Ybarra v Spangard No theory of negligence herehe was unconscious while the

Ybarra v spangard no theory of negligence herehe was

This preview shows page 8 - 10 out of 37 pages.

Ybarra v. Spangard No theory of negligence here—he was unconscious while the supposed injury happened. This is good law in Cali but is rejected in other states. It is controversial because there are multiple Ds. The main problem is that the 2 nd tenet of the Doctrine of RIL of exclusive control doesn’t seem to apply to any one particular D. If the first condition of RIL is satisfied then we know negligence is more probable than not. The second condition says there is an instrumentality that caused that negligence that was specifically in the Ds control. The third just rules out contributory negligence. So even without a theory of negligence, these three piece together to form “more probable than not” negligence to the D. It is an indirect way of proving negligence. With more than 1 D, this application doesn’t apply. It is not more probable than not that the negligence of any 1 D caused the injury. For ex., if there are 10 Ds, then there’s only a 10% chance that any one of them caused the injury.
Image of page 8
The Court here distinguishes 2 different rationales for RIL. There is the Prosser theory (the one discussed above) and the Wigmore theory, which is completely different. Wigmore theory says forget about the 3 RIL conditions, but instead says there is an asymmetry of knowledge of the incident, where one side can know everything and the other can know nothing. The Wigmore theory only works in a group setting if you sue the entire group, because then it’s certain that the group as a whole (at least one person within it) knows what happened. If you sue just one person, you can’t be sure of this. Ybarra has been rejected by some because there are modern discovery rules that would rid the asymmetrical side and because of Traynor’s thoughts in note 5 on pg. 106, that under Ybarra, anyone struck by a flower pot walking on the sidewalk can sue everyone from the building and so recover from all unless the Ds are able to point out the particular guilty party. The way that case can be distinguished from Ybarra though is that in Ybarra, all Ds are joined as a team to the same action (assisting in the surgery) where as in the flower pot case they’re not doing the same activity. However, then we have Samson v. Riesing In this case, RIL was not granted because of no exclusive control. In some ways it is a stronger RIL case than in Ybarra and in others it is weaker. Stronger asymmetry of info in Ybarra. Stronger team scenario in Ybarra. In Medical Malpractice – showing that you conform to custom is not merely evidence of non- negligence, but rather a full defense and you will get off. This is likely because people doubt courts and juries are qualified to make a determination about what reasonable medical care is… better to just make the reasonable professional practice as the substitute for what reasonable care might be. (pg. 106-107) What still must be determined is: 1. What the customary practice is 2. The departure from customary practice 3. That the departure from customary practice caused the injury in question Sheeley v. Memorial Hospital
Image of page 9
Image of page 10

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture