TORTS LAW OUTLINE
I. Introduction to Tort Liability – Personal injury, intentional (trespass) and unintentional
a. When Should Unintended Injury Result In Liability, not strict
b. Underlying Reason – Economic/efficiency perspective = (1) Minimize administration costs (torts) Judge/Jury, Reduce litigation costs to say no reasonable jury–subjective is higher (jury deliberation), if deter future (2) Reduce activity level – for some individual hand formula of burden of precaution is greater, strict liability for that person. Cannot induce more care but can reduce activity for those epileptics. (3) Make the person whole, compensate.
i. Hammontree v. Jenner (Cali Court of Appeals) – Def. became unconscious while driving from an epileptic seizure. Determined not to charge w/ strict liability b/c manufs. are engaged in the business of distributing goods to the public, not a strict liability to the cost of car accident injury Broad Reasoning, w/o looking to the facts, and even if history of it does not exempt that who is suddenly stricken by illness. Maloney (Cali. Supreme Court). See Emergency Doctrine
1. “Would be to charge in all cases an insurer” – J. Cardozo, Adams v. Bullock
2. “An act that ordinary human care and foresight are unable to guard against, is but the misfortune of the sufferer, and lays no foundation for legal responsibility” (Harvey v. Dunlop, child throwing stones put out eye).
3. Law presumes ordinary capacity, does not hold liable for unintentional injury unless might or ought to have foreseen.
ii. The Parties and Vicarious Liability
iii. Underlying Reason – Shifted to deeper pockets. Influence behavior but rule of negligence. And it’s strict liability to employer b/c difficult process for negligence. Probably find it but costly process.
iv. Respondeat Superior – (Jury Question)
1. “Scope of Employment” – Christenson v. Swenson – Swenson is an employee of burns taking a trip during break, car accident. From Birkner (1) The employees conduct must be of the general kind the employee is hired to perform – could apply b/c Swenson contends that she is to “be seen around the Geneva Plant.” (2) Employ. must be substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of employment – clearly in hours/ lunch in 10-15 min geo. break and (3) the employers conduct must at least be motivated “in some part” by the purpose of serving the employers interests – time-saving.
2. Apparent Authority/Causation – Roessler v. Novak. Roessler alleged Dr. Lichtenstein misinterpreted the radiology scans and that the hospital was vicariously liable. If all 3 elements are present. (1) a representation by the purported employer – radiology in hospital & exclusive provider for hosp. (2) reliance on the representation by the 3rd party and (open market vs. dying from snake bite) ->(3) a change in position by the 3rd party in reliance of that position – accepted the physician provided and harm. Last two elements also classified as “detrimental reliance.”
a. Concurring – Advises non-delegable duty for hospitals w/o an open market for the customer
i. Legal Doctrine – “Inherently dangerous” activity, principle is liable b/c cannot escape by indep. contractors.
II.
ional,” must show liable (trespass) or def. was in negligence (in fault est. here). The standard is “ordinary care” -> not extraordinary care burdened on the wrong party, the defendant. Right now, contributory neg = no rec.
c. The Central Concept of Negligence, concept of unreasonable risk
i. Adams v. Bullock – A 12 year old boy came across a bridge swinging an 8 foot wire that contacted the defendant’s trolley wire and shocked and burned him. The ordinary caution did not involve forethought of this extraordinary peril (Braun). To hold def. Adams liable would be to “charge it was an insurer.” Is the def. liable to take precautions that would not have spared the child, but maybe an adult = Causation
1. Lord Reid in Bolton v. Stone – visiting team member plays cricket and in rare circumstance hits a lady. Should not into account all circumstances of risk, degree. Distinguished “substantial risk” instead of “needless” risk of Adams. – Two different viewpoints, in creating you should not cause substantial risk but in ordinary care you should not also need to prevent all areas of risk – needlessly.
a. Look for least costly untaken precautions, analysis is done by Plaintiff alone (Brown, Adams)
ii. U.S. v. Carrol Towing Co. – Unsecured barge. Formulation of negligence standard – (cost of prevention/burden) B
