bb.outline.tortsclassnotes

Bb.outline.tortsclas - Torts Corresponding Reading Assignment(It will take 2 days to cover this material Text 218 244 248 top of 249 250 251 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts Corresponding Reading Assignment (It will take 2 days to cover this material): Text: 218 – 244; 248 – top of 249; 250 - 251 1. Introduction a. “Tort”: wrong b. Purpose of tort law: provide remedies for those who have suffered a loss or injury because another was wrongfully violated their protected interest c. Two types of torts i. Unintentional(negligence) ii. Intentional 2. Unintentional Torts—Negligence a. Definition: occurs when someone unintentionally causes harm to another b. Elements required i. A duty of care exists ii. There was a breach of the duty of care iii. Plaintiff suffered injury iv. Causation; injury caused by the breach c. Duty (of care) i. To whom do you have a duty: to any person who could, with reasonably foreseeability , be injured by your actions ii. Reasonably foreseeability is often difficult to determine 1. Otis Engineering Corp v. Clark (page 220) a. Employer let drunk employee go home and the employee killed 2 people in car accident b. Employer breached duty of care because he didn’t stop him from driving drunk iii. Landowner’s Duty – Majority view-view according to most states 1. Trespasser - landowner liable only for own intentional torts 2. Licensee - landowner liable fot intentional torts + “hidden dangers” 3. Invitee - landowner liable for intentional torts + “hidden dangers” + negligence d. Breach of Duty – reasonable person standard: How would a reasonable person have acted in that situation? i. Negligence per se – your breach of duty indicates negligence no matter how reasonably you acted 1. speeding and causing an accident loose negligence case e. Proximate Cause i. General Rule: there must be “ proximate cause” 1. Must be a strong connection between act and the injury must be a foreseeable result of the breach 2. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co . (page 224)
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
ii. Independent Intervening Cause - unforeseeable, unrelated event that negates the causation requirements 1. Brown v. Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine (p. 225) f. (Plaintiff’s) Injury – must show that you actually suffered harm i. Usually cannot recover punitive damages ii. Punitive damages - money get above and beyond what you’re offered 3. Defenses to Negligence a. Comparative Fault i. Contributory Negligence
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 04/26/2009 for the course LEB 323 taught by Professor Baker during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 5

Bb.outline.tortsclas - Torts Corresponding Reading Assignment(It will take 2 days to cover this material Text 218 244 248 top of 249 250 251 1

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