100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 53 pages.
oForeseen danger = dutyoDistinction from other cases: because there was a foreseen danger, the privity ruledoesn’t need to be appliedLoop 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. oAppeals court decided that there was a lack of duty under the privity ruleoDistinction from this case: No imminent danger since the wheel lasted five years before it brokeLosee 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 dooroNo duty was owed to the property next doorDevlin v. Smith– The defendant (contractor) built scaffolding for a painter and the painter’s servants were injured and was held liableoThe defendant knew that if the scaffolding was improperly constructed, it could cause injuryoOne who invites another to make use of an appliance is bound to the duty of reasonable careoThus, he owed a duty to build the scaffolding with careStatler v. Ray– A steam-driven coffee urn exploded and injured the plaintiff, the defendant was found liableoThe urn was inherently dangerous if not properly constructedTorgeson v. Schultz– Domestic servant lost an eye after a bottle of water sold to her employer by the defendant exploded when put on iceoThe aerated water is inherently dangerous if improperly constructedHeaven v. Pender– affirmative dutyoThe duty was owed by the dock owner to its invitees (the painters)oDuty, irrespective of contract – whenever a manufacturer supplies goods to be used by another person, they have a duty to use ordinary careoNeglect of ordinary care where injury happens = negligenceoThis is not confined to the immediate buyerBased on Devlin & Statler cases, the court is committed to these decisionsoThough 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 meaningoAn object becomes destructive if it is improperly constructedLimited Duty1)Limited Duty – Most of the time we have a duty (Heaven v. Pender), however sometimesTort lets you omit reasonable care (p. 74): a.When the reasonable thing to do is rescueb.Dangerous conditions on your land, sometimesi.Three classifications of actors (invitee, licensee, trespasser)c.Economic loss4
d.“Policy exception”e.Emotional distressLimited 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 suppliesheroin 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