Negligence
Negligence is all about Reasonableness
i. The jury will determine what law to apply on a case by case basis in negligence. The law requires us to be REASONABLE, NOT PERFECT to avoid liability. To determine reasonableness, look at the surrounding circumstances. Sometimes reasonableness requires that you anticipate.
ii. Reasonable: fair, proper or moderate under the circumstances.
iii. Liability: the quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable; a legal responsibility to another or to society.
iv. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: the doubt that prevents one from being firmly convicted of a D’s guilt, or the belief that there is a real possibility that a D is not guilty.
v. Negligence: the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; or any conduct that follows below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is unintentionally, wantonly or willfully disregardful of others’ rights.
1. Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams (Gasoline container exploded)
1. P is the distributors of petroleum products, including gasoline. They sold and delivered to a planter in that vicinity a drum of gasoline for use in farm tractors. D was the planter’s employee and was engaged in operating a tractor. D undertook to remove the bung-hole cap from the drum in order to replenish the fuel in the tractor, whereupon there was a sudden outburst of fire, caused, by a spark which was produced by the condition of disrepair in the threads of the bung cap. Issue was whether the vendor of an inherently dangerous product, must exercise a degree of care equal to the danger, extended to the Pl? Yes. An actor will be liable for all such harm as a reasonably prudent person would or should have anticipated as the natural and probable consequences of his act; and the act must be of such character and done in such a situation that the actor should reasonably have anticipated that some injury to another would probably result. A person of ordinary prudence, and mindful of the duty of cautious care with which P were charged, should have known of the condition and should reasonably have anticipated, that a sudden fire or explosion would be caused by the stated condition of disrepair; and hence appellants are liable for the injury to D.
vi. Inherently Dangerous Objects – “No Hindsight”
1. Lubitz v. Wells
1. Whether it was negligent of the parent to leave a golf club lying in his backyard? NO! The golf club was not so obviously and intrinsically dangerous.
i. Rule: A parent is liable for the actions of their children if parent was negligent when he/she knows or should have known the negligent use would occur and an injury would ensue, and by neglected to remove the object. The father could not have known that the other child was in danger of being struck with the club by his son.
How to Prove You’re Liable for the Negligence (all must be met)
i. P must show beyond a reasonable doubt of the evidence that D owed a duty,
ii. that that duty was breached,
iii. the breach was the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the P’s damages; and
iv. that the P suffered damages.
Duty – Is there a duty? If so, then what was the standard of care?
i. Person owes a duty of reasonable care when there is a legally recognized relationship between them.
ii. Duty is a legally recognized obligation that one party has to another party to act as a reasonable prudent person would in this situation. (Question of Law/Question for the Judge)
iii. Privity of K: the relationship between the parties to a K, allowing them to sue each other but preventing a third party from doing so.
1. If a Contract is the Only Source of the Duty, the π suing over Nonfeasance Must be party to that Contract; otherwise the Δ did not have a Duty to π
iv. Failure to Act
1. Non-Feasance v. Mis-Feasance
1. Non-Feasance – Passive inaction or failure to protect others from harm.
i. When one has no duty to protect others, mere inaction on their part does not make them liable for the other’s injury.
2. No-Affirmative Duty Rules (Only exist under Nonfeasance)
i. No Duty to Protect
ii. No Duty to Rescue
iii. No Duty to Control 3rd Parties
3. No-Affirmative Duty Rules can be Overcome by:
i. Control over the Instrumentality which
ertainty of a result, happening or loss that could result in damage.
f. Harm: Injury, loss, damage or material detriment.
2. Misfeasance: Active misconduct causing injury; Generally Δ is liable; i.e. Δ WAS the Source of the Danger
a. This imposes Duties (Protect, Rescue, Controlling 3rd Party)
v. Pure Economic Loss: refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person such as can only be seen in balance sheets rather than physical injury to the person or destruction of property. Economic loss can be:
· Consequential economic loss, arising from physical damage or injury, such as loss of earnings following an accident; or
· Pure economic loss, from other circumstances.
Recovery at law for pure economic loss is restricted under some circumstances in some jurisdictions, in particular in tort in common law jurisdictions, for fear that it is potentially unlimited and could represent a “crushing liability” against which parties would find it impossible to insure.
Examples of pure economic loss include:
· Loss of income suffered by a family whose principal earner dies in an accident. The physical injury is caused to the deceased, not the family
· Loss of market value of a property owing to the inadequate specifications of foundations by an architect
· Loss of production suffered by an enterprise whose electricity supply is interrupted by a contractor excavating a public utility.
A. Determining the DUTY
1. Learned Hand Formula: B < PL (burden, probability, magnitude)
a. HIGH risk and LOW burden, usually have DUTY to take precautionary measures
i. Gulf Refining Co: Exploding gas drum w/ defective caps. Δ has duty to customers that drums in good condition. Burden low (throw away old drums), utility low (no use for old barrels), and risk extremely high.
