TortsIWeek6 - (b) Premises liability, note 3, p 120 (c) Gun...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TORTS I WEEK SIX FALL 2007 PROFESSOR GHOSH I. This week we finish our discussion of the duty element by looking at two policy related aspects of the duty requirement, the first involving social guests; the second, municipalities. A. McGuiggan, p 114, declined to extend liability to hosts for the torts of intoxicated social guests. Compare the analysis of the majority, that emphasizes the knowledge and foreeseeability of the defendants, with that of the concurrence that emphasizes the broader policy implications of holding a social host liable. 1. Is it better to decide cases like this in the fact specific manner of the majority or in the more policy focused manner of the concurrence? See note 1 to provide some more context of how the social host issue arose. Given this context, which approach seems more sensible or practical? 2. Compare the analysis in McGuiggan with the issue of duty in other situations: (a) Commercial Establishments, note 2, p 120
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: (b) Premises liability, note 3, p 120 (c) Gun litigation, note 4, p 120 B. Strauss, p 121, finds against liability for a public utility for failure to provide service. Compare the majority and the dissents analysis. In assessing which side has the better argument consider the following notes: 1. Note 2: traditional treatment of utilities 2. Note 3: unusual factual background to the case 3. Note 6: application of Strauss to gun litigation C. Assessing and reviewing the role of the duty element 1. Strauss and privity of contract: does lack of privity cut off liability when municipal service is at issue? 2. Strauss and the no duty to rescue rule: is this a case where the defendant simply failed to act and there was no exception to the rule? 3. Strauss and social policy: assign the duty to the party who can best avoid the harm. See note 7, p 129...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/15/2009 for the course LAW 577 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at University of Arizona- Tucson.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online