Ultramares type reasoning that held the identity of the husband (not literally) was known to the defendant o But, he should have known that a wife would have sex with her husband, thus by infecting her without telling her, he was extending his STD to the husband o There is also a special relationship here; they are married ● As a general rule, an individual does not have a duty to aid or protect another, even if he knows that person needs assistance , although circumstances may very well require action o Otherwise, everybody would have a duty to act ▪ There would be an indeterminate number of defendants because we'd all be liable for everything and everyone all the time o See Osterlind v. Hill ▪ Determined that no duty was owed to drunk guy who rented canoe because he was sober enough to try not to drown...before drowning later on ▪ Failure to help him as he drowned (cries for help were ignored)
was not breach of duty either, as no duty was owed o See Baker v. Fenneman ▪ There may be a legal obligation to take positive or affirmative steps to effect the rescue of a person who is helpless and in a situation of peril ▪ This obligation may exist even though the accident or original injury was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff or through that of a third person and without any fault on the part of the defendant ▪ Other relationships may pose a like obligation as well o Section 314A of the Restatement of Torts (Second) is not limited to situations where the plaitniff was an invitee, AND the instrumentality causing the injury belonged to the defendant ▪ That is, it can also be applied in situations where one of the two factors was present o A duty to one in peril on a defendant's premises as an invitee, even if the peril was created without negligence by the defendant, exists ▪ The Restatement explains that a duty to give aid to one who is ill or injured extends to cases where the illness or injury is due to natural causes, pure accident, acts of third parties, or negligence of the plaintiff himself ● I.e. where a passenger has injured himself clumsily bumping his head against a door o Public Policy principles ▪ Your customers come to you for business, you are availing yourself to a degree of duty of care while they're present o See Tarasoff v. Regents ▪ The Supreme Court of California addressed a complicated area of tort law concerning duty owed. ● Their analysis required a balancing test between the need to protect privileged communication between a therapist and his patient and the protection of the greater society against potential threats.
▪ The court began its analysis by addressing the “special relationship” required that imposes a duty on an individual to control another.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 139 pages?