Jordan's Outline - Torts Krimmel Negligence Duty (legally...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Torts Krimmel Negligence Duty (legally recognized relationship between ∆ & ∏ that obligates ∆ to act or refrain from acting in a certain manner toward ∏) ¬ Duty o Legally recognized relationship between ∆ & ∏ that obligates ∆ to act or refrain from acting in a certain manner toward ∏ o One engaged in risk-creating conduct generally owes a duty to avoid causing foreseeable personal injuries to foreseeable ∏s o Factors for finding a relationship ( Rowland v. Christian ) : Foreseeability of the harm to ∏ : Degree of certainty that ∏ suffered injury : : Moral blame attached to ∆’s conduct : Policy of preventing future harm : Burden to ∆ and consequences to community of imposing a duty to exercise care w/ resulting liability for breach : Availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved ¬ Misfeasance o Victim is positively worse off as a result of the wrongful act o Negligent omission : Failing to do something that a reasonable person would do while engaged in other activity (i.e. not paying attention while driving) ¬ Nonfeasance (where ∏’s harm is caused by ∆’s failure to intervene) o Definitions : Passive inaction : Failure to take positive steps to benefit others : Protect them from harm not created by any wrongful act of ∆ o General rule : A person does NOT have a duty to aid another Embodiment of the value placed on individualism in America No duty to move out of the way of the fire truck o Affirmative Duties : Rescue (5 situations where ∆ has duty to rescue) ∆’s tortious behavior causes ∏’s peril o ∏ can recover b/c ∆ didn’t let ∏ use his phone when ∏’s friend was in need of 911 : ∆’s acts were tortious b/c of violative of necessity Cannot inhibit someone from doing something they can do on their own ∆’s non-tortious behavior gives rise to ∏’s peril o CL: ∆ must be at fault o ∆ has the duty to rescue if that person’s fault-free conduct gives rise to the need to rescue : ∆ is NOT liable letting ∏ drown after cajoling him to jump in the water ( Yania v. Bigan ) : Not forcibly removing child from factory could count Special relationships w/ person in peril o Companions on a social venture had an implicit understanding that one would come to the aid of the other, if necessary Statutory Duty to Rescue
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Torts Krimmel o Contract or Law : Lifeguard or babysitter has duty to rescue : Does NOT apply to gratuitous promises for aid or service ( Thorne v. Deas promise to procure insurance for ship) : Driver involved in accident A stalls, B brakes and C hits B—A in accident Gratuitously Undertaking Rescue o CL: cannot leave victim in worse condition o Modern: Once ∆ begins to intervene he had an obligation to follow thru : ∆ permitted ∏ to make a phone call thus there was an undertaking ( O’Neill v. Montefiore Hsp)
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 09/21/2009 for the course LAW All taught by Professor All during the Fall '09 term at University of the West.

Page1 / 35

Jordan's Outline - Torts Krimmel Negligence Duty (legally...

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