Introduction to Tort Liability
What is a Tort?
· Not a crime
· Not a breach of contract
· Def: act causing injury other than breach of contract which allows victim to seek redress through civil, not criminal, court
Elements of Negligence
Duty
[standard of care]
Breach
Cause-in-fact
Proximate Cause
Injury
[defenses]
Hammontree v. Jenner
· Facts
o Δ Jenner had epileptic seizure and crashed into Π’s bicycle shop
o Δ knew he had epilepsy but treated it carefully, was given OK by DMV and doctor, and hadn’t had an attack in 12 years
o Π wanted Δ to be held strictly liable – court said no
· Holding:
o A driver who is suddenly stricken by an illness rendering him unconscious, and who thereafter causes damages to a third party, is liable for those damages only when he is negligent in his actions to prevent such damages.
· Holmes quote
o “loss from accident must lie where it falls”
Vicarious Liability
Either: Respondeat Superior or Apparent Authority
Restatement § 409 – unless otherwise stated in other sections, the employer of an independent contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the contractor of his services
· Exception: §429 – if employer hires a contractor whose services are accepted in reasonable belief that the services are being rendered by employer or servants – then employer can be held liable
· Exception: §§ 416 and 427 – employer vicariously liable if work involves a peculiar risk and employer fails to take appropriate precautions
Christensen v. Swenson
· Facts
o Δ employee hit Π’s motorcycle while Δ was on a 15 min lunch break which apparently was allowed
o
· Issue: Can Δ employer be held liable for Δ employee’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior?
· Birkner Test to determine employer’s liability:
o 1) employees conduct must be of the general kind the employee is hired to perform
o 2) employee’s conduct must occur substantially w/in hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of the employment
o 3) employee’s conduct must be motivated by purpose of serving the employer
· Holding:
o Reversed summary judgment for Δ employer b/c reasonable person could find that Δ employee met the three parts of the Birkner test
Respondeat Superior: a doctrine that makes an employee vicariously liable for an employee’s negligence when the employee was acting within scope of employment
Roessler v. Novak
· Facts
o Π patient treated at hospital for a per
ley wires as they passed over the bridge?
· Holding:
o RR not negligent b/c it could not have foreseen the incident and did not neglect its duty to adopt all reasonable precautions to prevent an incident
Reasonable Care: what would the reasonable person do or think to do given the circumstances?
United States v. Carroll Towing Co
· Facts:
o U.S. had cargo on the boat the Anna C in NY harbor
o Δ loosed the lines of the Anna C to drill another boat out
o the Anna C got loose and rammed a tanker, causing the boat to sink
o evidence showed that Anna C’s bargee was not on board when he should have been
· Issue:
o Can an owner of a barge be held liable for damages incurred if the barge breaks loose while the bargee is absent?
· Holding:
o None really – just says a barge owner is negligent when he does not man the barge during daylight hours in a crowded port
· Judge Hand’s formula for determining whether the owner fulfilled his duty:
o cost benefit analysis
o liability when B
