TORTS OUTLINE_cameronjames

TORTS OUTLINE_cameronjames - TORTS 10 January 2005...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: TORTS 10 January 2005 STANDARDS OF LIABILITY blameworthiness continuum |---------------------------|------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------| Absolute Liability Strict Liability Negligence intentional Tort [crim.] Not foreseeable foreseeable foreseeable Reasonably reasonably unreasonably Who has been injured? Was it as a fault of another? That you cause What subset of injuries should the responsibilitybe shifted to another? HVJ trial judges instructions to jury TORTS 11 January 2005 Vicarious liability aka respondeat superior Tort of employee is imputed to employer Dominoes hypo Guy is drinking while driving, and is drunk Gross outside the bounds ex. Lisa m. Diagram-see written notes Employer can spread blame around community, i.e. charge an extra nickel per pizza TORTS 11 January 2005 Vicarious liability aka respondeat superior Dominoes hypothesis Guy drinking while driving, drunk Gross outside the bounds of his employment Ex. Lisa M. Vicarious liability? TORTS 12 January 2005 Elements of Negligence Claim Duty+Breach+Causation+Damages=liability (absent any defenses) Tresspass- plaintiff must prove that def. intruded on bodily space - Direct Cause Indirect injury demonstrate unreasonable Collision cases become more prevailent Search for Grand Unified Theory of Torts Brown v. Kendell Trial judge gave wrong instructions to jury Said defendant must prove he had acted reasonably Shifts the burden of proof from defendant to plaintiff. Choice was to enter the dogfight Trial judge said to have higher duty of care, appellate judge says to have normal standard of care 3 reasons 1. cynical; worker application 2. less urbanization puts more people together Employee employer victim 3. trespass system/writ system collapsed Adams v. bullock TORTS 18 January 2005 Age Subcategorization [7] Age-adjusted (unless engaged in adult activity) [14] 18- Adult (RPS) --- 65 Why sue kid if kid isnt filthy rich? Why sue kid? Typically, covered under homeowners policy, for any injury-causing conduct. Cant get at parents, but can get at insurance company Kids must act as a reasonable, very young person would act. Whats up with toddlers? Calibrating RPS Heightened- Common Carriers- Dangerous instrumentalities- Superior attributes very brief.if someone has particular skills, and they fail to use, they may act unreasonable to circumstances. Quite Controversial. Once you go here, it becomes nightmarish. CORE POINT, Most courts want to keep it simple.what would a RP do in circumstances. Lessened- Physical disability?- Mental disability?- Children- Emergencies? Expected to respond less well if theres a crisis (PENN) whereas, AK says no need for more instruction.....
View Full Document

Page1 / 95

TORTS OUTLINE_cameronjames - TORTS 10 January 2005...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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