I. INTRODUCTION
A. Liability Intro
1. Hammontree v. Jenner
a) Case where the guy has a stroke and gets into an accident even though he did everything the DMV and his doctor told him to do.
(1) Cases of personal injury and most other torts will be adjudicated on the principles of negligence, and not strict liability.
2. Christensen v. Swenson
a) Case where and employer of a company gets into an accident with a motorcycle driver on the way back to his post from lunch right outside the companies property.
(1) Vicarious Liability – When an employee is found to have been within the scope of their employment when the negligent action occurred, the employer will be found liable for the action.
(2) Scope of Employment Factors – To be within the scope of employment, during the time of the action, there must be conduct of the general kind the employee is hired to perform, as opposed to totally personal behavior; the employee’s action must have occurred substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of their employment; and the employee’s action, at least in part, be motivated by the purpose of serving their employer’s interest.
3. Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson
a) Case that woman went to hospital to be treated for bug bite, and because of doctor’s treatment was negligently injured. Emergency Room doctors are independent contractors and there were signs and release forms that stated that fact.
(1) Employers are usually vicariously liable for negligence of independent contractors, however, ostensible agency can be asserted that would make the employer vicariously liable.
(2) Ostensible Agency (Restatement of Agency § 267) – the party asserting Ostensible Agency must demonstrate that:
(a) The principal, by its conduct,
(b) Caused him or her to reasonably believe that the putative agent was an employee or agent of the principal, and
(c) That he or she justifiably relied on the appearance of agency.
(3) Os
his is defined as that kind and degree of care, which prudent and cautious men would use, such as is required by the exigency of the case, and such as is necessary to guard against probable danger.
(3) C.J. also held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff not the defendant.
B. The Standard of Care
1. Adams v. Bullock
a) The case in which the kid was swinging a wire while walking on a bridge. The kid got electrocuted when his wire touched the electrically charged trolley wire.
(1) Justice Cardoza held that the trolley company’s standard of care was of ordinary care, not extraordinary care. He said that it was not foreseeable base on prudent foresight for the trolley company to envision this.
He also noted that alternative designs that put the lines under the ground was not a duty of the company.
