100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 43 - 45 out of 60 pages.
evidence regarding her husband’s drug and alcohol habit, and also the jury instruction of comparative negligence•Issue: Whether the plaintiff was comparatively negligent with the malpractice because of his drunk driving NO•ReasoningoNegligent behavior doesn’t mean that you should have negligent medical treatment afterwardsoNegligent medical treatment was unrelatedoPlaintiff’s history of drug abuse is only relevant for the determination of damages for the wife for loss of future earningsCLASS NOTES•if the a plaintiffs superseding act is foreseeable, then both the defendants would be held jointly and severally liable, HOWEVER if the driver were one of the defendants, then the driver would have some liability. Since it’s the plaintiff, as in Fritts, there is no liability for the driver•the cause of the injuries in Fritts are jointly necessary and sufficient causes of the accident, but the actual cause is not as important here, and the duty needs to be stoked and pushed toward strict liabilityAssumption of RiskDalury v. S K I Ltd.Sup Ct of Vermont•FactsoPlaintiff was hurt skiing and sued for negligence because he skied into pole, however he signed an exculpatory waiver which absolved the defendant from liability oPlaintiff argued that it was unenforceable•Issue: Was this exculpatory waiver unenforceable? YES•ReasoningoRestatement § 496B Exculpatory agreements can be unenforceable if:Freely and fairly madebetween parties that are in an equal bargaining positionno social interest (public policy) with which it interferesoHere public policy makes this contract unenforceableoIt’s best to use a modified Trunkl test, by looking at the whether is it as business invitee situation with the defendant as the best cost avoider, there is a general duty that cannot be contracted awayoYou may not contract away your business’ negligence, negligence is not an “inherent risk” that is a natural and probable consequenceoIt is one thing to say, as in the statute, that people should play sports at their own risk because that is only an inherent natural or probable riskoThis should be decided on a case by case basisCLASS NOTES
•Should cases like this turn solely on what ‘magic word’ were used, because the waiver is not clear? The court doesn’t do that in Dalury because the language is clear, but still the waiver is unenforceable because it is against public policy•Here the plaintiff is a business invitee, so there is a standard reasonable care under the circumstances duty (Brown v. Kendall)•The court recognizes the ‘openness to the public aspect” of the Tunkl, the court LEAPS from Tunkl (a hospital) to any public facility•The court does this because the business is the BEST COST AVOIDER•In some jurisdictions, courts do not enforce waivers, but to some degree most doMurphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.