Liability Principles: Strict Liability and Negligence
Negligence
Negligence is defined as failing to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances.
Hammontree v. Jenner
On April 25, 1967, defendant Jenner was driving a 1959 Chevy home. Hammontree was working in a bicycle shop, and the car crashed through the wall of the shop and hit her. Jenner claimed unconsciousness due to seizure. His last recollection was leaving a stoplight, then being taken from his car in the shop. He had medical history of epilepsy. He was placed on medication in 1952. He then suffered a seizure while fishing, and was diagnosed as having petit mal seizure. He stayed on the same medication but had another seizure in 1953. In 1954 he was placed on phelantin. The condition was controlled from then until the crash. The DMV reported in 1960 he was on a once-a-year report and was doing fine. The trial court ruled in favor of Jenner.
Appellants contended that the trial court erred in refusing to grant their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability and their motion for directed verdict on the pleadings and counsel’s opening arguments are answered by the deposition of their third claim that the trial court committed prejudicial error in refusing to give their jury instruction on absolute liability. Trial judge properly refused the instruction. Plaintiffs withdrew their claim of negligence, objected to instruction on negligence, and rested on the theory of absolute liablility. They argued that only the defendant, knowing of his condition and still operating a motor vehicle, can be responsible. But the driver was suddenly stricken by illness which he had no reason to anticipate and of which he had no prior knowledge. Judgment affirmed. Appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court of California was denied December 16, 1971.
Hammontree felt wronged when the court gave an instruction of negligence, as she wanted a ruling on absolute liability that had been pieced together from product liability. “When the evidence shows a driver of a vehicle on a public street or highway loses his ability to safely operate and control such vehicle because of some seizure or health failure, he or she is nevertheless legally liable for all injuries and property damage which an innocent person may suffer as a proximate result of the defendant’s inability to so control or operate his motor vehicle. This is true even if you find the defendant driver had no warning of any such impending seizure or health failure.”
This court said that product liability is different, because sellers get a benefit from selling products. If they hurt someone with that product they should be held responsible. Also, companies have loss spreading, in that they can raise the cost of an item. It is a sort of social insurance.
Intentional Harm
Definition of intent requires:
· The person acts with the purpose of producing the consequence, or
· The person acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result.
A person acts recklessly if:
· The person knows of the risk of harm created by the conduct or knows facts that make the risk obvious to another in the person’s situation, and
· The precaution that would eliminate or reduce the risk involves burdens that are so slight relative to the magnitude of the risk as to render the person’s failure to adopt the precaution a demonstration of the person’s indifference to the risk.
A plaintiff that proves an intentional tort may receive punitive damages.
Battery is the intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another.
· Ba
often linked but don’t have to be.
Assault
Assault is a physical act of a threatening nature or an offer of bodily injury which puts an individual in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm
· The plaintiffs apprehension of injury renders a defendant’s act compensable
· Conditional threats do not constitute an assault.
Battery
Battery is an act that intended to cause, and in fact did cause an offensive contact with or unconsented touching of or trauma upon the body of another, thereby resulting in the consummation of assault.
· Intent to injure the plaintiff was unnecessary if the defendant willfully sets in motion a force that in its course causes the injury
· Contact with an object attached or identified with plaintiff’s body is sufficient.
Offensive Contact
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
· He acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with another person, or cause an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
a. an offensive contact with the other person directly or indirectly results.
An act which is not done with the intentions stated above does not make the actor liable to the other for a mere offensive contact with the other’s person although the act involves an unreasonable risk of inflicting it and, therefore, would be negligent or reckless if the risk threatened bodily harm. A bodily contact is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
