55 crews v hollenbach case 1999 1999 superseding

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: e q A unforeseeable, iintervening act that unforeseeable ntervening occurs after Defendant’s act that breaks the causal relationship between Defendant’s act and Plaintiff’s injury relieving Defendant of liability. q If the intervening act was foreseeable, If however, Defendant may be liable for Plaintiff’s injuries. Contributory Negligence [1] q Under common law, if Plaintiff in Under any way caused his injury, he was barred from recovery. barred q Most states have replaced Most contributory negligence with the doctrine of comparative negligence. Last Clear Chance • If ∆ had last clear chance to avoid If injury to P but does not take that opportunity, P’s contributory negligence will not bar his recovery. negligence • Does not apply in comparative Does negligence jurisdiction negligence Comparative Negligence q In determining liability, the amount In of damages a Plaintiff causes to herself are subtracted from the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff, and only the remainder is recoverable from the Defendant. (“Pure” system) q However, if Plaintiff is more than However, 50% liable, she recovers nothing in nothing “mixed” system. “mixed” Special Negligence Doctrines Res Ipsa Loquitur. 1. Incident is type which ordinarily does not Incident occur in absence of negligence occur 2. ∆ was in /control of instrumentality that caused harm caused 3. Event was not due to Event action/contribution by P. action/contribution Special Negligence Doctrines Negligence Per Se Negligence Per Defendant violates statute that causes Defendant injury to Plaintiff: injury 1. Statute sets standard of care. 2. Plaintiff is member of class intended 2. to be protected by statute. to 3. Statute designed to prevent Plaintiff’s 3. type of injury. type Special Negligence Statutes q “Danger Invites Rescue” Doctrine. q Good Samaritan Statutes. q Dram Shop Acts. §2: Strict Liability q Theory of strict liability started with Theory Rylands v. Fletcher (1868 England). Rylands q Defendant’s liability for strict liability is Defendant’s without regard to: Fault, Foreseeability, Standard of Care or Causation. Standard q Liability is based on abnormally Liability dangerous activities. Abnormally Dangerous Activities Defendant is strictly liable for an “abnormally dangerous activity” if: “abnormally q Activity involves serious potential Activity harm; harm; q Activity involves high degree of risk Activity that cannot be made safe; and that q Activity is not commonly performed in Activity the community or area. Other Applications of Strict Liability q Wild Animals: Wild q Persons who keep wild animals are Persons strictly liable for injuries caused by the beast. beast. q Persons who keep domestic animals Persons are liable if the owner knew or should have known that animal was dangerous. dangerous. Other Applications of Strict Liability q Product Liability. Manufacturers Manufacturers liable without regard to fault based on public policy: on    Consumers must be protected from Consumers unsafe products; unsafe Manufacturers should be liable to any Manufacturers user of the product; user Manufacturers, sellers and distributors Manufacturers, can bear the costs of injuries. can...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/17/2013 for the course BLAW 3201 taught by Professor Fry during the Summer '08 term at LSU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online