o Foreseen danger duty o Distinction from other cases because there was a

O foreseen danger duty o distinction from other cases

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 53 pages.

o Foreseen danger = duty o Distinction from other cases: because there was a foreseen danger, the privity rule doesn’t need to be applied Loop v. Litchfield – Defendant manufactured a cast-iron wheel for machinery and since it was missing a portion of the rim, it was patched with lead. Litchfield sold it to Collister. Collister then resold the wheel to Loop, who was fatally injured when the wheel burst at the patch. o Appeals court decided that there was a lack of duty under the privity rule o Distinction from this case: No imminent danger since the wheel lasted five years before it broke Losee v. Clute – Defendant manufactured a steam boiler to use in a paper mill; the mill owner tested and accepted the steam boiler. After three months of use, it exploded causing damage to the property next door o No duty was owed to the property next door Devlin v. Smith – The defendant (contractor) built scaffolding for a painter and the painter’s servants were injured and was held liable o The defendant knew that if the scaffolding was improperly constructed, it could cause injury o One who invites another to make use of an appliance is bound to the duty of reasonable care o Thus, he owed a duty to build the scaffolding with care Statler v. Ray – A steam-driven coffee urn exploded and injured the plaintiff, the defendant was found liable o The urn was inherently dangerous if not properly constructed Torgeson v. Schultz – Domestic servant lost an eye after a bottle of water sold to her employer by the defendant exploded when put on ice o The aerated water is inherently dangerous if improperly constructed Heaven v. Pender – affirmative duty o The duty was owed by the dock owner to its invitees (the painters) o Duty, irrespective of contract – whenever a manufacturer supplies goods to be used by another person, they have a duty to use ordinary care o Neglect of ordinary care where injury happens = negligence o This is not confined to the immediate buyer Based on Devlin & Statler cases, the court is committed to these decisions o Though Winchester was based on a product that is normally seen as inherently dangerous, that does not mean this court has to use such a narrow meaning o An object becomes destructive if it is improperly constructed Limited Duty 1) Limited Duty – Most of the time we have a duty ( Heaven v. Pender ), however sometimes Tort lets you omit reasonable care (p. 74): a. When the reasonable thing to do is rescue b. Dangerous conditions on your land, sometimes i. Three classifications of actors (invitee, licensee, trespasser) c. Economic loss 4
Image of page 4
d. “Policy exception” e. Emotional distress Limited Duty - RESCUE: 1) Even if a recue is easy, it’s not required (note 2, 3, p. 83) 2) However, there are exceptions to the no duty to rescue: a. Imminent peril to the plaintiff caused by the defendant (eg. A person who supplies heroin must help in an OD) b. Once someone volunteers to rescue, they are held to that promise (note 6) c. Special relationships (eg. Business-customer, innkeeper-guest) 3) Ex. (note 8) Coughlin v. Beta
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture