evidence regarding her husbands drug and alcohol habit and also the jury

Evidence regarding her husbands drug and alcohol

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 Reasoning o Negligent behavior doesn’t mean that you should have negligent medical treatment afterwards o Negligent medical treatment was unrelated o Plaintiff’s history of drug abuse is only relevant for the determination of damages for the wife for loss of future earnings CLASS 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 liability Assumption of Risk Dalury v. S K I Ltd. Sup Ct of Vermont Facts o Plaintiff was hurt skiing and sued for negligence because he skied into pole, however he signed an exculpatory waiver which absolved the defendant from liability o Plaintiff argued that it was unenforceable Issue: Was this exculpatory waiver unenforceable? YES Reasoning o Restatement § 496B Exculpatory agreements can be unenforceable if: Freely and fairly made between parties that are in an equal bargaining position no social interest (public policy) with which it interferes o Here public policy makes this contract unenforceable o It’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 away o You may not contract away your business’ negligence, negligence is not an “inherent risk” that is a natural and probable consequence o It 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 risk o This should be decided on a case by case basis CLASS NOTES
Image of page 43
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 do Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.
Image of page 44
Image of page 45

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 60 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture