100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 3 out of 3 pages.
Caused by Forsee. Interven. Forces (negligence of rescuers; medicalmalpractice) – YESii.Foresee. ResultsCaused by Unforesee. Interven. Forces– usually,YES(unless UIF was a crime/int. tort of 3d person)iii.Unforesee ResultsCaused by FIF – NOiv.Unforesee ResultsCaused by UIF – NODAMAGESA.Eggshell Skull:∆ pays for all harm suffered by the πeven if the extent of damages was unforeseeable. You take your plaintiff as you find your plaintiff.B.πmust suffer PI or PD; econ. harm alone insufficientC.Defense for DP failed to mitigate her damagesDEFENSESA.Contributory Negligence (CL-P cl barred if neg)a.ExceptionLast Clear Chance B.Comparative Fault/Negligencea.“pure”= ∏ recovers regardless of fault (%).b.“modified”= ∏ recovers onlyif faultis less than ∆C.Assumption of the Risk– knows risk & voluntarily proceedsSTRICT LIABILITYSL-is tort liability w/o fault; Reqs (1) absolute duty of care, (2) Breach of that duty, (3) Causation, and (4) damagesANIMALSA.Domesticated Animals:the owner is notstrictly liable for injuries caused by animals unlessshe has knowledge that the animal has vicious propensities.B.Trespassing Animals: strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage caused bytrespassing animals.C.Wild Animals: SL for injuries by any wildanimals you keep.ULTRAHAZARDOUSACTIVITIESA.Activity: An activity is ultrahazardousif—a.it involves a risk of serious harm;b.it can’t be performed w/o risk of serious harm;c.not a matter of common usage in communityB.Duty:absolute duty to make safe ultrahazardous activities that is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs. C.Causation:strict liability for harm caused by activityD.Defenses:assumption of the risk; comparative negligence; no contri. neg. if P failed to realize the danger or guard against it (but if P knew of danger, defense is possible)PRODUCTS LIABILITYSTRICTPRODUCTSLIABILITY(NOPRIVITY)A.Under all theories, must 1st show productleft manufacturer in defective condition (causation) B.Duty: ∆, a merchant, has a duty to supply safe products; any foreseeable Π(no privity req); C.Breach:∆ supplies def. prod & defective when it left manufacturer (“unreasonably dangerous”)a.Design defect (all):P must show either:i.Product failed to perform as safelyas ord. consumer would expect, anti. reas. misuseii.Alt. design is safer w/o impact on price/utilb.Manufacturing defect (1 prod):P must meet one of the elements in design defect.c.Inadequate warning:failure to give adequate warnings (prominent, legible, well-placed) i.Danger not apparent to user &ii.Use of warning not affect price/utilityD.Causation: a.Factual:defect existed when product left ∆ & not substantially altered (went through normal channels of distribution)b.Proximate:foreseeable use or substantial factorE.Damages:property/personal injurya.No recovery for economic loss aloneF.Defenses:a.Assumption of Riskb.Contrib. neg/comparative negligenceNEGLIGENCE(NOPRIVITY)A.Duty:∆ is a merchant & foreseeable Π(no privity req)B.Breach:a.