BERNSTEIN Tort Final Outline.docx - Torts Outline \u2013 Bernstein Fall 2019 I Negligence Negligence Overview Negligence Prima Facie Case 1 Injury 2

BERNSTEIN Tort Final Outline.docx - Torts Outline u2013...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 22 pages.

Torts Outline – Bernstein Fall 2019 I. Negligence Negligence Overview Negligence Prima Facie Case: 1) Injury 2) Duty (obligation to act with reasonable care) – law for judge 3) Breach (did D deviate from the ideal) – fact for jury 4) Causation (without the act, the injury would not have occurred) – fact for jury a. Actual b. Proximate Plaintiff has to prove all four elements to recover, the defendant only has to refute one. Duty Negligence requires that the actor owe the victim a duty to follow a particular standard of care . If a duty arises, the actor must behave according to the applicable standard of care or risk negligence liability. The standard of care is not the same in every situation in which a duty exists. Duty typically requires: 1) Relationship between parties 2) Reasonable foreseeability of harm 3) Public policy interests Heaven v. Pender – Affirmative duty! Physical harm + Misfeasance: when your activity poses a foreseeable risk of physically injuring a person, you have a duty of reasonable care MacPherson v. Buick: No privity required; as long as injury foreseeable/probable danger, then duty. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co.: Unforeseeable π’s claim arises based on the negligence of ∆ w/ respect to different π. Cardozo: negligence is a term that imports relation Andrew Dissents: He only needs 1) Injury, 2) Unreasonable conduct, 3) Actual Cause. Duty & Exceptions Most of the time, we have a duty of reasonable care owed to foreseeable victims ( Heaven v. Pender ), except: 1) Rescue ( Osterlind v. Hill ) 2) Premises Liability ( Rowland Factors) 3) Economic Loss ( Aikens v. DeBow ) 4) Policy ( Strauss v. Belle ) 5) Emotional Distress 1
Image of page 1
Torts Outline – Bernstein Fall 2019 1. Affirmative Duties to Rescue: The basic rule is there is no duty to rescue. Osterlind v. Hill (canoe) o Policy rationale: infringement on individual liberties by forcing unwilling bystanders to act; difficult to write obligations. Nonfeasance: failure to act Even if a rescue is easy, it’s not required Exceptions to No Duty to Rescue: duty to make reasonable efforts to rescue a) Imminent peril caused by D (Weakest) i. Created risk or harm (even non-negligently), duty to exercise reasonable care to assist. ii. Second Injury Rule, may be liable for harmed persons medical complications. iii. When an actor’s prior conduct, even though not tortious, creates a continuing risk of physical harm of a type characteristic of the conduct, the actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent or minimize the harm b) Voluntary Undertaking If an actor voluntarily undertakes a rescue, a duty to follow through is established and the actor must exercise reasonable care. i. Overt, explicit statement or gesture ii. Obligated to exercise reasonable care in undertaking. c) Special Relationship (between D and P) i. Some categories recognize duty for reasonable care, including to rescue: a. The Carrier/Passenger (Common Carrier) b. The Innkeeper-Guest c. Landowner-Entrant/Invitee d. Custodian-Ward e. Employer-Employee… f. Duty of care for friends on a social/joint venture to protect one another.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 22 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture