Both naval guys were off duty maine was drinking on

This preview shows page 63 - 65 out of 101 pages.

Both naval guys were off duty, Maine was drinking on and off base, crashed into Taber while Taber was going to visit girlfriend. Ask if the employee’s act is not unusual or startling that it would be unfair for employer to be held liable.Rule: employer is liable for accidents, which may fairly be said to be characteristic of its activities. Liable for risks of business regardless. It was neither unusual nor unreasonable for assailants to be on the job site drinking!oCheapest cost avoider –Calabresi Rule: Where certain activities are performed within scope of employment, the employer can be held liable for injuries under doctrine of respondeat superior. FTCA tells us to use the California Test:-California Test:The inquiry should be whether the risk was on that may be fairly regarded as typical of or broadly incidental to the enterpriseundertaken by the employer (MODERN RULE, p. 504) (P friendly test)oGeneral Test:a customary incident of the employment relationship The old test used to be whether the activity gave any material benefit to the employer (profit principle- bottom of p. 541- has to benefit the boss) this falls away- its not long about things employees do that are designed to directly profit the employer but not we move to the modern rule (below) Trial Judge:-Legal test if activity of the employee can be attributed to the employer under respondent superior: Was he acting as an agent of the US govt when the acts occurred. ReversedJoint Liability and Contributiontwo negligent actors, independently of each other or acting in concert, caused a single indivisible harm to the P, such that there is no way to tell which tortfeasor caused which portion of the harm. 63
oThree principle situations where you commonly see it:Tortfeasors act in concert; Tortfeasors fail to perform a common duty to the ; andNegligence of several tortfeasors acting independently combines to produce an indivisible injury to P can seek 100% of damages from any one of them; D’s settle accounts with one another – apportionment irrelevant at trial, deal with it in contribution claimRavo v. Rogatnick(p.513) – joint and several liability – indivisible injuryMultiple tortfeasors: Joint and Several Liability One doctor misdiagnoses patient, gives info to another doctor, who acts upon it carelessly causing injury to patient (2 docs, one injured baby) oJoint causation oJointly necessary but for causes combining together to cause an injury- (like McDonald v. Robinson- but insignif difference here- that one doc came first- but really it was so close in time that the 2nddr could have lessened the injures) Rule: Doctrine of Indivisible Injury: where two parties by their separate and independent acts of negligence (neither acting in concert nor concurrently) cause a single, indivisible injury, each party is responsible for the entire injury.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture