100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 5 out of 5 pages.
McDougald v. GarberB.Defense to a claim of negligence, The defendant argument!Claim of NegligenceCaseFact/HoldingComparative Negligence/ ContributoryContributory negligenceis a system where if you contributed toa car accident in anyway, you cannot recover money in a lawsuit.Fritts v. McKinneAssumption of foreseeable riskGoing to the baseball, getting hit by ball, assume those riskMurphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.
NegligenceBreach of dutyHarper v. Herman- Duty of care for social hostSocial host does not have a duty of care of its guests to warn about whether thewater is too shallow for diving if there are no special relationship. The special relationship giving rise to a duty to warn is only found on the part of common carriers, innkeepers, possessors of land who hold it open to the public, and persons who have custody of another person when that other person is deprived of normal opportunities of self- protection. However, commercial vendors are liable.third person who injured by intoxicated minor because of the commercial vendors.Reynolds v. Hicks- Duty of care for social hostSocial host who furnished alcohol to minor does not have a duty of care to the point, social host, and the statue. However, commercial vendors are liable. The differences between social host and commercial vendors are: 1- commercial vendors motivated by profit and ownership 2- commercial vendors better suited for controlling customers 3- have money to control customers 4- The legislature has provided a commercial vendor with a way to immunize itself from civil liability which shows there was intent to hold them liable, but Social hosts have no protection (no immunity) so they are not liable.