Duty, Breach, Loss or Damage, Causation
I. INTRODUCTION TO TORT LIABILITY (1-28)
I. Unintended Injures
A. a sudden illness which renders a driver unconscious will not be grounds for an action in negligence or strict liability. Hammontree v. Jenner
B. where a driver has constructive or actual notice of the onset of serious illness which might make driving dangerous, negligence may be found; where an outside force beyond driver’s control (bees entering car, sudden heart attack) causes accident, no liability
C. these cases decided on fault/ negligence theory
II. The Parties & Vicarious Liability
A. for an employer to be vicariously liable for the torts committed by an ee, ee must have been acting w/in scope of his employment. Christensen v. Swenson (security guard gets in car accident when running out for lunch break)
B. ostensible agency must be shown by demonstrating that the principle, by its conduct, caused the P to believe that the putative agent was an ee or agent of the principal, and the P reasonably relied on that appearance of agency. Baptist Memorial Hospital System v. Sampson (negligent ER physician; hospital didn’t make P believe Dr was agent)
INTENTIONAL TORTS (864-928)
· Intent
o intent (desire) to harm not necessary for battery; sufficient that person acted, knowing w/ substantial certainty, that the harmful contact would occur. Garratt v. Dailey (5 y.o. who pulled chair out from under P had requisite intent for battery since substantially certain that she would fall)
· ASSAULT
an 1)intentional act that 2) creates apprehension of 3) a battery
1) Act – physical act or verbal threat; words usually not enough
2) Intent
3) Result – Reasonable fear; apprehension of imminent injury; measured by reasonable P’s reaction to D’s act
A. IMMINENCE: – Generally means almost instantaneous
1. Future oriented threats – usually no
a. If apprehension, but not imminent – IIED
b. Cts. strict about short period of time
2. P. must be aware of the danger
3. Sometimes words enough – “Do this or I’ll kill you”
B. INTENT:
1. Threat to 3rd
bucket in afternoon – YES – at 3 a.m. – NO
c. Apprehension: If intent to scare and cause contact = intent
d. Multiple parties: Intent to hit A, hit both – only liable to 1 b/c policy (only enough to deter act)
e. Transferred intent: as long as he intends w/ respect to 1 person – liable to 3rd person (make sure
someone is liable)
f. What would a “reasonable person” have known (about nature of contact)?
D. CONTACT:
a. What constitutes touching of the other?
1. TEST:
i. Physical distance of object (proximity to P); pulling out chair P about to sit on counts
ii. Nature of object (symbolically connected) – degree of importance to person’s dignity or autonomy
2. Picard (mechanic touches camera) – YES b/c attached to body
3. Cold air – YES; Scent – NO
b. P. need not be aware of the contact (just harmed by it)
