Anglo-American Contract and Torts. Prof. Mark P. Gergen. 11. Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause)
|
|
- Daniel Hamilton
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Anglo-American Contract and Torts Prof. Mark P. Gergen 11. Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause)
2 1) Duty/Injury 2) Breach 3) Factual cause 4) Legal cause/scope of liability 5) Damages Proximate cause Duty of reasonable care. Breach: was the defendant s conduct unreasonable? Cause in fact: was the plaintiff harmed by the defendant s failure to act reasonably? Scope of liability/legal cause: is the harm among the risks that made the defendant s conduct unreasonable? Injury: was the plaintiff physically harmed or is this in the limited categories ( pockets ) of cases in which recovery is available for pure economic or emotional harm?
3 Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Co. (1928) Two men run to catch a departing train. The second, who is carrying a package, jumps aboard but seems about to fall. Two guards, who are employees of LIRR, one on the train, one off, pull and push the man, dislodging the package, which falls. The package contained fireworks. These explode, causing a heavy scale to topple on Palsgraf, grievously injuring her. Jury verdict for Palsgraf. Affirmed by the intermediate court of appeals.
4 Reasonable people may disagree about whether the guard s conduct was reasonable with respect to the man and the package. So that is a question for the jury. But Ms. Palsgraf is the plaintiff. May she recover? Cardozo argues no and that it is a question of duty properly resolved by the court. Andrews disagree. What they disagree about is the generality of the duty of care owed.
5 Cardozo: The conduct of the defendant's guard, if a wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in its relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Relatively to her it was not negligence at all. Text 80 (top 2 nd para) If no hazard was apparent to the eye of ordinary vigilance, an act innocent and harmless, at least to outward seeming, with reference to her, did not take to itself the quality of a tort because it happened to be a wrong...with reference to some one else. A bit further down What the plaintiff must show is a wrong to herself; i. e., a violation of her own right, and not merely a wrong to some one else, nor conduct wrongful because unsocial, but not a wrong to any one. Text 81 top. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension. further down.
6 Andrews responds: Every one owes to the world at large the duty of refraining from those acts that may unreasonably threaten the safety of others. Such an act occurs. Not only is he wronged to whom harm, might reasonably be expected to result, but he also who is in fact injured, even if he be outside what would generally be thought the danger zone. Text 83 top
7 So who has the better argument, Cardozo or Andrews? As a matter of fairness... LIRR our conduct was not negligent with respect to your injury. Palsgraf my injury was a consequence of your negligent conduct. As an administrative matter.... Is it possible to resolve that LIRR s conduct was not negligent with respect to Palsgraf s injury by a rule or standard? At what procedural stage can the claim be fairly resolved? Should the plaintiff be given an opportunity to develop evidence and theories of liability?
8 Andrews position prevailed in most states and the 3 rd Restatement. Supp 34. Duty determinations should not be overly particularized. A common carrier owes a general duty of care to a passenger. As for the other elements breach, causation, and scope of liability let the parties develop the facts and their legal theories to see if Palsgraf can make out a claim. As for scope of liability (legal cause), this will turn on the facts in most cases. It will depend on the breach is framed. What if LIRR s negligence was with respect to the scales being dangerously top heavy? This question should be taken from the jury only if no reasonable person could disagree about the answer.
9 Proximate cause/legal cause/ scope of liability Under the Restatement Third actual cause is a largely factual or scientific inquiry Scope of liability is the preferred to proximate cause or legal cause because the traditional labels suggest we are still talking about causation.
10 Two famous British cases discussed at Text In re Polemis (1921). D drops a board in the hold of P s ship, unforeseeably causing a fire. Wagon Mound I (1961). D negligently spills oil in harbor. The oil catches fire as a result of P s doing welding work on a vessel. The fire harms P s property. Everyone assumes it is unforeseeable that an oil slick might catch fire. D is held liable for the fire damage in Polemis but not in Wagon Mound.
11 Prof. Lundmark suggests Polemis applies a directness test while Wagon Mound applies a foreseeability test. Polemis actually applies a foreseeability test. The court holds D is liable for the fire damage to the vessel and cargo because it was a foreseeable that dropping the board might harm the property. If D s negligent act foreseeably harms P s person or property, then D is liable for any and all harm to P s person or such property resulting from D s negligence. Wagon Mound asks if the fire the hazard that occurred was among the foreseeable risks. Following the logic of Polemis, in Wagon Mound P could recover for the fire damage to a dock if the presence of the oil harmed the dock in any way.
12 --Two general principles on offer-- P s interest within the risk (Polemis/Second Restatement) Harm within the risk (Wagon Mound/Third Restatement) Neither is clearly superior to the other normatively, descriptively, or analytically... though harm within the risk is more in tune with modern more expansive theories of duty. At the core of negligence is a simple duty that people act reasonably if there conduct creates a risk of harm to others. If someone acts unreasonably, then they are liable for the resulting harm if the harm is among the risks that made their action unreasonable.
13 There are some fairly well-settled rules... The eggshell skull rule. If bodily harm to the plaintiff* is foreseeable, then an actor is liable for the full extent of the harm though the harm is aggravated by the plaintiff s unusual pre-existing mental or physical condition. *The plaintiff means someone in the class of persons including the plaintiff exposed to the risk. The extent rule An actor is liable if he could foresee harm of the type that occurred even if the extent of the harm was unforeseeable. If an auto accident can be expected to harm pedestrians, then the driver is liable for an unexpected death because a wound is not treated promptly or correctly.
14 The mechanism rule An actor is liable if he could foresee harm of the type that occurred, even if he could not foresee the specific way the harm occurred.
15 These rules egg shell skull, extent, and mechanism are consistent with the interest within the risk principle. Procedurally, if physical harm to someone like the plaintiff is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant s carelessness, then the defendant is not allowed to quibble that unforeseeable factors magnified the harm or that the specific mechanism was unforeseeable.
16 Some rules are best explained on special grounds... Rescuers Rescuers recover without regard to whether rescue was foreseeable, Text 76 top.
17 The harm within the risk rule or risk rule best explains some cases. Is this risk among the risks we have in mind when we determine the actor s conduct to be unreasonable? A speeding car is hit by a falling tree, injuring the passenger. Cause yes. Scope no. You saw a similar principle at work in the law of negligence per se... P parks next to a fire hydrant, violating a local law. D loses control of his car, crashing into P. Parking rule does not apply to treat P s conduct as negligent per se.
18 D hands a small loaded pistol (no heavier than a plastic toy) to a 9 year old child. The child carelessly drops the pistol. The pistol does not discharge. The impact of the pistol breaks the child s toe. Is the injury within the scope of liability under the risk rule? What if the gun discharged as a result of being dropped and someone was hit by the bullet?
19 Does a zoo owe a duty to securely cage a tiger? So if a zoo keeper negligently leaves the cage unlocked and the tiger escapes and bites someone the zoo is liable, right? What if the tiger is able to escape because it can jump over the fence? What if a visitor takes advantage of the arguably unreasonably low fence to push another visitor into the cage with the tiger?
20 Criminal conduct as a special problem of superseding cause.
21 Sometimes criminal conduct clearly is within the scope of liability... Tarasoff v. Regents, Text 41 (psychologist has duty to warn intended victim of patient) Kline v Mass Ave, Text 41 (building owner has duty to maintain security in common areas to protect tenants and their guests). Hines v. Garrett, Text 71 (after missing stop conductor drops off young passenger one mile from station in dangerous area telling her to walk back to station, passenger is raped).
22 Weirum v. RKO General, Text 76. Radio station has promotion in which DJ drives around Los Angeles and then announces over radio that first listener to get to him receives a prize. Wanting to win the prize, two young people (ages 17 and 19) follow the DJ in their cars, often driving at high speeds and recklessly. One of them forces P off the road. She dies in the accident. Jury verdict for P s family (wrongful death) against radio station and one of the teenagers (the other settled for the limits of their liability insurance).
