Generally there is no legal duty to come to the aid of another but once you do

Generally there is no legal duty to come to the aid

This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 27 pages.

Generally there is no legal duty to come to the aid of another, but once you do you must act with reasonable careNew Rule“Standard of duty that we now adopt for this and all other cases currently in the judicial process, is: when, because of an employee’s incapacity, an employer exercises control over the employee, the employer has a duty to take such actionas a reasonably prudent employer under the same or similar circumstances would take to prevent the employee from causing an unreasonable risk of harm to others”Duty of landowners (different levels)-Invitees-One invited by the owner or the occupier who enters for the benefit of the owner or occupier, such as a customer at a store-May sue under the ordinary rules of negligence-Licencees-One who has a right to come onto the property for self benefit, such as a salesman or a neighbor dropping in uninvited-May sue for hidden dangers they should have been warned about and intentionaltorts-Trespasser
Background image
-One who enters the land with no right to do so-May sue only for intentional tortsBreachGeneral rule= A breach occurs when the defendant fails to exercise the same care as a “reasonable person under similar circumstances” would have exercised**broke the duty you had to the personWhether or not a defendant’s conduct met the “reasonable person” standard of care should be examined: (can be fairly strict because of the jury’s tendency, to see 20-20 hindsight)-In light of the circumstances of the case-Considering the custom of others in the community or of other companies in the industry-In light of the conduct of others- when foreseeable (usually)-In light of legislatively imposed standardsCausationGeneral rule= plaintiff in a negligence action must demonstrate that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuriesTwo requirements for Causation1.Factual Causation- “but for” the defendant’s act the injuries would not have happened (oractions were a substantial factor)2.Legal Causation- reasonable foreseeability of the resulting harmBrown v P.C.O.MFactsNew baby tests positive for syphilisWife accused husband of cheating, he confesses to having done soAfter retesting, it turns out diagnosis was incorrectWife and husband end up arguing, fighting, and she shoots him using her police issued gunThey separate and she is fired for conduct unbecoming an officerCourt AnalysisEngages in a 3 part test to determine that PCOM’s negligence was not a substantial factor in bringing about the breakdown of the Brown’s marriage and thus, was not a proximate cause of the harmRejects attempts by plaintiffs to link damages to acts well beyond the point of reasonable foreseeabilityIndependent Intervening Cause***sometimes there is a third cause that can break the chain of foreseeability-A cause that emanates from a third party or source to disrupt the causal connection between the defendant’s careless act and the plaintiff’s injury-The key is foreseeability. An intervening cause that can reasonably be foreseen by the
Background image
Image of page 17

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 27 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes