable?
– plank dropped into hull, caused fire in benzene cargo.
(Benn v. Thomas) – dude with heart condition dies after car accident bruises his chest.
Other driver liable, despite previous heart condition.
iv) Unexpected Manner of Harm – Was the manner of harm foreseeable?
appears to the court highly extraordinary that it should have brought about the harm.
was held to have been superceding cause of defendants negligence.
v) (Kingsman) – ice, ships and bridge. Incorporates all four clusters of Proximate cause.
Defenses – Can defendant assert an affirmative defense?
– Not really used anymore – only in 4 jx.
– some jx. set the bar at 51%. Plaintiff must be less at fault.
D1,D2 and P each 33% at fault.
(Fritz v. McKinne) – Doctor cannot get comparative fault to show drivers drunkenness to lessen damages against him.
companies to benefit from the windfall of offsetting settlements.
– take your medicine, wear your seat belt.
– In CA, avoidable consequences is the same as comparative fault.
knew the risk, no liability for Coney Island.
(Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd.) – Dude his maze pole at Killington. Waiver clause found against public policy.
a. Was the agreement freely entered into?
b. Were the parties of equal bargaining power?
c. Does it achieve social goals?
"Goal of tort and negligence and exceptions." Parallelewelten.net. 11 2013. All Answers Ltd. 04 2019 <http://parallelewelten.info/free-law-essays/contract-law/goal-of-tort-and-negligence-and-exceptions-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
"Goal of tort and negligence and exceptions." Parallelewelten. Parallelewelten.net, November 2013. Web. 18 April 2019. <http://parallelewelten.info/free-law-essays/contract-law/goal-of-tort-and-negligence-and-exceptions-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1>.
Parallelewelten. November 2013. Goal of tort and negligence and exceptions. [online]. Available from: http://parallelewelten.info/free-law-essays/contract-law/goal-of-tort-and-negligence-and-exceptions-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed 18 April 2019].
Parallelewelten. Goal of tort and negligence and exceptions [Internet]. November 2013. [Accessed 18 April 2019]; Available from: http://parallelewelten.info/free-law-essays/contract-law/goal-of-tort-and-negligence-and-exceptions-contract-law-essay.php?vref=1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.