Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Augustine-Adams
1. Introduction
a. Purposes of Tort Law
i. Recompense/restore
ii. Encourage responsible behavior
iii. Deter wrongful conduct
iv. Peaceful resolution for those who take the law into their own hands
2. Tort liability: 3 Possible Bases
a. Intentional conduct
b. Negligent conduct
c. Strict liability
i. Sometimes with abnormally dangerous activity, there is strict liability
1. No matter how many precautions you take, things will still go wrong (inherently
dangerous)
2. Like blasting
3. To internalize all of its costso they can be distributed more equally (blasting to
city)
4. Business cost (part of the cost of doing business)
a. As a society we can look at the real cost of the service (to have a tunnel in
NY)
ii. Public policy
1. Then there has to be a judgment about whether the societal benefit subsidizes the
service
3. Trespass v. Case
a. Trespass (preferable)
i. direct, immediate throw log at guy in road
ii. no proof of actual damage
iii. intent not required
iv. quasi-criminal invasion of someones rights
b. Case
i. indirect fall and trip on log later in day
ii. proof of actual damage required
iii. must show something intent, wrongful conduct
iv. civil not criminal
4. Progression of Tort law:
a. Weaver v. Ward: liability without fault
b. Brown v. Kendall: negligence is lack of ordinary care
c. Cohen v. Petty
d. Spano v. Perini: absolute liability
i. For ultra hazardous activities the question is not whether it was legal to blast or not but
instead who should bear the cost of any resulting damage
INTENTIONAL TORTS
(Establish prima facie case, so there is no directed verdict)
1. Intent (fault based standard)
a. Two standards
i. Intent to cause the action which harms harmful or offensive
1. Or Intend or know with a substantial certainty (Garratt v. Dailey) the action will
result in contact that ends up being harmful
a. HYPO: what if you punch someone because you think it is fun?
1
c. Imminent apprehension
i. Need to be aware at the time of the threat itself (i.e. cant be asleep)
ii. Doesnt require being scared (dont have to be afraid, just apprehend that the contact
would occur)
d. Present apparent ability
i. Must be present, not future threat
ii. Reasonable person standard
iii. Actual ability isnt necessary, only reasonable ability (question for the jury)
1. Unloaded gun to someones head, does the person know its unloaded?
2. (Western Union midget says Ill fix your clock but cant reach P)
e. Imminent battery
i. Immediacy, future threats dont work (no significant delay) do that again/next time I
see you, Ill kill you! not assault
ii. Proximity whistles from a car passing by on street not assault because cant inflict
imminent battery
iii. Words alone are not enough
iv. Words with an overt act is enough (I de S, at tavern door)
f. Standard
i. Objective reasonable person (if not informed)
ii. Subjective (I hate people touching me) if informed
g. Exceptions
i. Asleep or unconscious cannot be assaulted
i. Not necessarily every battery constitutes an assaultnot put in imminent apprehension of
the contact (if person is asleep, no assault).
1. HYPOS:
a. Defendant who is 100 yards toward plaintiff, throwing rocks. Assault?
i. At some point he will get close enough, there will be imminent
apprehension
b. KKK members carrying guns and scaring fisherman
i. Flashing guns, and there is a context that this is a threatening
group. Reasonable apprehended imminent contact.
c. If you dont go to bed with me, Ill throw you out the window
i. Assault, the imposition of a condition that the assailant has no right
to impose will
3. Battery (IHC)
a. Definition:
i. Intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive bodily contact
a. Voluntary Act:
a. Must be a volitional movement by the actor of some part of his body
b. Intent:
a. Higher level of culpability than mere carelessness
b. 2 possible standards for intent:
i. Garatt standard: contactthat is harmful
ii. Restatement standard: harmful contact
c. 3 types of Intent for Battery:
i. Desire to cause Harmful or offensive contact
1. Objective
I.
Did the contact happen? Was the contact one that a reasonable
person would find harmful or offensive? (offensive generally
held to an objective standard unless informed)
II.
Offensive: offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity
3
ii. Desire to frighten (assault): intent to cause assault is enough for battery
iii. Substantial certainty that the harmful or offensive contact is likely to occur
1. Subjective test: issue is what D really thought, not what he should have
thought.
2. Means almost certain, not very likely
c. Contact substantially certain: that a contact is substantially certain to result
a. Objects intimately connected to the person (Fisher, grabbed plate)
i. Setting a wire out, knowing that the person will trip later is enough contact
d. Causation: the harmful/offensive touching must be caused by the Ds act or some force that the
act sets in motion. This element is satisfied if the Ds conduct directly or indirectly results in
the injury
e. In a rude, angry or insolent manner Not required but it does strengthen the argument
a. Generally if held liable for a battery, held liable for all damages that occur (not just those
reasonable or anticipated)
b. ALSO through transferred intent from battery of another person.
i. Transferred Intent Doctrine:
1. If the D acts intending to cause battery (or any of the other 4 intentional
torts that evolved from trespass) to a person, the D will be liable on an
intentional tort theory if ANY of the given harms occur to that person OR
to another person even if the other person is unexpected and the harm is
unexpected
4. False Imprisonment (IADUN) NOT COVERED
a. When you restrain or confine another person, against his will, without legal justification.
5. Trespass to land (IUP)
a. Definition
i. A trespass to land can occur when the defendant enters the plaintiffs land, or causes
another person or an object to enter the plaintiffs land
1. Wrongfully remaining after permission has been withdrawn
2. Failure to remove
a. Intent
a. To step on property, not necessarily to trespass (but must be VOLUNTARY entrance)
b. Trespass for good reason is NOT a defense
c. Damages are presumed, no actual harm required (Dougherty, surveyor who did no
damagegrass treading down)
b. Unauthorized Entry/Intrusion Upon Land
a. Must be a physical invasion where something tangible physically touches the realty
(MAJORITY)
i. MINORITY: when anything tangible or physical crosses property lines (Herrin ,
fires shotgun over land)
b. No need to put up a sign or fences as the owner
c. Exceed scope of consent (Rogers, snow fence left on property)
d. Constructive Consent UPS man, mailman, etc.
c. Property of another
a. Land above and below is included (Herrin, bullet in air as trespass)
i. Trespass only if immediate reaches of airspace, if it interferes with the quiet
enjoyment/ encroachment of space.
b. Action can be brought by owner or tenant in exclusive possession
c. Usually should be tangible, non-tangible usually treated as nuisance
d. P in Possession
4
a. At the time of the trespass, the Ps interest in the land must be either actual possession or
the right to immediate possession
i. Actual possession: The person actually in possession may bring an action for
trespass because any possession is a legal possession as against a trespasser. Even
a wrongful occupier (adverse possessor) may maintain a trespass action against a
wrongful intruder
ii. Right to Immediate possession: If no one is in actual possession, the person
who has the right to immediate possession may maintain the action. Immediate
means the holder of some present possessory estate, as contrasted with a future
interest
e. Causation:
a. Invasion must be caused by the Ds intentional act or some force set in motion thereby
b. Trespasser IS liable for harm to person or property caused to the owner, even if the harm
was NOT foreseeable
i. Ex: confrontation with the trespasser caused owner to have a heart attack (Baker
v. Shymkiv)
f. Even if it is a mistake
a. Mistake is NOT a defense
b. Even if you think you are on your own land but actually are on someone elses, it is a
trespass
g. No need for actual damages
a. Entitled for nominal damages ONLY in trespass cases
i. HYPO: tenant overstays lease, then a 3rd party comes in and trespass. Tenant still
has right to assert possessory interest. (even though you are illegally squatting on
the land)
ii. HYPO: shoot across land, and accidentally hits owner (only intending to
trespass). Transferred intent you can hold for battery.
1. Does it always make sense? Shoot a dog and hit a person? Trespass on
chattel.
6. IIED (IRE CSP)
a. Intentional or reckless (some states) conduct
a. Types of Intent:
i. D intended to bring about the distress
ii. D knew with substantial certainty distress will occur (Taylor, saw father beaten, D
didnt know she was there)
1. Havent required that you intend the consequencemore intend the
contact.
iii. D recklessly disregarded the possibility that distress would result
b. Intent CANNOT transfer
i. Transfer is limited to old trespass: assault, battery, trespass on land, false
imprisonment, trespass to chattel
b. Extreme or outrageous conduct/action
a. Objective standard
b. Mere insults generally NOT enough (Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of FL)
c. Usually an objective standard: person of ordinary sensitivity (unless person knew of
sensitivity)
d. How extreme does the conduct have to be? Sometimes you look at the consequences
instead.
c. Causal connection between conduct and emotional distress
a. Must show a causal relationship (Harris, stuttering problem)
b. If P already had distress before Ds conduct, no casual relationship
5
1. if all criteria apply, you pay no damages (unless property was not going to be
damaged)
a. Default rule: Surroco standard; If want damages, then the legislature can
pass a law in any given instance to allow compensation.
b. Rationale for damages rule:
i. Adverse incentive: if damages had to be paid, wouldnt have
incentive to protect the public if it was too expensive. Let the fire
burn down as many houses, and individuals would pay, not city.
ii. Distribution of costs or concentration of costs.
iv. Complete Privilege: D that successfully pleads the privilege of public necessity does not
have to pay any damages at all
c. Private necessity (AID)
i. Actual or apparent
ii. Imminent threat of harm to a private interest
iii. Does not require office or authority
iv. Incomplete privilege
1. You must pay damages, even if not morally accountable, but not tort or punitive
damages (if there is an intentional tort for trespass).
2. (Vincent, steamship tied to dock during storm)
a. HYPO: dock owner thinks that his dock is incurring too much damage.
Can he untie the boat himself?
i. Shipowner could tie up boat in the first place, but the dock owner
has his own necessity defense to protect his own property. Who
pays?
ii. Best incentive to make the right decisions. Law cant do very much
to influence behavior
v. Reasonable necessity (consider value of things involved)
vi. Act of God
ADD JUSTIFCATION
NEGLIGENCE
1. Elements of Negligence:
a. Duty
b. Breach: failure to conform behavior to duty
c. Causation: factual (but for) and legal (proximate) causation
d. Harm/Damages: different than intentional torts (which were nominal damages), no sense of
nominal damages
i. Grew out of trespass on the case, which always needed to show damages
2. DUTY
a. Reasonableness test
i. P must show that Ds conduct imposed an unreasonable risk of harm on P
ii. Should it be empirical or normative? What you should do or what people actually do?
iii. Asking jurors to conceptualize a hypothetical reasonable person.
iv. An emergency qualification: to be excused, emergency must be unforeseen, sudden, and
unexpected. (Peerless, cab driver jumps out of hijacked cab)
1. Jury instructions: reasonable under the circumstances? (emergency is just part of
what makes this)
b. Ways for setting a Duty
i. Hand Formula
ii. Rules of Law
iii. Statute
iv. Custom
c. General Duty
i. RPP - Ordinary, cautious, using best judgment
1. Holmes opinion: separate out morality from conduct
ii. Objective v. Subjective standards
1. Smart Person (UP)
a. If D has superior intelligence, judgment or knowledge, he is held to higher
standard
b. One who sets himself out as an expert
2. Dumb (SAME)
a. Even if lacking common sense, held to RPP standard
b. No subjectifying down for intelligence (Vaughan, haystack)
3. Ignorant Person (SAME)
a. Liable for what we know or should have known (DeLair, driving on bald
tires)
i. applies to social customs in a communitya stranger is assumed
to know or seek out the information
4. Emergency (DOWN) - Under the circumstances
a. Emergency situations make an otherwise negligent act reasonable
b. Actor is not obligated to protect others at his own expense (Cordas,
runaway cab)
5. Physical limitations (DOWN)
a. RP Blind person (Roberts, blind deli worker)
i. If held to a higher standard, might lose incentive to act as a
reasonable blind person. They could never reach that standard.
ii. Sometimes this means more care than a reasonable person, as in
crossing the street.
10
a. Just has to prove more than 50% probability that there was negligence
b. Other jurisdictions - P is free from contributory negligence
ii. Almost approximates strict liability
1. If there is no real argument D can use to get out of liability, it is REALLY close to
strict liability
iii. Immediate precipitating cause may permit a conclusion of negligence
b. Res Ipsa w/ Collective Exclusive Control (Ybarra, has surgery and wakes up w/ hurt arm)
i. Each D must show they were not responsible for the harm
ii. If all Ds show they were not responsible, all are held liable (responsibility reverts back to
group)
1. D is in the best position to produce evidence
2. Smoke out rule
iii. Generally, need to show that the Ds all bore an integrated relationship as professional
colleagues.
1. When strangers, or have only an ordinary duty of care to the Plaintiff, res ipsa
generally NOT applied
c. 3 Applications/ PROCEDURALEFFECT of Res Ipsa: (progressively more harsh, LOOK at
shift of Proof)
i. Inference of negligence: usually
1. Jury determines whether there was negligence and liability
2. w/ statute it is called Evidence of Negligence
3. Ordinarily, RIL merely permits jury to choose inference of Ds negligence
a. GOES TO JURY AFTER RES IPSA is met
ii. Rebuttable Presumption of negligence
1. Assume D is negligent
2. D has an opportunity to show he was not negligent to rebut the presumption
(burden of production)
a. If 50-50, burden of persuasion with Plaintiff, then D wins
3. positive, unequivocal evidence in statute
iii. Negligence per se; Directed verdict; Shifts burden of proof to D (ULTIMATE)
1. Very rare; all 3 elements must be satisfied w/o a doubt; sets high standard of
evidence P must prove
2. A preponderance of the evidence (like negligence per se but still allows D to do
something to show he was not negligent not quite as harsh)
3. Burden of proof is on the plaintiff
4. Jury has the option of deciding whether or not to apply res ipsa (judge will
instruct them and they make the choice)
iv. Policy
1. D generally has control of the environment and
2. Either caused the harm himself or
3. Has best position to tell who caused the harm
a. Generally a smoke out policy, so there is no conspiracy between parties
v. Less application today
1. Broader access to discovery mechanisms (better procedural tools)
a. BUT discovery is expensive, bogs down law suits
CAUSATION
a. Causation in fact (gets you in the door and allows you to form a cause of action)
vi. Sine qua non but for causation
18
19
a. Both breached duty, even though only one caused harm (unknown which
one), both are liable
b. Where it cannot be proved which D caused harm, but both breached, both
liable (Summers, hunters shoot man)
c. Already know that they are negligentthis is different than res ipsa
d. Burden on Ds to figure out whose fault it was
9. Market Share/ Unknown Tortfeasor (Sindell, DES 6 companies out of 200)
a. Market share liability (hasnt really expanded beyond DES)
i. Each D liable for their share of the market
ii. More likely than not that P took medication manufactured by one
of the Ds
1. Ds who cannot meet the burden of proof that they were not
liable, then they must pay damages in the market share
(will be severally liable)
2. Might be more prudent to make a class action
iii. Policy
1. Cost spreading - Ds are better able to bear cost of injuries
2. Incentive for D to be more careful
3. Better access to information
4. D can prove not liable (she took green pill, D manufactured
red pill)
iv. Consider Market share in
1. Nation (decided in CA)
a. Who was throwing out the most risk, what
proportion to the public as a whole, and dividing up
2. state
3. community
4. pharmacy
b. Enterprise liability (Hall, entire blasting cap industry)
i. Acting in concert, safety regulations were industry wide
ii. All before the court, usually small industry
c. Joint and Several Liability
i. P can split up the 100% between the Ds however he wants
10. Liability for imposition of risk standardsevolvement of causation
a. Ybarra all not necessarily negligent, we dont know how many caused
harm, all liable
b. Summers one caused the harm, both liable
c. Sindell all negligent, only one caused the harm, all liable
i. Cant use substantial factor testpushing to impose liability where
it hadnt before
b. Causation in Law/ Proximate Cause (both Causation in Fact and Causation in Law MUST be
met) limits liability
ix. Basic Areas for Proximate Cause (development)
1. Direct cause v. remote cause (Polemis, dropped plank, struck spark, ignited
petroleum, destroyed ship)(Ryan, RR operates negligently, engine sets fire to
woodshed, and Ps house-remoteness)
a. Defendant is liable for all consequences of her negligent act, provided that
these consequences are not due to superseding intervening causes; no
matter how far-fetched or unforeseeable
b. Ex-post analysis: look after the fact if there is a direct line from the
negligence to the harm
21
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
xvii.
3. Criminal Acts/ intentional torts usually cuts off liability, unless the criminal act
was foreseeable or invited by the persons conduct (drop someone off at a risky
place)
4. Severs liability for the first parties
5. NO foreseeability
a. EX: intentional torts, acts of God, crimes,
6. Suicide is NOT necessarily a superseding cause (Fuller, doctor w/ seizures after
car wreck)
xviii. Joint and Several Liability
1. Joint: P chooses how to divide damages
2. Several: D is only liable for the % of harm he caused
a. W/o contribution: If P chooses to go 100% against one, the D cannot go
against other Ds
b. W/ contribution: If P chooses to go 100% against one, D can go against
other Ds
c. Limited Duty
xix. 2 types of duty
1. D has a relationship with the potential P
2. D has a relationship with the potential tortfeasor/perpetrator (Tarasoff)
xx. Failure to Act
1. No general duty to act
a. UNLESS there is a special relationship (Hegel v Langsam, university has
no duty to stop criminal association, drug user of student)
b. Moral vs. Legal standards, about whether there should be a moral duty to
rescue
i. Courts arent well-equipped to deal with this type of harm
ii. Good Samaritan statutes (protect those who come on
circumstances, protect from liability): take on risk, if end up
hurting, could be liable
1. Dont want to deter people from trying to help
2. Other legal systems say that you need to help if you can do
so in safety
xxi. Duty to Rescue
1. Rule no duty to rescue initially but if you begin rescue must carry it out in a
reasonable manner
a. Words alone dont create duty even if the victim relies on those words
i. Ex: you see someone drowning, say let me give you a hand, then
leave; no duty
b. Throwing a rope creates a duty; you have begun a rescue
2. Exceptions to the rule of no duty:
a. Special relationships
i. Harm is Foreseeable and D has ability to control the harm
1. Common carriers, innkeepers are generally liable for failure
to rescue
2. Husband/wife, temporary legal custodian/ child, jailor/
prisoner
b. Ds Act creates the Peril
i. If D injures someone through its negligence, D has a duty to rescue
24
ii. In control of harming agent (Ayres, child gets hand caught in store
escalator)
c. D has undertaken a rescue
i. You cannot leave a person in a worse position then you found him
ii. However, if you give your best effort, you wont be liable
d. Other exceptions
i. College does NOT have duty to rescue student (Hegel, 17 yr. old in
dorms, drugs)
ii. Wifes duty (JS and MS, sisters sexually abused by neighbor who
owned horses)
1. Spouse must have actual knowledge or special reason to
know of a likelihood her spouse is engaging in sexual
behavior
2. Against a particular person (cannot just be general)
3. Duty to take reasonable steps to prevent or warn
4. Problem it leaves the wife in a terrible position we want
to protect marital relationships but we also want to protect
children
iii. B<PL
iv. Balancing of Factors
1. Nature of underlying risk of harm, foreseeability, severity
2. Opportunity and ability to exercise care to prevent harm
3. Comparative interests and relationships between parties
4. Consideration of public policy and fairness, societal interest
xxii. Duty to Warn (Tarasoff, psycho stalker tells Dr. he will kill girl, then does)
1. D has a relationship with the potential tortfeasor/perpetrator (should have
CONTROL)
2. Doctor has a duty if:
a. Reasonably foreseeable
b. Serious threat of violence
c. Identifiable victim
3. Policy Problems:
a. How much is required on the duty to warn?
i. Call the victim?
ii. Call the police?
b. Doctor-patient privilege
i. Warn: violate patient confidentiality
ii. Not warn: keep patient confidentiality
iii. Reporting might make it likely that other psychos wont come get
help
1. Ex. HIV diagnosis, some courts say that there is a duty to
inform spouse, if the person will not tell
2. Public policy: more important to protect person from AIDS
than confidentiality of relationship
4. Rule for Clergy ripe for expansion
a. No duty to reveal child abuse when made in confession
b. Duty to turn over information gained by other means
5. Rule for Attorneys
a. Lawyer MAY turn over information he believes is necessary to
i. Prevent his client from committing a criminal act
ii. Establish a claim on behalf of the attorney
25
d. Multiple Ds (just need to know that these are questions, and arguments to support one or the
other)
i. Joint and Several liability
1. Even though harm may be apportioned to all Ds, P may recover ALL from just
one D
ii. Several liability
1. If harm is apportioned, P can only recover the % from each D that was assigned to
him
2. Risk of an insolvent or unknown D falls on P
3. Utah is Several liability unless the other party is immune or unknown
iii. If there are multiple Ds, all Ds negligence may be combined and as long as Ps
negligence < all Ds, P may recover (aggregate Ds fault)
iv. DO NOT aggregate Ps fault
1. HYPO: P is 30% at fault, D is 20% at fault, 2 nonparties are 25% each
i. Point of disagreement among courts, if collective fault? Lots of
issues
v. NOT a defense to an intentional tort
4. Assumption of the Risk complete bar to recovery
a. Express (Seignur, lady w/ bad back injured during fitness evaluation at gym)
i. Two main issues to determine whether P expressly assumed the risk:
1. The action was voluntary
2. Not contrary to public policy
ii. Exculpatory Clauses might be void IF:
1. Void language: is the language of the clause clear, specific, and unambiguous?
2. Grossly unequal bargaining power
a. Is this an adhesion contract? one which she signs because she has no
choice if she wants to use the facilities?
b. Do other options exist?
c. Is it an essential service? (can P survive w/o it? Gym does not count here,
but hospitals, schools, daycare do)
3. Gross negligence, recklessness, maybe even intentional
4. Public interest factors to consider (courts consider totality of the circumstances,
no determinative factors)
a. Businesses generally thought suitable for public regulation
b. Essential services, of great necessity to the public
c. Party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member
of the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within
certain established standards
d. Bargaining power
e. As a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is
placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by
the seller or his agents
5. Legislation does a statute specifically say that the exculpatory clause is void?
iii. Exception: No assumption of risk where P is a member of a statutorily protected class
1. Where the Ds negligence consists of violation of a statute designed for the
protection of a certain class of persons, a P who is a member of that class is
deemed legally incapable of assuming the risk either expressly or by
implication.
iv. Exculpatory Clauses might not APPLY if the risk that injured P was outside the scope of
the unambiguous terms of the agreement
b. Implied (Rush, lady falls through floor of privy)
31
i. Requirements:
1. Actual knowledge of the risk (subjective standard, you need to know)
2. Appreciate the magnitude of the risk
3. Voluntarily assume the risk
ii. You cant consent if you have no other choice
c. Primary Assumption of the risk
i. Occurs when P accepts the risk before the allegedly negligent event occurs/ D had no
duty in the first place assumption of risk
1. Train example obviously you will be jostled against people in crowded train
(Blackburn says this will be analyzed under duty)
2. Baseball, or skiing example, assume the risk before the negligence has come to
pass (DUTY now)
d. Secondary Assumption of the risk
i. P assumes the risk after becoming aware of Ds negligence/ D has a duty of care
1. Reasonable (pure or strict): you reasonably assumed the risk after becoming
aware NO assumption of risk
a. POLICY: These are things that public policy wants to encourage, like a
person that runs into a burning building to save a child. That person has
NOT assumed the risk and should be allowed to recover.
2. Unreasonable (qualified): you should not reasonably have assumed (analyzed
under comparative or contributory negligence) assumption of risk
a. POLICY: things that public policy does NOT want to encourage, like
running into a burning building to save a hat. That person will not be able
to recover.
e. Court says DO AWAY W/ ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK and just use Comparative Negligence
(Blackburn, FL court eliminates Assumption of the Risk, merges into comparative negligence)
1. In comparative negligence, courts perform a case-by-case analysis of
reasonableness already, essentially they perform the same analysis that you would
in an implied assumption analysis of reasonableness
2. Some jurisdictions have moved away from it, others have kept assumption of the
risk
ii. HYPO: driving up the canyon, try to pas s on wrong side of the road, and other person
was speeding. Did you assume the risk?
1. Actual knowledge: that there could be accident, is this enough actual knowledge?
2. Ct. would usually say that there is a general assumption of risk, but not the
specific accident, and this is too general
iii. HYPO: attend a ball game, get hit by a foul ball. Assumption of risk?
1. Probably. No nets out, should be aware, generally an assumption of risk.
5. Sovereign Immunity
a. Definition
i. Privileges attach because of certain circumstances
1. Status of the defendant
2. Relationship with the P: spousal immunity, parent-child immunity, charitable
b. Generally not saying that they werent wrong or negligent, just that they are immune.
i. Common law says - Sovereign immunity immune from all suits
1. Stems from the king can do no wrong
b. FTCA:
i. Discretionary v. Ministerial
1. Discretionary Function Exception (Deuser, guy grabbing womens buttocks in
St. Louis)
i. Allows govt. employee to make decisions based on circumstances
32
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1. Respondeat Superior
a. Liability based on relationship of the parties
b. Process to look for w/ negligent torts
i. First: Employee needs to be negligent (employer does not need to be negligent)
ii. Is the person an employee or an independent contractor? (Murrell, paper delivery and
broken glass)
1. Independent Contractor: RS does not apply
a. Supervision/ control
b. Extent of control the master is authorized to exercise over details of work
(most important)
c. Whether actor is engaged in distinct business or operation (different than
business)
d. Whether the kind of work actor is doing is customarily performed with
employers supervision
e. Who supplies the tools and workplace
f. Length of time of employment (longer indicates more employee)
g. How paid
h. Whether the task is part of the employers business
i. Parties own beliefs about the nature of the relationship
2. Employee: RS does apply
a. One who follows procedure
3. Exceptions to non-liability for IC: (in Restatement of Agency)
37
3. If they authorized or ratified the act, were reckless in employing or retaining the
employee, or the agent was in a managerial capacity and acting w/in the scope of
his employment
v. Employer CANNOT insulate himself by imposing strict rules or safety training
1. HYPO: employee of a gun seller, who was told to never sell to minors, did so.
Employer liable?
a. Yes. Employer cannot insulate himself with rules or instruction. Still
within the scope of employment.
2. HYPO: employee gets mad during shift, and hits someone. Employer liable?
c. Policy for Respondeat Superior
i. Control: A business should absorb the costs its undertakings impose on another
(Bussard, woman getting sick)
ii. Type of strict liability
iii. Employers need incentive to avoid harmpresumption of control over their employees
1. Rationale
a. Belief that there is something that the employer could have done better,
and this is hard to discover.
iv. Enterprise liability theory
1. Costs of doing business on the business
2. Protection for employees
3. Protection for victims (can recover more $, deeper pockets)
a. Products reflect the loss of society: employer buys insurance, then the
company raises prices, this is the real societal cost of making the product
b. Put costs on a person who could better spread the loss
v. Indemnification: employer can go after employee afterwards
d. Punitive Damages?
i. Limited on employers
ii. Can recover punitive damages only if the employer authorized or ratified (praised) the act
iii. Malice, recklessness, fraud indicating that the employer is more involved
e. HYPO: lawyer talking on the phone and got in an accident
i. Scope of employment? Dont separate personal and business.
STRICT LIABILITY
1. Generally
a. Liability w/o fault even w/o fault you still have to pay
b. Does not mean Absolute Liability - There are still numerous defenses
c. Strict liability takes care of DB still must prove CH
d. Court order D to pay damages, although he neither negligently nor intentionally acted
e. Policy Problems:
i. Does it really work?
1. If even if you spend money to safeguard but something bad happens and you are
strictly liable, why would you ever spend money to safeguard?
f. Big Issue is not take care but rather weigh how much you want to participate
2. Two Areas
a. Animals
i. Trespassing Animals
1. Owner of animal likely to roam and do damage is strictly liable for trespass
(cows)
ii. Wild Animals
1. Strict liability
2. Just because it is kept as a pet does not mean it is domesticated (ferrets)
39
c. Rationale
i. Economic efficiency
1. When an activity might injure others, we want to encourage the right amount of
it
a. This is for strict liability, not negligence.
b. Presumption that people can make an accurate assessment of due care
i. Problem with negligence scheme: underinvestment, discount
harm percentage --usually only think about themselves, not
societal harm
ii. Problem with SL: tend to take precautions that arent rational,
since the notion of getting sued is really great, take inefficient
precautions
1. Fairness, reciprocity of risk, overdeterrance of conduct,
etc.
2. Spread losses
3. People will only engage in the right or economically efficient amount of the
activity
a. Incentive System
i. Posners opinion (American Cyanide): want to give incentives to
be safe in building use the Learned Hand theory B>PL standard in
determining
1. Want the right standard of care
2. Might take too many precautions from an efficiency
standard
b. Strict liability and negligent standards of care are the same.
i. Does NOT affect the activity levelwho do we distribute the
harm to ?
1. Enterprise liability: residual costslook at if he should
continue in the activity
ii. BUT does not take into account activity, with strict liability, the
farmer has an incentive to think about his activity level (or where
he is engaging in the activity) doesnt enter into negligence
analysis.
c. 2 axis:
i. How carefully we engage in an activity, and how often we engage
in the act
4. FARMER HYPO:
a. Farmer and a neighbor, raises 10 cattle, 10 escapes per year and 1000
dollars of damage. Could build a fence for 7500 dollars. If you build, then
only 2 cattle escape per year. (PL is the avoided loss)
i. Efficient to build fence?
1. BPL analysis: expected loss per year would be 10,000 and
the fence precaution would be 9500would have avoided
8,000 of loss.
2. 15,000 dollar fence? Should he build it? NO!
a. Want to spend money on precautions so long as one
dollar avoids one dollar of loss (marginal costs)
b. 7500 dollars extra would be used to build the 15000
fence, and it gets you 2,000 dollars worth of
avoidance of harm.
41
i. One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to consumers
or user is subject to liability of physical harm IF:
1. engaged in the business of selling that product
2. reaches consumer w/o substantial change in the condition in which it was sold
ii. No privity of contract is necessary
2. Warranties
a. Express
i. Affirmation of fact about a product (must be specific)no longer have to be in privity of
contract
1. Initial limitations
a. Privity of K
b. Reliance
c. Specificitycant be a vague warranty
ii. Strict liability (relatively) NOT negligence analysis
1. Even if there was no way to live up to representation, relatively strict liability
that grows out of contractual remedies (P is getting the best of both worlds) (Ford
Motor, unbreakable windshield is broken)
2. In terms of the actual building of the windshield, hard to show that they were
negligent
iii. Specific warranty
1. Promise of safety must be a specific one in order to constitute a warranty.
2. Something labeled safe is a warrantyskin lotion, wheels
iv. Rationale for No Privity of Contract:
1. Dont want to put manufacturers in a position where they make a representation,
but cant be sued because of a lack of privity of contract.
v. Reliance
1. If a person relied on a statement, the manufacturer is subject to liability for
physical harm to a consumer even if it is not made fraudulently and the consumer
has no privity of contract.
a. HYPO: there are no insurance brochures indicating a warranty?
i. Baxter Rule: have to have relied and seen warranty, otherwise no
recovery
ii. Modern trend: looking at the objective side of test, if a reasonable
person would rely on itBaxter rule is limited today in terms of
reliance.
b. HYPO: saves your life once, a warranty. Specific enough for a
warranty?
i. Probably not
b. Implied
i. Warranty of Merchantability
1. Fit for intended use, that you are buying what you think it is, and will do what it
says it will
2. Hennigson, driving a car and something went wrong with the wheel, got badly
injured
a. Solution: the old cases were never about contract, but always grounded in
strict liability and tortsno notice, privity
ii. Judge Traynors Approach: strict liability, because the costs of the injuries should be
absorbed by manufacturerthis is the major approach today
1. Manufacturer gets profit
2. Real societal costs
iii. Rationale for manufacturer strict liability
43
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3. Defenses
a. Comparative negligence
i. Recovery limited or possibly barred if comparatively negligent even in strict products
liability (Daly, drunk driver car accident defective door)
ii. Strict liability is not absolute liability
1. Manufacturer not responsible for injury that results from an unforeseeable use of
its product
iii. Manufacturer still held strictly liable for the portion of the damage not due to P
b. Assumption of the risk
i. Does not necessarily bar recovery
c. Misuse
i. Not a bar to recovery if it was foreseeable misuse and the product was defective (Ford
Motor Co. v. Matthew, starting tractor in gear while standing was foreseeable)
SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENTS:
Palsgraf, Cardozo opinion (unforeseeable plaintiffs)
Pure economic loss
Duty of Carenegligent infliction of emotional distress
Privity of Contract (early on in products liability)
THEORIES OF JUSTICE
1. Consequentialism:
a. Evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an act based on its consequenceswhether it further the
good, net societal utility
b. Utilitarianism:
i. basically the idea that acts that further net societal activity are moral, those that decrease
net societal utility are wrong.
ii. Utility=pleasure, non-utility=pain
iii. Produce the most happiness for the most amount of people. (law and economic theory, to
maximize net wealth)
1. Critique:
a. Tyranny by the majority (can justify all sort of things, slavery)
b. Sacrifice individual rights for net societal benefits
2. Deontological moral duty
a. Theories that base rightness and wrongness based on other things than the consequences
i. Kant: lie is always wrongmoral duty not to lie, consequences are not determinative
3. Tort law for the Individual GoodArticle
a. Veil of ignorance
i. Not knowing what is going to happen to you in life
1. John Rawlsdeontological: how to ground moral theorynotions of social
contract
ii. What would we have agreed to under the veil of ignorance?
44
1. Liberty: people would agree that they would have the most extensive freedom
consistent with like liberty with other people
b. Article Assumes: what a person would do behind a veil of ignorance would be to maximize own
well-being
i. Best you can do is maximize average well-being by:
1. Optimal precautions: that would eliminate unreasonable risk (cost incurring
greater than the cost to avoid) end in a consequentialist theory
a. Legal system should pour resources into precautions against reasonable
risks
2. Optimal Insurance: small fixed costs are not worth as much as the possibility of
this large loss that would cut deeply
3. Redistribution
ii. But even once you define these goals, ask whether tort law would do this better than a
legislative agency, etc., some other institution,
iii. Tort law should NOT value:
1. Day in court: day of scarce resources should prefer money over dignitary day in
court idea.
2. Corrective justice: doesnt tell us what it means to have wrongfully injured
someone else
a. Ex-ante , people shouldnt prefer these things
b. Maybe discourages punitive damages?
45