Often liable for victims even if you didnt know they had an underlying disease

Often liable for victims even if you didnt know they

This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 8 pages.

Often liable for victims even if you didn’t know they had an underlying disease Independent Intervening Cause 3rd party disrupting causal connection b/t P/D Ex. Sue driving, Joe blocked intersection b/c he ran stop sign; she turns around and hits tree → Joe not liable b/c tree falling is an independent, intervening cause Brown v. Philly College of Osteopathic Medicine False detection that the Brown’s baby had syphilis Blamed father, who admitted to affair Led to arguments and physical abuse → filed suit against PCOM for this Todd, Justice: o Proximate cause is “problem of law” → court must investigate o Investigation shows bigger cause was affair o Lapse of time: events occured 2 months after finding out syphilis results o Reversed, judgment vacated & remanded for entry of judgment notwithstanding verdict in favor of Appellant (Element 4) Injury P must prove injury Factors for “Bystander recovery” (parent who sees child killed) 1. P located near scene of accident
Image of page 2
2. Emotional shock resulted from contemporaneous perception of accident, as opposed to hearing about it later 3. Whether P & victim closely related Punitive damages (exemplary damages): monetary damages above amount necessary to compensate injuries; not recoverable in mere negligence cases Defenses D may avert recovery by est. certain defenses Comparative Fault Contributory negligence: harsh; P guilty of carelessness barred from recovery altogether (even if P is 1% at fault) “Pure” Comparative negligence: P recovers % of damages caused by P, even if P’s negligence > D’s negligence “Modified” Comparative negligence (MOST used today): Disallows P from recovery if own negligence > 50% to harm No-Fault Systems Workers’ compensation system: allows injured employees to recover job injuries “No-fault” automobile statutes: for minor injuries, recover from own insurance company Intentional Torts Assault & Battery Battery: rude contact w another person Assault: creates apprehension of imminent battery Elements To establish battery & assault, P must prove: 1) D’s affirmative conduct 2) intent 3) P’s injury Affirmative Conduct A&B committed if harming someone is deliberate and not caused by another event Intent o intent to create offensive contact to P’s body or apprehension of it in P o Doctrine of transferred intent: Sam shoots Bill, but Bill ducks and it hits Carlos→ Carlos has A&B even if he’s Sam’s best friend and Sam didn’t mean to Injury o injury sustained must be in nature of apprehension of imminent bodily contact o Insufficient: future threats, threats that victim doesn’t know until much later o Sufficient for assault: threats that P finds offensive even though most persons wouldn’t o Sufficient for battery: injury must be offensive contact Cole v. State of Louisiana Dept of Public Safety and Corrections Cole suffered injuries due to work exercise that went too far, sued for battery Trial court in favor of Cole; court of appeal affirmed
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 8 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Baker
  • intent,  Burke v

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture