g drug manufacturer that has disruption is not liable even if patients rely on

G drug manufacturer that has disruption is not liable

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 17 pages.

actually create risk of harm (e.g. drug manufacturer that has disruption is not liable even if patients rely on the drug) DUTY Negligent Entrustment (NE) 1. Party owns the instrumentality of harm (IOH) 2. Party entrusted IOH to baddie knowing risk due to baddie's youth, incompetence, etc. Split in jurisdictions Traditional --only owner of IOH is liable by NE Modern --broader liability for NE including parties that helped to put IOH in baddie's hands 1. Maj : funding of IOH not sufficient to show degree of control warranting liability 2. Min : $ for IOH enough ( Vince v. Wilson ) Social Hosts Intoxication of minors --usually statutory 1. Does the statute protect minors or 3rd parties? 2. Can ONLY bring suit if protected party Typically less successful against individuals, better against commercial vendors w/ profit motive b/c repeated incidence --> greater accountability. HOWEVER, have found liability in marriages, etc. where highly foreseeable. NORTH CAROLINA --no alcohol to minors, w/ minors protected class (not 3rd parties). Therefore 3rd parties can't argue neg per se/private right of action but can bring common law neg suit. Under common law, social hosts in NC have a duty to 3rd parties if the host knew or should have known that alcohol would be provided at a party where guests would soon thereafter drive an automobile . Could reasonably extend to alt intoxicating subst Pre-employment physicals Majority --doctor has no duty to report signs of trouble to examinee directly Minority --doctor has duty to report signs of trouble to examinee directly rather than to the employer
Premises LiabilityDid the injury occur on the premises?Did injury occur on business premises? Did ? create or maintain dangerous artificial condition (AC)?1. possessor (PS) created the condition2. 3rd party created WITH PS consent while PS owned the land3. 3rd party created WITHOUT PS consent, but PS didn't reake reasonable care after finding outNoWas injury due to criminal act by a 3rd party?2. Specific harm - business owner (BO) only has duty when she has actual knowledge of a specific, imminent harm3. Prior similar incidents - BO has duty for highly foreseeable dangers est by prior similar incidents on premises (i.e. constructive notice)4. Balancing test (CA & TN) - foreseeability + extent of harm vs. burden of imposing duty to protect against criminal acts of 3rd personsYes § 364 - possible liability for physical harm caused by dangerous AC on the land, where risk is highly foreseeable and unreasonable given ONE of: Yes Split in Jur Posecai v. Wal-Mart 1. Totality of circumstances ( majority ) a. Nature, condition, and location of land b. Facts bearing on foreseeability c. Level of crime in surrounding area d. Time of day/lighting *** Lack of prior incidents doesn't preclude liability if highly foreseeable*** Yes

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture