TORT LAW AND LITIGATION
Goals
Compensation of Injury Victims: When compensation is found to be in order, the goal is to bring the plaintiff back to original state.
Fairness
Safeguard the public: reduce accidents and defective products
Loss-distribution (Traynor): damages paid out are reflected in raised prices and insurance premiums, thereby spreading the loss over all of society
Spectrum of Liability
No liability è Negligence è Strict liability è Absolute
(unavoidable (could’ve been (Traynor: defective product, Liability
accident) avoided w/due care) regardless of level of care)
Negligence
– conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others
– failing to act as a reasonable person would to mitigate that risk (due care)
Hammontree v. Jenner (1971) – Strict Liability or Negligence?
Strict liability rule does not apply; trial court correctly applied negligence law when D had an epileptic seizure.
Note: P knew they would lose on negligence, so tried to apply different precedent: strict liability from product manuf cases. Would have set a huge precedent if court applied strict liability. Court held for D; deferred to legislature for such a big decision. Cited Greenman, where Cal SC adopted strict product liability for manufs, and VanderMark, where they extended it to retailers.
Damages
Compensatory damages: designed to bring a victim back to original state, as best possible. Two parts:
– Economic(out-of-pocket, pecuniary): lost wages, property damage, medical expenses, drugs, future medical expenses, future lost earnings (based on life expectancy).
– Noneconomic loss(=nonpecuniary): pain & suffering.
Attorney’s Fees: usually 1/3 of award. Economic damages alone not enough to compensate.
Controls on nonpecuniary damages: There are no simple solutions, e.g. Capping nonpecuniary damages to level of economic damages would hurt unemployed homemakers. Capping them at all would hurt those with the most grievous, disfiguring injuries.
Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines (1961) – Excessive Damage Award?
While the award was admittedly high (she was just a file clerk and got lots of pecuniary damages), it was not so high as to shock the conscience and indicate prejudice on the part of
or offensive. Requires:
1. A volitional act
2. Done with intent (either desire to cause apprehension, or knowledge of consequences)
3. Causing a threat of harm through contact (with a person or a thing)
Note: D has to have the apparent present ability to carry out the threat.
Battery
Protects interest in being free from unwanted contact, inviolability of the person.
1. A volitional act
2. Done with intent (either desire to contact, or knowledge of consequences)
3. Causing contact (either harmful or offensive contact, btwn victim and a person or a thing)
Contact with anything P is connected to (item in hand, dog on leash) is sufficient to establish contact (Picard 1995). Immediately or later (dogdoo, locker).
Offensive: to a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
Harmful: Causing any physical impairment or illness.
Impairment: any alteration in structure or function of the body (mole removed).
