6 7 Outcome D is liable for damages to the dock NEGLIGENCE Omission to exercise

6 7 outcome d is liable for damages to the dock

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 37 pages.

6
Image of page 6
7 Outcome: D is liable for damages to the dock. NEGLIGENCE - Omission to exercise the care and caution that a reasonable prudent person would do, or doing something that a reasonable, prudent person wouldn’t do, under the circumstances. Traditional formula used to establish negligence: 1. Duty - requires the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct, for the protection of others against unreasonable risk. A duty exists when one person is placed in relation to another in such a way that it is reasonable to foresee that without exercise of ordinary care, they will cause injury. Judicial function – these are decisions that affect the whole community 2. Breach – a failure to conform to the required standard Typically decided by a jury 3. Causation – a reasonably close causal connection between conduct and resulting injury 4. Damage – actual loss Lubitz v. Wells - Parent should not be held liable when the burden would be very high and the foreseeability very low. Facts: Parent left golf club in yard. Children were in yard playing, and P was hit in jaw. Outcome: “It would hardly be good sense to hold that this golf club is so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligence to leave it lying on the ground in the yard.” Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. - D had taken the necessary precautions, however, they could not have foreseen the extreme events that transpired and prevention is too burdensome. Facts: D’s water pipes exploded after an extreme frost. D took precautions against cold weather, but they were not enough. Outcome: D is not guilty of negligence, because their precautions proved insufficient against the effects of the extreme severity of the frost. The risk of such a heavy frost was so remote as not to be the kind of risk an ordinary prudent person would guard against. Pipher v. Parsell - When actions of a passenger that interfere with the driver’s safe operation of the motor vehicle are foreseeable, the failure to prevent such conduct may be a breach of the driver’s duty to his passengers or the public. Facts: A passenger in a car kept grabbing the steering wheel. Accident resulted 2nd time. Outcome: Reasonable jury could find that D breached duty to protect P from foreseeable conduct that could result in collision. Remanded. 137, Note 4 (Gulf Refining v. Williams): D’s knew or should have known of condition of bunghole cap and that such condition gave rise to a risk of harm, even if they were not aware of incidents where the exact risk had manifested itself. Chicago B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl - When, under all relevant circumstances, one fails to take such precautions as would one of reasonable prudence, he has acted negligently and is liable for the damages resulting from that negligence.
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 37 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture