tort class notes 2, 03

tort class notes 2, 03 - Missed 2/1 Implied assumption of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Missed 2/1 Implied assumption of the risk Can be treated in other ways ( mix of other theories) I go to basball stadium, in 7 th iinning get hit by foul ball. Claim negligent. Retort – you assumed the risk. Lose under traditional view of assumption of the risk. Lets say went with 6 month own child, hit by ball. Baby sues yankiees. Prob with saying assumption of the risk? Maybe parat can consent for ssuming risk ( like can consent to barin surgery for kid. Assuming can assume for kid-what can argue? What was the negligence- put netting? Have large custom, no one puts netting. So 3 ways to lose 1) assume of risk 2) maybe not assume the risk but a) no duty to screen b) no breach case – reasonable stadium owners no do that so didn’t breach duty. So baby lose because basic cause of action isn’t there. Facts: guide beam with hands, hit wires with electricity, get shovked. Second restatement is law in virgin island. Tread section 343a as assumption of risk, although it’s a duty law. Did he know about danger?
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/05/2008 for the course LAW 1 taught by Professor Hollister during the Fall '04 term at Fordham.

Page1 / 3

tort class notes 2, 03 - Missed 2/1 Implied assumption of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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