TortsIWeek4

TortsIWeek4 - TORTS I WEEK FOUR FALL 2007 PROFESSOR GHOSH...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TORTS I WEEK FOUR FALL 2007 PROFESSOR GHOSH I. The discussion last week focused on the concept of duty under the law of negligence. The specific focus was on lack of privity as a bar to the imposition of a legal duty. In the business/contract situation, the MacPherson case marked the departure of the privity limitation. How about legal duty in other situations? This week we will consider two of these situations, succinctly put: relationships based on love (or possibly just lust) and relationships based on land. II. Amatory Duties A. Mussivand, p 67, presents a readily understandable, and perhaps all too common, fact pattern. In working through this case, consider the following issues to hone your understanding of the legal analysis. 1. A duty owed from Dr. David to Dr. West: do people in a sexual, or amatory, relationship owe a legal duty to each other under the law of negligence? Would Dr. West have a claim for negligence against Dr. David under these facts? Notice that a similar question could be
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.

Page1 / 2

TortsIWeek4 - TORTS I WEEK FOUR FALL 2007 PROFESSOR GHOSH...

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