Torts
Roht-Arriaza
Fall 2016
Torts Overview
Goals of Torts Law
Deterrence
The amount of repercussions that is associated with the law needs to be considered to help deter more cases of that type of torts from happening.
Compensation
Victims should be compensated for the injuries done to them. Compensation should be for both present and future medical and rehabilitative care. Victims should also be compensated for lost of earnings and many other aspects.
Economic Concerns
The law must also protect the economy since any human activity has inherent risks involved. The economy cannot function if there’s an excessive burden on them from all liabilities.
Negligence
5 elements that make up the prima facie of a negligence claim
Duty
Does the D have a relationship with Õ that includes a duty of care standard.
Breach of Duty
Did D break that duty standard (1) by creating a dangerous situation or acting in a negligent manner.
Cause-In-Fact (Causation)
Was Õ’s injuries/negligence claim caused by D’s breach?
Proximate Cause (Scope of Liability)
How much of the injury sustained can be claimed to have been under D’s ability to prevent or foresee?
Damages
Is there a way to calculate or determine the amount of
$$ that can be reasonable for the injuries Õ sustained.
Duty
General Rule of Duty
Duty to use reasonable care – Asks whether D acted in a reasonable way in the situation.
Evolution of the rule
Macpherson v. Buick Motors
(i) Π was injured when car wheel broke. D, manufacturer claimed no privity to π and therefore no duty. (No K = No Prvity)
(ii) Rule: Privity issue does not limit duty of reasonable care for D to π.
Duty is a question of law – Judge determines duty question. Feasibility v. policy as key to duty determination.
A.W v. Lancaster City School District
(i) Duty owed can be determined if there was a foreseeable risk that was ignored and this caused injury to π.
(ii) Judge determination of duty. Jury determines if the is a breach.
Exceptions to the general duty of care (Limited duty rule)
Landowners (Tenant/occupiers)
Status Trichotomy – determines duty owed from D to π. Even if there is negligence per se case or a clear breach, if there is no duty owed, the landowner cannot be held liable.
First question is to determine what type of condition caused π’s injury
(i) Activity v. Defect (Or whether the cause was active or passive)
Activity is when D landowner’s negligent action caused the injury, then status does not matter – duty is established
Defect is a passive condition of the premise. If it is defect, apply status trichotomy to determine duty of landowner. Three categories:
Invitee
On land with permission of the landowner and is there for “business” – mutual gain for landowner and invitee.
General duty of care from landowner, must inspect and warn/fix dangerous condition.
Licensee
On land with permission from landowner, but not there for “business” – no gain for landowner. (i.e. Social guest)
Limited duty of care – cannot willfully or wantonly injure π (Gross negligence). Duty to warn/fix if landowner had actual knowledge of the defect, no liability if landowner had no knowledge of defect.
Trespasser
On land without permission, landowner had no “knowledge” of the trespasser on the land.
Only duty is to not injure willfully or wantonly (Gross negligence)
American Industries Life Insurance v. Ruvalacaba
Texas Jurisdiction – application of the status trichotomy for duty
Exceptions to the status trichotomy categories
(i) General Exception: Visitor of building that does business with the public (carve-out for a place like a store or a mall)
(ii) R2d §360 – any entrant onto residential property gets invitee status in the common areas of the building
(iii) Attractive Nuisance: Child trespassers are trespassers where owner or occupier can reasonably expect young children to come onto the land, and owner knows or has reason to know that the condition could harm, and children won’t realize that a risk is involved, burden to get rid of the risk is slight compared to the risk to the children involved.
(iv) Known Trespasser – cutting through your property and continues
Rowland v. Christian
California Jurisdiction – status trichotomy does not determine duty, influences determination. General duty of care rule is applied to any landowner to person on the property.
Status trichotomy is used to influence the breach aspect (foreseeability)
Duty to act or prevent
Another type of exception to the general duty of care rule. Also known as no duty to act/rescue
Basic rule – No duty to rescue or assist if D had no part in creating the danger
Policy Reasons
(i) Limits the scope (number of potential Ds) that can be held liable
(ii) Interference with individual autonomy/liberty
Positive imposition of the state – states only want to impose “duties” and things on citizens if it benefits society at large, imposing a duty to help is a negative prohibition
State should not impose al
ty
If there is a duty between D and 3rd party, and 3rd party injures π, is there a duty between D and π?
Tarasoff v. Regents of UC
Was there duty from the psychologist (D) whose patient told him that he was going to murder π, then goes and murder π?
Two variations on professional duty (using this case as example)
(i) Duty to control
D – 3rd party (patient)
Duty of a doctor to control patient
ADD – Gun manufacturers as well as underage drinking
(ii) Duty to warn/protect (what this case is focused on)
D – π because D is the only one with knowledge of 3rd party intentions.
Majority Rule: D (doctor) has duty to warn/protect π if reasonable knowledge or should know there is danger.
Determined using professional knowledge.
Minority Rule: D (doctor) has duty to warn/protect if there is actual knowledge of danger.
(iii) Limitation on this rule to warn
Dunkle v. Food Service East
There is only a duty to warn IF the person is known and easily identifiable.
Limits the liability of doctors. i.e. no duty to warn if patient threatens to kill “someone”. Only has duty to warn if patient says specific name or clearly distinguishes them “next door neighbor who lives in the blue house”.
Tarasoff Rule v. Dunkle Rule
Tarasoff Rule: medical professionals must warn when they know or should know under professional standard that a patient will harm an identifiable victim.
(i) Tarasoff – Patient tells psych he’ll kill gf, psych tells police, guy ends up killing gf. Psych had a duty to warn/inform gf.
(ii) Policy question: How does this affect psychiatry? Some psychs may stop asking questions if they know they’re getting close to some sort of admission.
Dunkle Rule: Victim must be identifiable. This goes to “Boxing”: can’t use statistics to show people closest to threatening individual are more likely to be harmed, but the fewer people in your “box”, the better.
(i) Dunkle – Guy gets violent when off his meds, psych tells no one, guy ends up killing his gf. No duty to warn because not identifiable.
