In the current matter Cahoons expert testified that Caho would have had a 25 to

In the current matter cahoons expert testified that

This preview shows page 44 - 46 out of 102 pages.

would have had a 25% to 30% chance of surviving had the cancer been diagnosed upon his firstvisit to Cummings’s office. However, the jury was instructed to award damages for the fullamount of the injury, even if the jury found liability based upon the “loss of chance” rule. It isimpossible to know if the jury awarded based upon the full value or upon the increased risk thatis attributable to Cummings. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the caseis remanded for a new trial.Cahoon case:D has a duty, he breached the duty. But for that breach, the P would have probably stillhave died.Here the idea of actual causation break down. P has not shown that the D fully causes. So what the D causes ? Loss of chance. But for your negligence, you case a damage to a chance. P is trying to recover damages for the loss of the chance.Iii) Was any harm at all to the P foreseeable when the D acted?44
Background image
Palsgraf v. Long Island RR: defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff onlyif the plaintiff isin the zone of reasonably foreseeable harmresulting from the defendant's actions.Helen Palsgraf (plaintiff) was standing on a platform owned by the Long Island R.R. (railroad)(defendant). While she was waiting to catch a train, a different train bound for anotherdestination stopped at the station. Two men ran to catch the train as it was moving away fromthe station. One of the men was carrying a package that, unbeknownst to anyone on theplatform, contained fireworks. The first man jumped aboard the train safely, but the man with thepackage had difficulty. Two train employees helped the man get on the train. However, in theprocess, the man dropped the package. It fell to the rails and exploded, causing several scales atthe other end of the platform to dislodge and injure Palsgraf. Palsgraf brought suit against therailroad for negligence. The trial court granted judgment for Palsgraf, and the appellate divisionaffirmed. The railroad appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.Does a defendant owe a duty of care to a plaintiff if the plaintiff is not in the zone of reasonablyforeseeable harm resulting from the defendant's actions?-No. Negligence liability is predicated on the breach of a dutyowed by the defendant to theplaintiff. The scope of a defendant's duty is defined by the scope of the reasonably foreseeableharmresulting from the defendant's actions.-If someone is outside of the range of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of thedefendant's actions, the defendant generally does not owe that person a duty, and theperson therefore may not bring a negligence action against the defendant. -The range of reasonably foreseeable harm may be a question either for the court or for a jury todecide.
Background image
Image of page 46

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 102 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture