Torts- Burkett- Fall 2006- Grade 98

Torts- Burkett- Fall 2006- Grade 98 - TORTS OUTLINE yeah...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TORTS OUTLINE, yeah baby! I. Policies/Objectives of Tort Liability/System— a. Policies: resolve controversies between two people i. Compensating peeps been hurt/injured/wronged ii. Cost-benefit analysis of social policies iii. Preserving personal choice b. Objectives: i. Be equitable to those who bear burden, among beneficiaries, receive benefits and cost bearers ii. Contribute to wise allocation of human and economic resources iii. Compensate promptly iv. Be reliable v. Predictability vi. Distribute losses rather than leave them on single individuals vii. Be efficient viii. Deter risky conduct ix. Minimize fraud c. Fault based liability— i. Unintended injury makes it difficult to determine which theory should be applied ii. Strict liability vs. Negligence: 1. Hammontree v. Jenner a. Jenner (Δ) seized up during driving but he knew that he had seizures but was on treatment by his doctors and was doing all he could to prevent it but still ran in to Hammontree’s (Π) store messing her and the store up b. ISSUE: SL for illness= unconscious driver? i. NOPE!, regular negligence standard bc its an auto accident, drivers share roads, so fault allocation of damages is sufficient II. VICARIOUS LIABILITY— a. Scope of Employment: i. An employer is liable for an employee’s torts committed when the employee is acting w/in the scope of the employment. ii. w/in the scope= so closely connected with what servant is employed 2 do and methods even though quite improper that are carrying out the objectives of employment are ok and still make the employee liable iii. FACTORS to determine whether shit was within the scope (WTS) i. Employee’s conduct must be general kind he was hired to do, not personal shit ii. Conduct occurs substantially w/in hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of employment 1
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
iii. Conduct at least partially motivated by purpose of serving employer’s interest iv. Subordinate Authority— Christensen v. Swensen et al. 1. Swensen was security Guard for Burns and she drove off the lot for lunch, like peeps do a lot, during the allotted 10- 15 mins that she ahd and she ran into Christensen’s motorcycle. Π sued Δ and Burns a. HOLDING— i. the SC court said that Burns was liable bc: ii. Maybe Burns ‘tacitly sactioned’ employees to get lunch from there bc they went there a lot b. Apparent Authority Roessler v. Novak i. Π sued hospital that hired a radiology group to work for them and the radiologist fucked up but Δ said he was an independent K-or 1. HOLDING— a. A hospital is vicariously liable for its independent K-or if he acts with apparent authority of the hospital c. Ostensible Agency Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Sampson i. OA Factors: The principal by its conduct— 1. Caused Π to reasonable believe agent was employee of principal 2. Π justifiably relied on appearance on agency ii. Π bitten by spider ER w/ Dr. Zakula; Π say Δ’s treatment was negligent and led to Π w/ permanent injuries. Signs posted say
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 / 27

Torts- Burkett- Fall 2006- Grade 98 - TORTS OUTLINE yeah...

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