23 California Supreme Court affirms (1975) The reasoning at the top of Text 78 is confusing. It states: 1) The issue is duty, which is for the court to decide case by case. 2) There is a general duty of care with foreseeability as the primary criterion of duty. 3) Foreseeability is a question of fact for the jury. Can you do better using the analytics of the risk rule? Is what happened among the risks that made the radio station s promotional stunt an unreasonable thing to do?
24 The paragraph at Text addresses what usually is described as an issue of superseding cause. An actor is entitled to assume that others will not act negligently [or we might add recklessly or criminally]. The court applies a limitation... This concept is valid, however, only to the extent the intervening conduct was not to be anticipated. If the likelihood that a third person may react in a particular manner is a hazard which makes the actor negligent, such reaction... does not prevent the actor from being liable.
25 An actor generally is entitled to assume that others will not act negligently, recklessly or criminally. But only to the extent the intervening conduct was not to be anticipated and not if the likelihood that a third person may react in a particular manner is a hazard which makes the actor negligent. A visitor to a zoo takes advantage of an arguably unreasonably low fence to push another visitor into the cage with the tiger. What if a visitor leans over the fence and falls in?
Negligence: Elements
Negligence: Elements 1) Duty: The defendant must owe a duty to the plaintiff to avoid causing the harm that was eventually caused. 2) Breach: The defendant must have breached this duty by acting unreasonably
More informationTHE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER
THE LAW PROFESSOR TORT LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #3 MODEL ANSWER Carol stopped her car at the entrance to her office building to get some papers from her office. She left her car unlocked and left
More informationThe section Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a
The section Causation: Actual Cause and Proximate Cause from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0
More informationANSWER A TO QUESTION 3
Question 3 Roofer contracted with Hal to replace the roof on Hal s house. The usual practice among roofers was to place tarpaulins on the ground around the house to catch the nails and other materials
More informationHelen Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company
Helen Palsgraf v. The Long Island Railroad Company NOTE: This is a landmark case which came done in 1928. It discusses negligence as a concept and the necessary element which must be established for liability
More informationQuestion 1. Under what theory or theories might Paul recover, and what is his likelihood of success, against: a. Charlie? b. KiddieRides-R-Us?
Question 1 Twelve-year-old Charlie was riding on his small, motorized 3-wheeled all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) in his family s large front yard. Suddenly, finding the steering wheel stuck in place, Charlie
More informationTorts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES. Negligence
Torts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES Negligence 1 Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff Breach of duty Actual causation Proximate causation Damages Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff
More informationCONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I
Condensed Outline of Torts I (DeWolf), November 25, 2003 1 CONDENSED OUTLINE FOR TORTS I [Use this only as a supplement and corrective for your own more detailed outlines!] The classic definition of a
More informationAnswer A to Question 4
Question 4 A zoo maintenance employee threw a pile of used cleaning rags into a hot, enclosed room on the zoo s premises. The rags contained a flammable cleaning fluid that later spontaneously burst into
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Manufacturer designed and manufactured
More informationCustomer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory.
Customer (C) v. Businessman (B) Customer will bring an action against Businessman under a negligence theory. Negligence requires a Breach of a Duty that Causes Damages. A. Duty B had a duty to drive as
More informationFall 1995 December 15, 1995 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1
Professor DeWolf Torts I Fall 1995 December 15, 1995 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1 The facts for Question 1 are taken from Stewart v. Ryan, 520 N.W.2d 39 (N.D. 1994), in which the court reversed
More informationWawanesa Mutual Ins. Co. v. Matlock,
TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF FALL 2002 December 17, 2002 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 The facts for this question (except for the death of the firefighter) were based upon Wawanesa Mutual Ins. Co.
More informationLimitation of Liability in Wisconsin Negligence Actions
Marquette Law Review Volume 49 Issue 3 Winter 1966 Article 6 Limitation of Liability in Wisconsin Negligence Actions Charles F. Grumley Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr
More informationCase study OLA Why was his claim under OLA 1957 rejected? 2. What was the alternative claim? 3. What did the first court decide?
Case study OLA 1957 In Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee 2008, a man fell and was badly injured while at an indoor climbing premises. He claimed under both the OLA 1957
More informationQuestion 1. On what theory or theories might damages be recovered, and what defenses might reasonably be raised in actions by:
Question 1 A state statute requires motorcyclists to wear a safety helmet while riding, and is enforced by means of citations and fines. Having mislaid his helmet, Adam jumped on his motorcycle without
More informationPalsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928)
Chapter 2 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. U.S. v. Carroll Towing Butterfield v. Forrester Davies v. Mann Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99
More informationCalifornia Bar Examination
California Bar Examination Essay Question: Torts And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Autos, Inc. manufactures a two-seater
More informationLAW REVIEW JUNE 1989 PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES
PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION QUESTIONED IN EYE INJURY CASES James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1989 James C. Kozlowski This month's column presents two court decisions which examine various aspects of playground
More informationNegligence Prima Facie Case. D owed P a Legal Duty Breach of Duty Actual Damages Factual Cause Proximate Cause
Negligence Prima Facie Case D owed P a Legal Duty Breach of Duty Actual Damages Factual Cause Proximate Cause Duty of Care The duty owed by all people generally the standard of care they owe is to exercise
More informationCase 1:13-cv RJJ Doc #1 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:13-cv-01374-RJJ Doc #1 Filed 12/27/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TYRONE ALLEN, LORIANNE STEVENS, and RAYVAR WILLIAMS,
More informationCRIMINAL LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #2 MODEL ANSWER. 1. With what crime or crimes should Dan be charged? Discuss.
CRIMINAL LAW ESSAY SERIES ESSAY QUESTION #2 MODEL ANSWER As Dan walked down a busy city street one afternoon, Vic, a scruffy, long-haired young man, approached him. For some time, Dan had been plagued
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
Filed 2/8/18; Certified for Publication 3/1/18 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE TRAVIS SAKAI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B279275
More informationSection 7.3 Negligence from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons
Section 7.3 Negligence from Business Law and the Legal Environment was adapted by The Saylor Foundation under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license without attribution
More information1. Duty, Breach, and the Meaning of Negligence
Law 580: Torts Section 1 September 17, 2015 Assignment for September 15, 16, 17: Casebook pages 97-137, 141-162 Chapter 3: the Breach Element 1. Duty, Breach, and the Meaning of Negligence Myers v. Heritage
More informationProfessor DeWolf Summer 2014 Torts August 18, 2014 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM MULTIPLE CHOICE
Professor DeWolf Summer 2014 Torts August 18, 2014 SAMPLE ANSWER TO FINAL EXAM MULTIPLE CHOICE 1. (a) Is incorrect, because from Dempsey s perspective the injury was not substantially certain to occur.
More informationCALIFORNIA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW
CALIFORNIA ESSAY WRITING WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION A. Bar Exam Basics Editor's Note 1: The Professor refers to specific page numbers throughout
More informationINTENTIONAL TORTS. clkko t rs 1
INTENTIONAL TORTS RTT 1: Intent A person intentionally causes harm if the person brings about that harm either purposefully or knowingly. (1) Purpose. A person purposefully causes harm if the person acts
More informationOCTOBER 2012 LAW REVIEW OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL
OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski Under traditional principles of landowner liability for negligence, the landowner generally owes a legal
More informationMARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW. 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers
More informationNegligent In Your Legal Knowledge?
AP-LS Student Committee www.apls-students.org Negligent In Your Legal Knowledge? A Primer on Tort Law & Basic Legal Analysis Presented by: Jaymes Fairfax-Columbo, JD/PhD Student, Drexel, University Jennica
More informationLegal Liability. Sophie Foyston ROB
Legal Liability Sophie Foyston ROB14236233 Contents Task 1... 3 Part 1 (P1 and P2)... 3 Neighbour Principle... 3 Duty of Care... 3 Breach of Duty... 3 Damage... 4 Compensation... 4 Part 2 (M1)... 5 Part
More information~~~~~ Week 6. Element of a Crime
~~~~~ Week 6 Element of a Crime PHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME (AR) Physical elements may refer to: o A specified form of conduct such as: An act; An omission; or There is a CL duty not to cause harm to
More informationFall 1997 December 20, 1997 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1
Professor DeWolf Torts I Fall 1997 December 20, 1997 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1 This case is based upon McLeod v. Cannon Oil Corp., 603 So.2d 889 (Ala. 1992). In that case the court reversed
More informationGRADER S GUIDE *** QUESTION NO. 1 *** SUBJECT: TORTS. Pat will assert claims for assault and battery and trespass to property.
