This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: e
q A unforeseeable, iintervening act that
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,
however, Defendant may be liable for
Plaintiff’s injuries. Contributory Negligence 
q Under common law, if Plaintiff in
any way caused his injury, he was
barred from recovery.
barred q Most states have replaced
contributory negligence with the
doctrine of comparative negligence. Last Clear Chance
• If ∆ had last clear chance to avoid
injury to P but does not take that
opportunity, P’s contributory
negligence will not bar his recovery.
negligence • Does not apply in comparative
negligence Comparative Negligence
q In determining liability, the amount
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
50% liable, she recovers nothing in
“mixed” Special Negligence Doctrines
Res Ipsa Loquitur.
1. Incident is type which ordinarily does not
occur in absence of negligence
2. ∆ was in /control of instrumentality that
3. Event was not due to
action/contribution by P.
action/contribution Special Negligence Doctrines
Negligence Per Se
Defendant violates statute that causes
injury to Plaintiff:
1. Statute sets standard of care.
2. Plaintiff is member of class intended
to be protected by statute.
3. Statute designed to prevent Plaintiff’s
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
Rylands v. Fletcher (1868 England).
Rylands q Defendant’s liability for strict liability is
without regard to: Fault, Foreseeability,
Standard of Care or Causation.
Standard q Liability is based on abnormally
dangerous activities. Abnormally
Defendant is strictly liable for an
“abnormally dangerous activity” if:
q Activity involves serious potential
harm; q Activity involves high degree of risk
that cannot be made safe; and
that q Activity is not commonly performed in
the community or area. Other Applications of
q Wild Animals:
q Persons who keep wild animals are
strictly liable for injuries caused by the
beast. q Persons who keep domestic animals
are liable if the owner knew or should
have known that animal was
dangerous. Other Applications of
q Product Liability. Manufacturers
liable without regard to fault based
on public policy:
Consumers must be protected from
Manufacturers should be liable to any
user of the product;
Manufacturers, sellers and distributors
can bear the costs of injuries.
View Full Document
- Summer '08