Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Smith
I. Tort Liability
A. Definition: civil wrong other than breach of contract, for which a remedy may be obtained.
1. Tort law supplies a medium between two extreme alternatives: no liability (rejected because
injury prevention/fairness) and social insurance (rejected because limited resources)
B. Issues:
1. How to define injury?
2. When are we going to hold someone legally responsible for his or her conduct?
3. May be morally reprehensible but may be legally allowed?
C. Three Theories of Recovery each must be proven beyond preponderance of the evidence
1. Negligence
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. Intentional
a. Purposeful
b. Knowing to a substantial certainty
3. Strict Liability
a. Liability without fault
i. Ex wild animals & extremely dangerous behavior
b. Vicarious Liability
D. Defenses
II. Goals of Tort Law
A. Compensation
1. For the person injured
2. Who are the parties that can do that?
B. Deterrence
C. Punishment
D. Fairness
1. Shifting burden on those who can afford them
V.
Issue
Rule
Analysis
Conclusion
POLICY!!
Negligence
Issue Spot: what is the nature of Ds conduct? Has he failed to conform his conduct to a particular standard of
care? Looking at the Ds conduct not what they knew or intended, whether they should have known, and what
a Reasonable Person in those circumstances.
position by engaging in the activity in the first place, not in carrying out the activity carelessly (epileptic driving)
Standard of care for Children
Definition:
Addresses when a persons unintentional and unreasonable conduct creates an unreasonable risk.
Requires proof that the defendant breached the standard of care which is a duty of care on all human activity:
Must act as ordinary, prudent, reasonable person, which assumes an ordinary person would take precautions against creating
an unreasonable risk
Requires: duty (question of law), breach (question of fact for the jury), proximate and actual cause (fact for the jury), and
damages (jury decides and judge acts as 13th juror to weigh-in).
P must prove all but D must only disprove one.
Rule Statement: In order to establish a prima facie case against D for negligence, P must establish:
Duty P must show that D owed a duty of care to the P (question of law)
Breach P must show that Ds conduct fell below the standard of care owed to P (question of fact)
Causation Ds unreasonable conduct caused injury to the P
Damages P must show that his injury constitutes recoverable damages under the law
Defenses Anticipate any defenses that D might raise (i.e, contributory)
I. Definition
A. Conduct which falls below a standard established by the law for the protection of others against
unreasonable risk of harm
B. Any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of
harm.
1. Should have known
C. Reasonable Person Standard The failure to exercise the reasonable standard of care that a reasonably
prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation.
1. Difference between Intent?
a. Look at Ds Conduct not what they knew or intended
i. Whether they should have known
ii. Reasonable Person in those circumstances
D. Objective Test in civil liability
II. Exam Approach:
A. P must establish prima facie case: [1. Duty 2. Breach 3. Causation 4. Damages] 5. Possible Defenses
B. What is the act or actionable omission?
C. Duty?
1. Relationship between the P and the D?
D. Breach?
E. Causation
1. Must establish both actual causation (cause in fact) and proximate cause (legal cause)
III. Elements of Negligence
A. Act or Actionable Omission by Defendant
B. Duty of Due Care
C. Breach of Duty (Lack of due care)
D. Actual Cause (Cause in Fact)
E. Proximate Cause (Legal Cause)
F. Damages
IV.
Duty the legal obligation of the defendant to conform his conduct to a particular standard of care to avoid
unreasonable risk to others. ***Duty is a question of Law***
Issue Spotter:
(1) Has the defendant committed an affirmative act that has caused harm to another?
(2) Does the Defendant owe a duty of care?
Sources of Duty:
1. Default Rule Creation of Unreasonable Risk
a. Duty of Reasonable Care for conduct that creates a risk of harm to another
b. Duty and Breach collapse
i. Breach question of fact for a jury to decide
1. It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.
c. If court determines the case as a matter of law Judges grants a directed verdict and will dismiss
d. If court finds that case is a matter of fact Judge will determine that duty is established and send it to a jury
to decide whether D breached that duty; D was the actual and proximate cause of the injury; and damages
for P
Misfeasance Creation of an unreasonable risk, active conduct that created a peril or changed the nature
of the existing risk
2. Affirmative Conduct courts decide the existence and scope of a duty pursuant to a different set of rules:
a. General Rule: Generally, there is a no affirmative duty rule, but the following exceptions may impose a duty:
see below
b. Where the plaintiff alleges that it was the defendants nonfeasance, or failure to act, that caused the
plaintiffs harm;
c. Where the plaintiff asserts purely emotional or economic injury; or
d. Where the status of the defendant (e.g., as a government entity or landowner) raises additional policy
considerations.
a. Most Jurisdictions limits liability of someone who does affirmatively attempt to rescue P but harms P
in the process, often apply to those who have specialized training such as medical professionals or firemen.
c. Liable if:
i. Fail to exercise reasonable care to secure safety
ii. Discontinue aid/protection (leave in worse condition)
f.
Policy considerations:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Issue Spotter:
(1) Has the defendant committed an affirmative act or voluntary omission exposing others to unreasonable
risk?
(2) Has defendant caused an unreasonable risk of harm?
1. Standard of Care what we expect from people in terms of their conduct?
a. Reasonable Person Standard
i. Everybody owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar
circumstances
ii. Unreasonable Conduct foreseeable risk
b. Negligence vs. Absolute Liability
2. Unreasonable Conduct Foreseeable Risk
a. How do we Measure that conduct?
b. Learned Hand Test
i. Cost of avoiding the injury > the risk of the accident occurring/preventing it (B < PL)
1. Magnitude of the loss if an accident occurs
2. Probability of the accident occurring
3. Burden of taking precautions that would advert it
c. Utility of Conduct
3. Custom
4. Statutory Violation
a. Negligence Per Se Breach of affirmative duties based on statutes.
i. If a court determines that a statute creates an affirmative tort duty, breach of that duty often follows
without further consideration.
ii. If the statute contains specific prescriptions that the actor violated, there is no independent breach
inquiry.
1. In these instances, the statute provides the basis for an affirmative duty, and violation of the
statute's prescribed conduct is negligence per se.
2. Factual causation must also exist for liability to be imposed. Consideration of whether the
statute is designed to promote safety for a class including the plaintiff also resolves any
scope-of-liability issue.
5. Unreasonable Risk
a. Foreseeable Risk foreseeable harm to others
i. Factors
1. Not within the range of prudent foresight
a. Negligence: is the doing of something that a reasonably prudent person would not do,
or the failure to do something that a reasonably prudent person would do, under
circumstances similar to those shown by the evidence.
i. It is the failure to use ordinary or reasonable care.
2. Reasonable Alternatives
3. No like accident had occurred before
4. No custom had been disregarded
ii. One that is not an extraordinary occurrence (kid swinging wire and hitting train cable)
b. However, a party is not required to take every possible precaution to protect the welfare of others.
i. Rule: A duty exists to adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize possible perils.
1. A party is not negligent for not providing protection against an unforeseeable, extraordinary
injury that would be extremely difficult to prevent.
2. Ordinary caution does not involve forethought of extraordinary peril.
3. One is not guilty of negligence when one fails to foresee the unusual and remote conduct of
others.
******* Who
c.
Exceptions: There are exceptions to the principle that every man is presumed to possess ordinary capacity to avoid
harm to his neighbors and the moral basis of liability
i. When a man has a distinct defect of such nature that it is impossible for him to make certain precautions
1. EX- blind person taking precautions to see
ii. However, he is bound to consider his infirmity in regulating his actions, yet if he properly finds himself in a
certain situation, the neglect of precautions requiring that which he cannot control would not prevent his
recovering for an injury to himself, nor would it make him liable for injuring another.
iii. That person is bound to take the precautions of which others in his situation are capable.
iv. Unless a man of ordinary intelligence and forethought would have been to blame for acting as he did, the law
does not in general hold him liable for unintentional injury.
1. The law presumes or requires a man to possess ordinary capacity to avoid capacity to avoid harming
his neighbors, unless a clear and manifest incapacity be shown.
d.
Standards of law are external standards, and, however much it may take moral considerations into account, it does so
e.
only for the purpose of drawing a line between such bodily motions and rests as it permits, and such as it does not.
What the law really forbids, and the only thing it forbids, is the act on the wrong side of the line, be that act blameworthy
or not.
Mental Ability: Vaughan v. Menlove (1837), D wanted court to substitute standard of ordinary prudence with whether D
acted to the best of his judgment since measure of prudence varies so with the varying faculties of men is was impossible to say
what was negligence with reference to the standard of what is called ordinary prudence.
a. Court unanimously rejected the argument because it would leave so vague a line as to afford no rule at all, the degree of
b.
c.
3.
Physical
contributorily negligent
Disability: Persons with physical disabilities (crippled, blind, deaf, etc.) are held to the reasonable person
4.
Temporary Illness: If the actor is ill or otherwise physically disabled, the standard of conduct to which he must conform to
avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like disability. /Unless the actor is a child, his insanity or other mental
deficiencies do not relieve the actor from liability for conduct, which does not conform to the standard of a reasonable man under
like circumstances.
a. Hard to draw a line between mental deficiencies and the variations of temperament, intellect, and emotional balance.
b. Mental deficiencies can be easily feigned
c. If mental deficiency is to live in this world, they should pay for the damages it creates and harm to innocent parties
d. Will create incentive for those in charge of those individuals to look after them, keep them in order, and see that they do
not do harm.
5.
Superior Attributes: 289(b) provides that the D, in addition to exercising the attention, perception of the
circumstances, memory, knowledge of other pertinent matters, intelligence, and judgment as would a reasonable person, must
also exercise such superior attributes on the listed items as the actor himself has.
a. Special Knowledge and Skills All persons are held to certain minimum standards in their activities.
i. If they have acquired special competence, they are held to a standard that takes account of their superior
knowledge or skills.
ii. Exception As opposed to particular knowledge or skill, higher-than-average natural abilities such as
b.
c.
d.
3.
6.
Children:
4.
5.
Many state statutes make parents vicariously liable for the actions and injuries committed by their children.
Traditionally, children have been held to a blended standard one that recognizes their age and abilities, but also an objective
component: children must exercise the care that a reasonable child of their actual age, intelligence, and experience would
exercise.
a. The general view is that below some age, usually around four, a child simply cannot make the calculations needed to
establish negligence.
b. Exceptions:
i. Adult Activities activities which the courts categorize as adult driving and those which are not adult
7.
Emergency
8. Common Carrier Standard Issue Spotter: Does a common carrier, owe its passengers the highest degree of
care or some measure of? Should a duty of heist care continue to be applied, as a matter of law, to common carriers?
a. Rule A single standard of reasonable care applies. The special duty imposed on common carriers is no
longer viable in modern society
i. Objective Reasonable Person Standard in basic traditional negligence theory necessarily takes into
account the circumstances with which the actor was actually confronted when the accident occurred
including:
1. The reasonably perceivable risk and
2. Gravity of harm to others and
3. Any special relationship of dependency between the victim and the actor.
ii. Constructive Notice Such notice as in implied or imputed by law, usually on the basis that the
information is part of a public record.
1. Under that standard, there is no stratification of degrees of care as a matter of law.
2. Rather, there are only different amounts of care as a matter of fact.
b. Theory of negligence presupposes some uniform standard of behavior
i. Yet, infinite variety of situations that arise make it impossible to fix definite rules in advance for all
conceivable human conduct.
c. The standard of conduct that the community demands must be an external and objective one, rather than the
individual judgment, good or bad, of the particular actor. Reasonable Person of ordinary prudence
1.
Causation
Damages
Intentional Torts
I. Definition
A. Purposeful or conscious objective
1. Desire for a specific consequence
2. Purpose or desire to cause consequences
B. Knowledge to a substantial certainty
1. Substantial Knowledge
Defenses
1. What is the issue?
a. Was there contributory negligence to divide the cost?
b. How to measure the Standard of Care:
i. Industry custom
ii. Learned Hand Test
1. Burden of Prevention
a. Burden of Prevention < Potential Loss
2. Gravity of Harm:
a. Life
b. Economic Loss
3. Burden of Prevention:
a. Having a bargee on board at all times = low cost
c. Critique:
i. Social Welfare shouldnt be quantified
ii. Cant quantify life or limbs
d. Most jurisdictions use the reasonable person standard.
e. A tool to prove whether the party acted unreasonably under the circumstances
2. Contributory damages
a. Must prove that the other person was negligent and contributed to the accident
b. Unreasonable conduct was that the bargee was absence.
i. If he had warned them, then they could have saved the tanker.
Strict Liability
I. Liability without fault