Book Notes (1) - Pgs 20-22 2008-09-03 Pgs 20-22 Soldano v....

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Pgs 20-22 00:57 Pgs 20-22     Soldano v. O’Daniels : California Court of Appeals What Happened? o Villanueva pulled a gun and threatened the life of Soldano at Happy Jack’s  Saloon (Bar 1).  A patron of Happy Jack’s ran across the street to Circle  Inn, informed the bartender of the threat and asked the bartender to either  call the police or allow him to use the phone to call the police.  The  bartender refused both requests.  Villanueva shot Soldano to death. o Wrongful Death Action:     Plaintiff: Soldano’s Child Defendants: Bartender and his employer Trial Judge  dismissed  the claim in response to the defendants’ motion  for summary judgment. Plaintiff appealed     o Defendant Argues:     The request that its employee call the police is a request that it do  something.  The established rule that one who has not created peril  ordinarily does not have a duty to take affirmative action to assist an  imperiled person. The Supreme Court has identified certain factors to be considered in determining  whether a duty is owed to third persons. These factors include:     o The forseeability of harm to the plaintiff o The degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury o The closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the  injury suffered o The moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The policy of preventing future harm o The extend of the burden to the defendant o Consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with  resulting liability for breach o The availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved   Conclusion      – The bartender owed a duty to the plaintiff’s decedent to permit the  patron from Happy Jack’s to place a call to the police or to place the call himself. Supreme Court Intermediate Courts Trial Courts Lawsuits in the U.S. are most often against the 3 rd  or 4 th  “person” involved in  wrongdoing, as opposed to those directly involved/responsible. Why? If 1 st /2 nd  responsible has no money = No money from settlement If 3 rd /4 th  responsible has money = High settlement Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California What Happened? o A therapist was told by his patient that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff.  The patient murdered Tatiana Tarasoff.   Court held the patient-therapist relationship was enough to create a  duty to exercise reasonable care to protect others from the foreseeable  result of the patient’s illness. No special relationship between the defendant and the deceased.
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 04/22/2009 for the course LEB 320F taught by Professor Bredeson during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 22

Book Notes (1) - Pgs 20-22 2008-09-03 Pgs 20-22 Soldano v....

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