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?
(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.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 42 pages?
- Fall '08
- duty, Res Ipsa