could be immediately traced to the wrong committed by the guard, and the fact of the wrong and the fact of the injury should be enough to find negligence. NOTE: On a test, how will I do this? Analyze Duty! 1. If it’s a general duty question, analyze it according to the basic general rule: a person owes a duty of reasonable care to another whenever their conduct creates a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of bodily harm to another. 2. BUT, under a Cardozo approach, there is no duty to the unforeseeable plaintiff. Then, the question of unforeseeable categories of plaintiffs… look at Andrews approach 3. Then go to Breach, CIF, PC (apply only foreseeability/scope of the risk), Dmgs *** ALWAYS say you will deal with it at one, EITHER at proximate cause OR duty… and then SAY that you WILL deal with it, or you ALREADY dealt with it. vi. Negligence by rescuers is deemed foreseeable. The original tortfeasor is liable. They are not solely liable – they are jointly and severally liable with the rescuer for exacerbation of the injury. It becomes an indivisible injury. vii.Medical Negligence – ordinarily deemed foreseeable – during the slip and fall I break my arm, and doctor fixes me wrong, then the law school and the doctor are jointly and severally liable viii. When you want to argue for the defendant that it was not negligent, then you argue OUTSIDE of scope of liability ix. Polemis decision (that plaintiff is entitled to recover once the defendant’s act is proven to be negligent, and the harm did not have to be foreseeable) x. If there is another cause, ask if it is a superseding cause or just an intervening cause (flaming rat) 1. Adoption of joint and several + right of contribution + comparative fault means we DON’T need superseding cause instruction anymore!
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 33 pages?