bii The Point Had no control over the tortfeasors No direct relationship with

Bii the point had no control over the tortfeasors no

This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 42 pages.

b.ii) The Point: Had no “control over the tortfeasors” No direct relationship with injured party. No individual reliance. 4) STATUTORY DUTY a) Two Types of situations arise with statutes imposing duties: a.i) Express: If there is a statute that imposes a duty of care upon an individual, then the courts will follow the statute. a.ii) Vague/ implied : However many statutes are silent about whether the court should impose tort liability for violations of the statute. It must be interpreted whether the statutory duty is a duty under the law of torts. b) Uhr v. East Greenbush Central School Dist. b.i)D School violated a statute requiring scoliosis exams for children and P asserted that they violated a duty of care in the process and P daughter was injured as a result. b.ii) Issue: Can tort damages (private right of action) be fairly implied? b.iii) Reasoning: (b.iii.1) If there is no statute: How would a duty in the common law be found?-> special relationship? There is no special relationship b/c school imposed no risk and instilled reliance for scoliosis diagnosis (b.iii.2) If there is a statute: Tort damages are only imposed if the statute ought to be interpreted in a way where the statute would impose a duty in torts / private right of action. 3 criteria: Duty of Care §4(c) a.i) Holding: This situation meets the first two since the P daughter is part of class sought to be protected and also since purpose would be met by private ROA b/c it would. However, third not met (below) so AFFIRMED (a.i.1.a) Leg. Expressly charged commission with enforcement and precluded schools from liability as a result of this law c) Considerations for interpretation of a vague statute in Torts : c.i) Is P Statute’s Beneficiary? c.ii) (Do tort actions) Promote the Legislative Purpose? c.iii) Consistency with the Legislative scheme?
Image of page 16
(c.iii.1) (Don’t over-promote) Prove that deterrence is not sufficient and should be supplemented. 5) DUTY TO PROTECT 3 RD PARTIES The defendant is responsible for victim’s damage b/c he owes P a duty to protect against the direct tortfeasor. a) THEORIES a.i) CONTROL THEORY : When the avoidance of foreseeable harm requires D to control other person, liability only if D bears a “special relationship” to dangerous person and precautions would be reasonable (a.i.1) Tarasoff v Regents of the University of CA (CASC 1976) (a.i.1.a) Issue: Is there a vicarious liability duty of care for a University, who employs a psychologist treating a patient who tells them of intent to harm another, to warn such third parties or officials, whom they know could be injured by patients? (a.i.1.b) Negligence Analysis -> The burden of precautions is extremely low, but patient confidentiality is important… However the expected damage of losing a life, or serious injury is greater than the burden of breaking confidentiality.
Image of page 17
Image of page 18

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 42 pages?

  • Fall '08
  • Sebok
  • duty, Res Ipsa

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture