Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Torts
Negligence Part 2
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Causation: Cause in Fact - 3rd Res. | 3rd Res: Tortious conduct must be a factual cause of physical harm for liability to be imposed. Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - "But For" Test - Def. | But for D's conduct, would the harm have occurred? |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - "But For" Test - Expert Testimony | Frye Test: Expert testimony is admissible only when "generally accepted" as reliable by the scientific community Daubert Rule: Rejects Frye Test; have to show the "fit" between evidence presented and the charge to be proven |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - "But For" Test - Other Evidences | When you can't rule out other causes 1) D's neg increased chances of injury 2) Injury actually occurred Lost Chance Doctrine: P can maintain an action when the D's neg. reduced his chances of survival |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - Joint and Several Liability - Def. and Rule | Def: Situations where injury results form more than one neg act and if you remove just one of them, accident wouldn't have occurred Rule: As long as D's act is a "but for" cause of the injury, he may be held liable |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - Joint and Several Liability - Damages | Each joint tortfeasor is fully responsible for undivided consequences of the injury caused by his actions If we can only find one tortfeasor - he is liable for 100% of damages If we can find multiple tortfeasors - damages apportioned appropriately |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - Special Circumstances - Multiple Ds Part 1 | 1) Each of whom could have caused injury on their own "Substantial Factor" Test: Was D's neg a substantial factor contributing to injury? Rationale: Unfair to allow each D to claim it was other D's fault |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - Special Circumstances - Multiple Ds Part 2 | 2) Each of whom commit similar acts, one of which caused injury but it cannot be determined which act was the "but for" cause "Alternative Liability" Test: Burden to prove causation shifts to the D (has to prove that he is not the "but for" cause) |
| Causation: Cause in Fact - Special Circumstances - Market Share Liability | Sindell Test: Hold the entire industry liable Elements: 1) Absence or paucity of records (less likely today) 2) Fungible (identical) harmful component 3) No fault of victim Guns, asbestos, and blood products have failed |
| Causation: Proximate Cause - Approaches | Forward-Looking Approach: Whether the chain of events was sufficiently foreseeable/probable for D to be held liable for the ultimate cause Directness Approach: Whether any act of P, a 3rd party, or any natural event has severed the causal connection |
| Causation: Proximate Cause - Principles of Foreseeability | 1) If injury P suffers is not the type of harm expected from D's act, P can't recover 2) If it is a foreseeable injury, D is liable to the full extent of the injury 3) D is liable for foreseeable consequences even if they occur in an unforeseeable way |
| Causation: Proximate Cause - Superseding/Intervening Acts | Def: Acts that sever causal connection Natural Disasters Criminal Activity: That D didn't know his act would cause Rescues: D liable for P and P's rescuer when: Ds neg caused the peril or app of such Peril or app was imminent Rescuer acted reasonabl |
| Causation: Proximate Cause - Change of Harms Tests - Polemis | As long as there is a direct relationship between act and harm, P can recover based on Ds neg Superseding acts sever causation But, foreseeability is irrelevant |
| Causation: Proximate Cause - Change of Harms Tests - Wagon Mound | The harm to P must have been reasonably foreseeable by D Significant change of harm severs the chain of causation |
| Causation: Proximate Cause - Unforeseeable Plaintiff Tests (Palsgraf) | Cardozo: D is liable to all Ps within reasonably foreseeable zone of harm. If P is not in zone, he can't recover Andrews: D is liable to anyone actually injured due to the neg act. As long as there is a direct relationship, P can recover |
| Affirmative Duties: Duty to Rescue | Unless you are the cause of P's injury, no duty to rescue P Criticized by feminists Posner says this is inefficient Do have a dut to warn if you create a risk of harm |
| Affirmative Duties: Owners & Occupiers - Tresspassers | Trespassers: No duty, UNLESS (only extends to artificial conditions likely to cause death or SBI) 1) Attractive Nuisance (Children) 2) Anticipated or Discovered Trespassers - Duty to warn of hidden, but not overt, danger |
| Affirmative Duties: Owners & Occupiers - Licensees | Social guest; enters with D's permission Duty to warn of discovered hidden dangers |
| Affirmative Duties: Owners & Occupiers - Invitees | Public or business invitee Duty to warn and take reasonable measures to make safe |
| Affirmative Duties: Gratuitous Undertakings | Bailments - moving toward a standard of reasonable care |
| Privileges | Priest-worshipper Attorney-client Exceptions: withholding info about a crime, putting lying client on stand Husband-wife Doctor-patient Tarasoff: Psych-patient priv broken if essential to avert a danger to others Journalist-informant: Shield laws |
| Respondeat Superior | An employer is liable for whatever an employee does within the scope of his employment (not if it is a frolic or detour) |
| Creating a Danger: Promotional Liability | Weirum Rule: D is liable if it was foreseeable that D's actions would lead to the third party's illegal actions (ex. using advertising to create scarcity, which creates panic) |
| Creating a Danger: Dram Shop Liability | Liability of those who were alcohol to others P must prove neg by the dram shop Corp parties and social hosts usually not held liable (but could still be neg) |
Created by:
corey.combs
Popular Law sets