BowmanTortsOutline

BowmanTortsOutline - Tort Exam Answer Structure 1. What...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Tort Exam Answer Structure 1. What torts may have been committed? 2. Who parties are for each tort? a. Discuss prima facie case for each tort (separately) i. If P has not satisfied the case for each tort, then he loses. ii. If P has satisfied the case then you move on. b. Defenses – Are there any good affirmative defenses? i. If there are none and P has satisfied his case, then he wins. I. Introduction to Tort Liability a. Goal i. Compensate the victim – make him whole ii. Deter tortuous acts iii. Spread Losses iv. Fairness (sometimes added) – provide clear rules b. Categories i. Negligence ii. Strict Liability iii. Intentional Torts c. Hammontree v. Jenner (p. 3) (bike shop car accident) i. Epileptic has accident, P argues for SL because only D would know about the potential danger he poses to society – he takes the risk. ii. Jury verdict for D. iii. No S.L. for drivers, not like product liability, no exception for suddenly stricken (knew about epilepsy): still unforeseeable for driver d. Christensen v. Swenson (p. 18) (security guard car accident) i. Security guard lunch accident, SJ for employer. S.Ct. reverses. 1. Doctrine of Respondeat superior (vicarious liability) – 3 criteria a. Conduct is of general kind that employee is hired to perform i. So it’s not just a “personal endeavor” b. Employee’s conduct must occur substantially within hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of employment c. Employee’s conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by the purpose of serving the employer’s interests. II. The Negligence Principle a. Historical Development of Fault Liability i. Tort Law and the Economy in 19 th Century ii. Brown v. Kendall (p. 35) (dog fight) 1. dog fight; P wins – reversed a. ORDINARY CARE. No recovery to P if i. ii. D use ordinary care, P no ordinary care iii. b. Impact for industrial revolution – allow for risks of “progress” c. If D has lawful, unintentional act, w/reasonable care = no recovery for P. b. The Central Concept i. The Standard of Care 1. Adams v. Bullock (p. 40) (boy swinging wires, electrocuted) a. P wins – reversed. b. Reasonable Foreseeability is rule used. D has duty to adopt all reasonable precautions to minimize resulting perils.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Torts Outline – Prof. Cynthia Bowman Adam King Fall ‘06 i. Again, industrial revolution was key to decision. c. Cardozo 2. Braun v. Buffalo (p. 41) a. D had strung electric wires 25ft above vacant lot. b. Insulation of wires expected to last 3 years. c. 15yrs later, man dies from contact. d. Question of fact: was it reasonably foreseeable? 3. Green v. Sibley (p. 42) a. Woman stumbling over mechanic’s foot in store – not reasonably foreseeable for the mechanic. 4.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/21/2009 for the course LAW LAW 101 taught by Professor Bowman during the Spring '98 term at Cornell College.

Page1 / 46

BowmanTortsOutline - Tort Exam Answer Structure 1. What...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online