Tort_II - Outline Tort II MacPherson very important case...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Outline Tort II - MacPherson very important case show development why someone should be or not be responsible for act. - Issue: o Whether the D owned a duty of care and vigilance to anyone but the immediate purchaser? - Analysis: o If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then irrespective of K, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. o There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable. - The more probable the danger the greater need for caution, measure by foreseeablity of how much they can get hurt. o Now you can sue manufacturer Class 1: Owners & Occupiers of Land: - 1. Who are you on the land? - 2. How do you determine & classify? - 3. What are the differences? - 4. What’s the duty owed? - Look for foreseeability in negligence whether its foreseeable that this act would occur. In CA we follow Judge Cordoza’s view from Palsgraf case say plntff within the zone of danger, not Andrew’s view that says all pp in zone. Attractive Nuisance: 4 RULES: - 1. Owner knows or (should) of danger on land - 2. Owner knows (or should) children may be present - 3. Child’s inability to appreciate risk - 4. Utility v. Risk, is it worth taking care of the issue as opposed to the risk involved. Modern Law: Rownland v. Christian - Tresspassor still has potential standing for a negligence claim against a negligence owner or occupier. - Negligence – what would average reasonable person do in same or similar cases. - Duty in state CA stores need to do sweep sheet switch burden who need defend themselves and who prosecute claim. - Need to know when someone license and gets hurt.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
- People defend themselves say we not know of dangerous condition not there long enough. - So plntff need to prove yes that was there long enough and caused a dangerous condition. - C/L says no duty to tresspasor if fall on banana in store but modern law he has good idea Class 3: Duty of Care: - Negligence: o 1. Need Duty, is there breach of duty? o 2. Causation – if you caused damages, then yes then go to #3. o 3. I do breach duty but no damages so no case - Law schools to get me pass the bar, and think like an attorney. - GET PAST THE BAR. - Courts have all these rules but it doesn’t matter if I don’t pass the bar. - Duty of Care – general rule – citizen not have duty to save person in need. - Common Carrier - Wife of man who raped neighbor’s daughter’s: - Court says to attorney let me give you guide lines to determine whether there is a duty or not. To go to trial. -
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.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 63

Tort_II - Outline Tort II MacPherson very important case...

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