Is the normal pattern of employment to move back into classroom in future Or do

Is the normal pattern of employment to move back into

This preview shows page 20 - 22 out of 95 pages.

What if the next job he was getting was a desk job not coming into contact with students?Is the normal pattern of employment to move back into classroom in future? Or do they stay at the desk?What if he decided after these four bad instances in public schools…I’ve just applied for a job at a private school. The court says in its opinion, previous employers are not liable if they give a no comment letter, or if the injuries are not foreseeable. Who’s going to keep those rules from coming into play? Wouldn’t it be up to juries to interpret individual cases and facts. It’s difficult to believe that in a case with a compelling set of facts, they might extend the boundaries further. A jury might allow a defendant to be liable in certain circumstances. All the policy stuff involves imposing a further duty. Ask lars…more than simple omission to act…mere foreseeability. Are letters of recommendation tantamount to advertisements? Are they just perfory, over the top? Isn’t there something suspect about a resignation without another job offering? Is the reliance reasonable? Why did the court reject the negligence per se claim? They say that the legislature did not intend to create a private right of action in this case? Why didn’t the plaintiff sue on vicarious liability issue? Molesting children is not within the scope of employment. Intentional torts are rarely workable.TORTS 3 February 2005
Image of page 20
Reynolds v. HicksSteven hicks is negligent. No diggity.Dianne hicks guilty on entrustment.Court focus is on whether the aunt and uncle should be responsible to injuries caused by one of their guests Social hosts in this situation do not have the financial resources to control the drinking of minors in the same way a commercial vendor does. There are three-hundred people at the wedding, it’s not feasible for them to control all drinking.If we took the California test and applied it here, what happens? (1) foreseeability. Fairly easy (2) morally blameworthy – it’s against the law to give alcohol to minors (3) availability of insurance – your homeowner’s policy might cover these situations (4) alternative options – provide alternative means of transportation, do something to prevent (5) what public policy would this promote? Preventing minors from drinking, which is the first link in the causal chain in minor drunk driving. 1. commercial Checkmark Checkmark Checkmark 2. social Checkmark X What if the facts were different Suppose our scenario where parents host a birthday party for their 12 year old, and they invite over 8 kids, and they serve champagne. One of the 13 year olds gets drunk and injures someone. Is there attempt to keep this from expanding to stop a chilling effect from being created, or perhaps to keep the caseload down? Or what?
Image of page 21
Image of page 22

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 95 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Hogshead
  • Tort Law, duty, Special Relationship

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture