1 / 26

Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability

TWELFTH EDITION. Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability. Clarkson  Miller  Cross . BUSINESS LAW. TEXT AND CASES. Legal, Ethical, Global, and Corporate Environment. §1: Negligence. Tortfeasor does not intend the consequences of the act or believes they will occur.

barton
Download Presentation

Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. TWELFTH EDITION Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability Clarkson Miller  Cross BUSINESS LAW TEXT AND CASES Legal, Ethical, Global, and Corporate Environment

  2. §1: Negligence • Tortfeasor does not intend the consequences of the act or believes they will occur. • Actor’s conduct merely creates a foreseeable risk of injury. 

  3. Negligence • Analysis: • Duty: Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty of care; • Breach: Defendant breached that duty; • Causation: Defendant’s breach caused the injury; • Damages: Plaintiff suffered legal injury.

  4. Duty of Care and Its Breach • Defendant owes duty to protect Plaintiff from foreseeable risks that Defendant knew or should have known about. • A foreseeable risk is one in which the reasonable person would anticipate and guard against it.

  5. Duty of Care and Its Breach • Duty of Landowners to warn invitees, exercise reasonable care. • Landlords owe duty of reasonable care to tenants and guests for common areas such as stairs and laundry rooms. • CASE 7.1 McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC. (2008). Can a landlord be liable for negligent misrepresentation about the size of a leased space?

  6. Duty of Care and Its Breach • Duty of Landowners (continued). • Duty to Warn Business Invitees of Foreseeable Risks (knew or should have known). • EXCEPTION: Obvious Risks.

  7. Duty of Care and Its Breach • Duty of Professionals. • Professionals may owe higher duty of care based on special education, skill or intelligence. • Breach of duty is called professional malpractice.

  8. Duty of Care and Its Breach • No Duty to Rescue. • Law requires individuals to act reasonably, but there is no duty to rescue (or warn, or come to the aid of another), unless there is a special relationship of trust. • However, if rescue is attempted, the law requires due care and follow through.

  9. Causation • Even though a Tortfeasor owes a duty of care and breaches the duty of care, the act must have caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. Causation is both: • Causation in Fact, and • Proximate Cause.

  10. Causation in Fact • Did the injury occur because of the Defendant’s act, or would the injury have occurred anyway? • Usually determined by the “but for” test, i.e., but for the Defendant’s act the injury would not have occurred.

  11. Proximate Causation • An act is the proximate (or legal) cause of the injury when the causal connection between the act and injury is strong enough to impose liability. • CASE 7.2 Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928). Were the plaintiff’s injuries foreseeable?

  12. The Injury Requirement and Damages • To recover, Plaintiff must show legally recognizable injury. • Compensatory Damages are designed to reimburse Plaintiff for actual losses. • Punitive Damages are designed to punish the tortfeasor and deter others from wrongdoing.

  13. §2: Defenses to Negligence • Assumption of Risk.  • Superseding Intervening Cause. • Contributory or Comparative Negligence.

  14. Assumption of Risk • Plaintiff has knowledge of the risk, and voluntarily engages in the act anyway. • Defense can be used by participants, as well as spectators and bystanders. 

  15. Assumption of Risk • Assumption of the risk can be express or implied. • Express by agreement. • Implied by plaintiff’s knowledge of risks and subsequent conduct. • CASE 7.3 Pfenning v. Lineman (2010). Is the driver of a beverage cart a “participant” at a golfing event?

  16. Superseding Cause • A unforeseeable, intervening act that breaks the causal link between Defendant’s act and Plaintiff’s injury, relieving Defendant of liability.

  17. Contributory and Comparative Negligence • Under common law doctrine of contributory negligence, if Plaintiff in any way caused his injury, he was barred from recovery. • Most states have replaced contributory negligence with the doctrine of comparative negligence.

  18. Contributory and Comparative Negligence • Comparative negligence computes liability of Plaintiff and Defendant and apportions damages. • Pure Comparative Negligence States (California and New York): allows Plaintiff to recover even if his liability is greater than that of Defendant.

  19. Contributory and Comparative Negligence • Modified Comparative Negligence States: percent of damages Plaintiff causes herself are subtracted from the total award. • 50 Percent Rule: Plaintiff recovers only if liability is less than 50%. • 51 Percent Rule: Plaintiff recovers nothing if liability is greater than 50%.

  20. §3: Special Negligence Doctrines and Statutes • Res Ipsa Loquitur. • Facts and circumstances create presumption of negligence by Defendant. • Burden of proof shifts to Defendant to show he was not negligent.

  21. Special Negligence Doctrines and Statutes • Negligence Per Se occurs when Defendant violates a statute designed to protect Plaintiff: • Statute sets out standard of care. • Plaintiff is member of class intended to be protected by statute. • Statute designed to prevent Plaintiff’s injury.

  22. Special Negligence Doctrines and Statutes • “Danger Invites Rescue” Doctrine. • Good Samaritan Statutes. • Dram Shop Acts.

  23. §4: Strict Liability • Development of Strict Liability. • Theory of strict liability started with Rylands v. Fletcher (1868 England). • Defendant’s liability for strict liability is without regard to: Fault, Foreseeability, Standard of Care or Causation. • Strict liability based on abnormally dangerous activities is one application.

  24. Abnormally Dangerous Activities • Ultraharzardous or abnormally dangerous activities: • Involve serious potential harm; • Involve high degree of risk that cannot be made safe; and • Are not commonly performed in the community or area.

  25. Other Applications of Strict Liability • Wild Animals: • Persons who keep wild animals are strictly liable for injuries caused by the beast. • Persons who keep domestic animals are liable if the owner knew or should have known that animal was dangerous.

  26. Other Applications of Strict Liability • Product Liability: manufacturers can be found liable without regard to fault (see Chapter 22). • Bailments: when goods temporarily transferred to another (see Chapter 49).

More Related