GRADER S GUIDE *** QUESTION NO. 1 *** SUBJECT: TORTS A. Pat s Claims Against Jeff and Brett (50 points). Pat will assert claims for assault and battery and trespass to property. 1. Assault and Battery
More informationSUMMER 2002 July 15, 2002 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER
TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF SUMMER 2002 July 15, 2002 MIDTERM EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 The facts for this question were based upon Aldana v. School City of East Chicago, 769 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind.App. 2002),
More informationTORTS SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD
SUMMARY LAWSKOOL PTY LTD CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO NELIGENCE 7 DUTY OF CARE 8 INTRODUCTION 8 ELEMENTS 10 Reasonable foreseeability of the class of plaintiffs 10 Reasonable foreseeability not alone sufficient
More informationMBE WORKSHOP: TORTS PROFESSOR LISA MCELROY DREXEL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
CHAPTER 1: TORTS MBE WORKSHOP: TORTS PROFESSOR LISA MCELROY DREXEL UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Editor's Note 1: The below outline is taken from the National Conference of Bar Examiners' website. NOTE: The
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 2nd day March, 2007.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond, on Friday, the 2nd day March, 2007. Ryan Taboada, Appellant, against Record No. 051094 Circuit Court
More informationAnswer A to Question 10. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and
Answer A to Question 10 3) ALICE V. WALTON NEGLIGENCE damage. To prevail under negligence, the plaintiff must show duty, breach, causation, and DUTY Under the majority Cardozo view, a duty is owed to all
More informationRestating the Tort of Battery. Stephen D. Sugarman* Abstract
Restating the Tort of Battery Stephen D. Sugarman* Abstract This article offers a bold proposal: eliminate the intentional tort of battery and merge cases of both the negligent and intentional imposition
More informationAC : ENGINEERING MALPRACTICE: AVOIDING LIABILITY THROUGH EDUCATION
AC 2007-1436: ENGINEERING MALPRACTICE: AVOIDING LIABILITY THROUGH EDUCATION Martin High, Oklahoma State University Marty founded and co-directs the Legal Studies in Engineering Program at Oklahoma State
More informationLAW REVIEW MARCH 1992 SWIMMING POOL NOT "ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE" IN TEEN TRESPASSER DIVING INJURY
SWIMMING POOL NOT "ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE" IN TEEN TRESPASSER DIVING INJURY James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski There is a popular misconception that landowners will be liable for maintaining
More informationCOMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Kimberly Ray District Court, El Paso County, State of Colorado El Paso County Combined Courts 270 South Tejon Colorado Springs Co 80901 Plaintiff: Lola Anderson v. Defendant: Joseph Burton Attorneys for
More informationLAW REVIEW JANUARY 1987 MUST LANDOWNER PROTECT MOONING REVELER FROM HIMSELF? James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C.
MUST LANDOWNER PROTECT MOONING REVELER FROM HIMSELF? James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1987 James C. Kozlowski The very successful 1986 Congress for Recreation and Parks in Anaheim, California is history.
More informationTORTS: JUST THE RULES
General requirements TORTS: JUST THE RULES Intentional Torts To establish a prima facie case for intentional tort liability, it is generally necessary that plaintiff prove the following: 1. Act by defendant
More informationMARYLAND DEFENSE COUNSEL POSITION PAPER ON COMPARATIVE FAULT LEGISLATION
Contributory negligence has been the law of Maryland for over 150 years 1. The proponents of comparative negligence have no compelling reason to change the rule of contributory negligence. Maryland Defense
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 8, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE January 8, 2003 Session CINDY R. LOURCEY, ET AL. v. ESTATE OF CHARLES SCARLETT Appeal from the Circuit Court for Wilson County No. 12043 Clara Byrd, Judge
More informationLegal Liability in Adventure Tourism
Legal Liability in Adventure Tourism Ross Cloutier Bhudak Consultants Ltd. www.bhudak.com The Legal System in Canada Common Law Records creating a foundation of cases useful as a source of common legal
More informationNEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:
NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person
More informationDEFENDING HIGH EXPOSURE DANGEROUS CONDITION LAWSUITS
DEFENDING HIGH EXPOSURE DANGEROUS CONDITION LAWSUITS KEVIN FISHER, VICE PRESIDENT INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. WILLIAM C. HAGGERTY, J.D. NEIL TARDIFF, J.D. DANGEROUS CONDITION CLAIMS: The Basics
More informationTHE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES UNIT 5 LAW OF TORT *
14 January 2014 Level 3 LAW OF TORT Subject Code L3-5 THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EXECUTIVES UNIT 5 LAW OF TORT * Time allowed: 1 hour and 30 minutes plus 15 minutes reading time Instructions to Candidates
More informationFALL 2001 December 15, 2001 FALL SEMESTER SAMPLE ANSWER
TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF FALL 2001 December 15, 2001 FALL SEMESTER SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 This question is based on Henderson v. Fields, 2001 WL 1529262 (Mo.App. W.D., Dec 04, 2001), in which the court
More informationStrict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY WARRANTY LAW
Strict Liability and Product Liability PRODUCT LIABILITY The legal liability of manufacturers, sellers, and lessors of goods to consumers, users and bystanders for physical harm or injuries or property
More informationANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5
ANSWER A TO ESSAY QUESTION 5 Sally will bring products liability actions against Mfr. based on strict liability, negligence, intentional torts and warranty theories. Strict Products Liability A strict
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS ROBERT RICHARDSON and JEAN RICHARDSON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, FOR PUBLICATION April 12, 2007 9:05 a.m. v No. 274135 Wayne Circuit Court ROCKWOOD CENTER, L.L.C., LC No.
More informationSummary of Contents. PART I. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. An Introduction to the Restatement of Torts... 2
Summary of Contents Director s Foreword... Editor s Foreword... iii v PART I. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1. An Introduction to the Restatement of Torts... 2 PART II. INTENTIONAL HARM TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY Chapter
More informationCLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep an open
CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS I. GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must keep
More informationPublic Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the
Public Authorities and Private Individuals - What Difference?: Romeo v Consemtion Commission of the Northern Territory Susan Barton BALLB student, The University of Queensland Once upon a time public authorities
More informationLAW REVIEW JUNE 1992 RAINWATER ACCUMULATED IN CLOSED CITY POOL RAISES ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RISK
RAINWATER ACCUMULATED IN CLOSED CITY POOL RAISES ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RISK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski The March 1992 law column entitled "Swimming Pool Not 'Attractive Nuisance'
More informationMOTORIST DROWNS IN RETENTION POND ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY
MOTORIST DROWNS IN RETENTION POND ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1988 James C. Kozlowski Based upon conversations with many park and recreation administrators, it appears that there
More informationFALL 2003 December 11, 2003 FALL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER
TORTS I PROFESSOR DEWOLF FALL 2003 December 11, 2003 FALL EXAM SAMPLE ANSWER QUESTION 1 The facts for this question were based upon Brown v. Michigan Bell Telephone, Inc., 225 Mich.App. 617, 572 N.W.2d
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 KAYLA M. SUPANCIK, AN INCAPACITED PERSON, BY ELIZABETH SUPANCIK, PLENARY GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND ESTATE, AND APRIL SUPANCIK, INDIVIDUALLY
More informationKeller v. Welles Dept. Store of Racine
Keller v. Welles Dept. Store of Racine 276 N.W.2d 319, 88 Wis. 2d 24 (Wis. App. 1979) BODE, J. This is a products liability case. On October 21, 1971, two and one-half year old Stephen Keller was playing
More informationADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TORT LIABILITY DUTIES TO OTHERS. Name: Period: Row:
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE TORT LIABILITY DUTIES TO OTHERS Name: Period: Row: I. WHAT IS A TORT? A. A tort is any unreasonable action that someone or does damage to a person's property. 1. An overtired
More informationVERMONT SUPERIOR COURT
Evans v. Cabot, No. 657-11-14 Wncv (Tomasi, J., May 27, 2016). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying
More informationUNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF LAW Torts I Fall Eric E. Johnson Associate Professor of Law FINAL EXAMINATION MODEL ANSWER.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF LAW Torts I Fall 2015 Eric E. Johnson Associate Professor of Law FINAL EXAMINATION MODEL ANSWER Drones NOTE: This model answer was made from amalgamating the work of
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 23, 2015; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-001706-MR JANICE WARD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JAMES M. SHAKE,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION COMPLAINT. COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Patrick Hardy, by and through his attorney, Joshua D.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2017-Aug-29 12:58:17 60CV-17-4731 C06D02 : 15 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION PATRICK
More informationMitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, [2009] 1 AC 874, [2009] 2 WLR 481, [2009] 3 All ER 205 HL
Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11, [2009] 1 AC 874, [2009] 2 WLR 481, [2009] 3 All ER 205 HL Summary James Mitchell, 72, was attacked in July 2001 with an iron bar by his neighbour, James
More informationLegal Update BELL ROPER LAW FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PROHIBITS FEE REDUCTION IN CLAIM BILLS
Legal Update BELL ROPER LAW J u l y / A u g u s t 2 0 1 7 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT PROHIBITS FEE REDUCTION IN CLAIM BILLS The well-known plaintiff s law firm of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart & Shipley,
More informationCase 2:13-cv BJR Document 24 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 9
Case :-cv-00-bjr Document Filed 0// Page of Honorable Barbara J. Rothestein 0 JAMES R. HAUSMAN, vs. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiff, HOLLAND AMERICA LINE
More informationLaw & Economics Lecture 8: Tort
I. The Main Questions of Tort Law Law & Economics Lecture 8: Tort Tort is a branch of civil law that deals with a variety of legal wrongs that involve harm to individuals; examples include product liability,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 7/25/11 P. v. Hurtado CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
More informationIn the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009.
VIRGINIA: In the Supreme Court of Virginia held at the Supreme Court Building in the City of Richmond on Friday the 30th day of October, 2009. Joanna Renee Browning, Appellant, against Record No. 081906
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Downer v. The Personal Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 302 Ryan M. Naimark, for the appellant Lang, LaForme JJ.A. and Pattillo J. (ad hoc) John W. Bruggeman,
More informationCalifornia First-Year Law Students Examination. Essay Questions and Selected Answers
California First-Year Law Students Examination Essay Questions and Selected Answers October 2005 ESSAY QUESTIONS AND SELECTED ANSWERS OCTOBER 2005 FIRST-YEAR LAW STUDENTS EXAMINATION This publication contains
More informationHURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES
Posted on: January 1, 2011 HURT PROVING CAUSATION IN CHRONIC PAIN CASES One of the most significant challenges we face as personal injury lawyers is proving chronic pain in cases where there is no physical
More informationDUTY OF CARE. The plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed hum a duty of care: this arises where:
DUTY OF CARE REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY AND SALIENT FEATURES To recover damages in negligence, a plaintiff must firstly establish that the defendant owed him a duty of care. In broad terms, a duty of care
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A137044
Filed 10/10/13 Keith v. City of Pleasant Hill CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
More informationContents. Table of Statutes. Table of Secondary Legislation. Table of Cases. General Principles of Liability
Contents Table of Statutes Table of Secondary Legislation Table of Cases Chapter 1: General Principles of Liability 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Interests protected 1.3 The mental element in tort 1.3.1 Malice
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------------X LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o Index No.: 503344/2017 KIM WILLIAMS Plaintiffs,
More informationTORTS Course: LAW 509 (Sections 2 & 4) Spring Semester 2018
TORTS Course: LAW 509 (Sections 2 & 4) Spring Semester 2018 Professor Deana Pollard Sacks Texas Southern University Thurgood Marshall School of Law Classes Section 2: Room 202, Noon 12:50 P.M. (M, W, F)
More informationTorts: Exam Notes LAW5003 Trimester 1, 2016
Torts: Exam Notes LAW5003 Trimester 1, 2016 1 of 58 Trespass to the Person 4 Battery 4 Assault 6 False Imprisonment 8 Defences 10 Consent 10 Self-defence, defence of another or defence to property 11 Necessity
More informationParticular Statutory regimes: strict
Particular Statutory regimes: strict liability Definition of strict liability: Strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault ( such as negligence or tortiousintent).
More informationSELF- ASSESSMENT FORM
Evaluation Approach To learn the most from your experience of writing this essay, use the Performance, Evaluation, Adjustment (PEA) three-step self-assessment and improvement process when reviewing the
More informationMaryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding of
4 Maryland Bar Journal September 2014 The Evolution of Pro Rata Contribution and Apportionment Among Joint Tort-Feasors By M. Natalie McSherry Maryland tort lawyers may need to re-think their understanding
More informationJULY 2017 LAW REVIEW CRASH ON CHALLENGING MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL
CRASH ON CHALLENGING MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2017 James C. Kozlowski In determining negligence liability, we are generally held to the reasonable person standard. What would
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JEANNIE L. COLLINS, Personal Representative of the Estate of RICHARD E. COLLINS, Deceased, and KIRBY TOTTINGHAM, UNPUBLISHED March 22, 2005 Plaintiffs-Appellants, V No.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 03-0655 444444444444 MARY R. DILLARD, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS COMMUNITY SURVIVOR OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH LEWIS DILLARD, DECEASED, AND MARY R. DILLARD A/N/F
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RONALD BOREK, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED September 29, 2011 v No. 298754 Monroe Circuit Court JAMES ROBERT HARRIS and SWIFT LC No. 09-027763-NI TRANSPORTATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION
Urena v. Nationwide Insurance Company of America Doc. 107 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION EMILIO J. URENA, as assignee of ) Gregory S. Bryant,
More informationv. D.C. No. CV BJR BOWHEAD TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, an Alaska corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PEDRO RODRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 00-35280 v. D.C. No. CV-99-01119-BJR BOWHEAD TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, an Alaska corporation,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. Plaintiff. vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON, A CORPORATION SOLE; JOSEPH FLYNN; J. KEVIN MCANDREWS, Defendants
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO:~..~~':; kifi-' "',_,,.;;J. ----------------------0:..'.:..- ~ John Doe No. 14, Plaintiff ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF BOSTON,
More informationSample. Aims of this Chapter. 2.1 Introduction. Outline
Chapter 2: The Duty of Care Outline 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The neighbour test 2.3 The three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2.4 The role of public policy 2.5 Psychological/psychiatric
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Rules that Officers Can Use Force To Stop a Fleeing Vehicle. What Does It Mean for Michigan Law Enforcement?
If you have not done so already, please e-mail leaf@mml.org with the following information, so you can receive the electronic version of the LEAF Newsletter: Your name Position The name of the municipal
More informationPlaying the Percentages: A Study of Comparative Fault. By Lee M. Mendelson Mendelson, Goldman & Schwarz Los Angeles, CA
Playing the Percentages: A Study of Comparative Fault By Lee M. Mendelson Mendelson, Goldman & Schwarz Los Angeles, CA Allocation of Fault Systems for Allocating Fault 1. Pure Contributory Negligence
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS EUGENE ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 19, 2013 v No. 308332 Oakland Circuit Court PONTIAC ULTIMATE AUTO WASH, L.L.C., LC No. 2011-117031-NO Defendant-Appellee.
More informationQuestion With what crime or crimes should Dan be charged? Discuss. 2. What defense or defenses might Dan assert? Discuss.
Question 2 As Dan walked down a busy city street one afternoon, Vic, a scruffy, long-haired young man, approached him. For some time, Dan had been plagued by a pathological fear that long-haired transients
More informationTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW
When the mortgagor possesses a positive equity he should be allowed depredation deductions and he should be charged for depreciation in gain computation. Generally the mortgagor eventually will redeem
More information