October 31 Case and Notes

October 31 Case and Notes - October 31, 2008 Chapter 6...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
October 31, 2008 Chapter 6 Proximate or Legal Cause Review: Variety of RIL, you have a sit where the thing speaks for itself, speaks to neg. Problem: we have no exclusive control. What do we do? All of the people could have done it are joined together in the cause of action. If every possible D did it or knows who did it, shift the burden, and goes to the D to show that they didn’t do it or that someone else in fact did it. Think about the 9 band mothers. No liability and no cause of action. What is the effect of RIL? That it gives P a permissible inference of neg. D makes a motion to dismiss, it must be denied RIL, it fits under breach, what did this D do? Causation: Cause in fact and proximate cause, go through both analysis. CIF: concurrent cases, What you do, take the breach (difference b/t what D should have done) If that difference had not been there, would there have been damages? Causation must be proven by the P and it must be shown that it is more likely then not that the neg has occurred. You have to show the probability that the breach is connected to the damages. D neg failed to assist P in a chance of recover, what do we do? 5 results Concurrent Causes: Two parties at fault: hold them both liable for all of the damages One party at fault and another cause and the two come together (sometimes fires): whether the neg set fire is a substantial factor in bringing about the damages. Look for something bad that is happening but doesn’t cause the death… it will trick you. Two neg, but we don’t know which neg did it, two parties of similar neg: shift the burden of proof to D to show causation, with the understanding that we can hold them both liable, jointly and severable. Saturday: Premisiss liability: Duty issue When D perceives the possibility of danger from their conduct, there is duty. Some other public policy that says there should not be a duty. Property law says it is your place and no one has the right to come up, but tort says there is an injury so now we have a clash. Misfeasance: when you do something, you must reasonably do it in a legal manner Nonfeasance: when you don’t do something and you reasonable should have, the law tends to not like to impose a duty for not doing anything 3 different sit of landowner liability: Harm which occurs that generates on the land which harms someone off the land o Artificial of prop o Natural conditions of prop: Nonfeasance issue, overwhelming obligation, no duty even when harm is foreseeable o Exception: sometimes liability for trees, especially when they are along the public road. Well what do you want me to do? Can appear healthy from the outside Liability of people that come up on the property Liability of landowner to tenant
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Proximate Cause: A public policy limitation… how long the damages can run? Proximate being a word meaning nearby. It is of public policy.
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.

Page1 / 10

October 31 Case and Notes - October 31, 2008 Chapter 6...

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