Torts Outline

Torts Outline
Prof. Pitman
Fall 2018
 
1. 4 Elements of Cause of Action pg. 140
 
 
Duty: RPP in S/SC to guard against unreasonable risk of harm to others. For both Δ and Π  
 
Breach: Failure to use RPP care OR acting like RPP wouldn’t
Duty + Breach = Negligent Behavior
 
Causation: Connection between the conduct and injury
      Causation in Fact + Proximate Cause.
 
Damage: Loss or Damage resulting to the interests of another
 
 
 
 
Negligence Formula pg. 141
 
LH+GH+BP [Carrol Towing] to establish duty when none existed, court imposed
 
Lubitz v. Wells- Object that isn’t obviously and intrinsically dangerous isn’t negligent to leave lying on the ground. Duty based on danger of the instrument.
 
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks- Risk perceived defines the duty of care. Average care under ordinary circumstances.
 
Pipher v. Parsell- Driver owes duty to passengers because intentionally or not, injury is foreseeable in a crash.
Driver owes duty to passenger for foreseeable injury.
Usually, when passenger’s actions that cause a crash aren’t foreseeable the driver isn’t negligent BUT when passenger’s actions that interfere w/ driver’s driving are foreseeable it may breach duty to passengers and public
 
Chicago v. Krayenbuhl- If an owner fails to take precautions a man of ordinary care and prudence would, under same/similar circumstances, he is guilty of negligence. BP may be too costly or impossible to use in certain situations.
                       
CONSIDERATIONS:
Character and location
Purpose of use
Probability of injury
Precautions to prevent injury
Relation of precautions to beneficial use
 
Davison v. Snohomish County- BP may be too costly or impossible in some situations. There’s no duty of care above the existing technology of the day.
 
US v. Carroll Towing- Liability for negligence for failure to take precautions exists IF burden of precaution is less than probability of injury multiplied by gravity of resulting injury. B < P x L = Negligence liability       Restatement of Torts § 3 Negligence- A person acts negligently if they don’t use reasonable care under the circumstances. Primary factors to consider in determining if conduct lacks reasonable care are: 1. Foreseeable likelihood of harm 2. Foreseeable severity of harm that may occur 3. Burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce risk of harm     Standard of Care pg. 155   A. THE REASONABLE PRUDENT PERSON STANDARD OF CARE   Vaughan v. Menlove- (Haybarn) RPP standard is objective NOT subjective   General Knowledge and Skill: everyone is deemed to have certain minimum level of skill/knowledge and everyone is held to a minimum standard of care     Delair v. McAdoo- Drivers/car owners must know the condition of vehicle parts likely to become dangerous when the flaws/faults would be seen by a reasonable inspection.   Constructive Notice: thing you’re deemed to know whether you know them or not     CUSTOMS Trimarco v. Klein- CUSTOMS. Negligence when a custom/accepted practice + proof that ignoring it was the proximate cause of injury, must show: Proof of custom/usage is well defined in the field Jury must determine reasonableness of LH+GH+BP   Some precautions even if universally disregarded won’t excuse your neg for following   EMERGENCY Cordas v. Peerless Transportation- Emergency circumstances affect duty owed UNLESS they’re caused or foreseen by Δ. Standard is what would RPP do if faced with S/S emergency situation     PHYSICALLY DISABLED Roberts v. State of Louisiana- Disabled person held to standard of RPP with the same disability and must take precautions that person would. Disability is relevant to duty of care.   CHILDREN Robinson v. Lindsay- (Snowmobile & Kid) Child engages in inherently dangerous activity à adult standard of care Child engages in adult activity à adult standard of care Age standard: Child is usually held to standard of a child of same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience in same/similar circumstances.     MENTALLY ILL Breunig v. American Family Ins- Mental incapacity must be sudden AND unforeseeable to claim partial insanity   Most States: mentally ill people held to normal RPP standard   Doesn’t apply to self-inflected mental alteration like drugs and alcohol       PROFESSIONAL STANDARD OF CARE   If you have higher degree of knowledge, skill, or experience à held to higher standard of care   Professionals Must Have: Same Knowledge, Skills, Training, and Learning as ordinary pro in the same field Must apply same skills and learning with same care as commonly possessed by pro in the same field       Heath v. Swift Wings- RPPro is uniform/objective and DOESN’T change based on individual levels of training and experience               Degree of care does vary according to the circumstances though               MUST possess the knowledge, training, and skills of a RPPro in their same field   Duty of Professionals: Act with a minimum standard of competency Possess same knowledge and use due care Must use best judgement      Hodg