Torts Outline

1.) Negligence versus Strict Liability

Hammontree v. Jenner (CB 3). Coice bet!een negligence or strict liability stan"ar" #or
an e$ile$tic % !o crase" car into &'s $ro$erty. Strict liability as a #oreseeability
stan"ar"( negligence is $remise" on a reasonable $erson stan"ar". )n negligence( i# te
arm is #oreseeable but you act as a reasonable $erson !oul" ave( you're not liable.
Strict liability as a non*#ault stan"ar" (i.e. "emolition !or+ or +ee$ing !il" animals).
Court re,ects te com$arison to $ro"ucts liability( !ere manu#acturers "istribute goo"s
to te $ublic an" are $art o# te $ro"ucing an" mar+eting enter$rise tat soul" bear te
costs o# in,uries #rom "e#ective $arts. Court o$ts #or negligence stan"ar".

Holmes (pg. 6) in criticism o# strict liability stan"ar"-
1.) .ou "on't !ant to ol" $eo$le liable #or acts tat cause e/tremely remote
arm. Te logical e/treme is tat
0.) 1icarious Liability
Cristensen v. S!enson (CB 12). Tree Bir+ner criteria #or "etermining i# em$loyee's
activity !as !itin te sco$e o# is em$loyment-
a. te em$loyee's con"uct must be o# te +in" te em$loyee is ire" to $er#orm
b. te em$loyee's con"uct must occur substantially !itin te ours an" s$atial
boun"aries o# em$loyment.
c. te em$loyee's con"uct must be motivate"( at least in $art( by te $ur$ose o#
serving te em$loyer's interest.
Court #oun" em$loyee's con"uct coul" ave satis#ie" tese( so tere soul" be a trial.
Sc!art3 article ($g. 00) gives justification for employer vicarious liability-
a. 4ives em$loyers incentive to care#ully select an" su$ervise em$loyees.
b. 4ives em$loyers incentive to "isci$line negligent em$loyees( !ic acts as a
"eterrent an" "ismisses gross violators.
c. )ncentive to move to mecani3e" tecnology instea" o# em$loyees !o coul"
be negligent.
5oster v. Te Lo#t (03). &lainti## claims bar is "irectly liable because tey !ere negligent
#or not screening em$loyees an" iring a barten"er !it a recor" o# assault. Court says a
,ury coul" reasonably #in" te o!ner "irectly liable #or iring suc a $erson in an
environment !it a ig ris+ #or violence.
Ba$tist 6emorial Hos$ital System v. Sam$son (07) Te "e#ault rule is os$itals aren't
liable #or te torts o# teir in"e$en"ent contractors. Ostensible agency re8uires a so!ing
tat % in"uce" a reasonable belie# tat te "octor !as teir em$loyee. 9$$arent agency
only re8uires & to so! tat e reasonably believe" tere !as a relationsi$. Te court
says te rule is ostensible agency( !ic re8uires more o# &. Tere !ere signs an" #orms
stating "octor !as contractor( so &'s claim #ails.
:n"er ;estatement 0<= (0>) "e#ining ostensible agency( tere's a con"uct re8uirement( a
causation re8uirement( an" a reliance re8uirement. 9ll tree must be met to "etermine
ostensible agency.
Non-delegable Duties ? 5or tese( & is al!ays res$onsible #or con"uct o# its contractors
,ust as i# tey !ere em$loyees ("emolition( !il" animals( etc.)
5ault v. Strict Liability
Bro!n v. @en"all (33) ? Astablise" te Bor"inary careC stan"ar" o# care( !it te bur"en
o# $roo# on & to so! %'s #ailure to e/ercise suc care. Or"inary care "e#ine" as te care
a $ru"ent man !oul" ta+e in a similar situation. 9#ter tis case( case s!allo!e" u$
tres$ass into one general category o# unintentional arm. &olicy consi"eration o# not
!anting to "iscourage in"ustry #rom ta+ing ris+s. Tis is gro!ing out o# te utilitarian
tra"ition.
Bam#or" v. Turnley (S6 0) +iln s$e!ing smo+e onto neigbor's $ro$erty. Ju"ge
Bram!ell a"vocates an absolute liability stan"ar". Says in"ustry soul" bear its o!n
costs to society. )t's a #airness argument. Tis is an absolute liability stan"ar" an"
some!at utilitarian.
Holmes !e "ommon #a$% (pg. & '( ))
Criti8ues te use o# absolute an" strictly liability stan"ar"s. %e#en"s te negligence
stan"ar". :sing mere causation( an" not #oreseeablity or "ue care( as te stan"ar" means
you coul" constantly "rive to #in" $eo$le liable #or any arm "one in society in an
unlimite" cain o# causation. 9s a matter o# basic ,ustice an" morality( absolute liability
is out. Te arm as to be reasonably #oreseeable. 9ction cannot be avoi"e"( an" one
soul"n't be $enali3e" sim$ly #or acting.
7. THA ST9N%9;% O5 C9;A
5or te stan"ar" o# care( te 8uestion $ut to te ,ury is generally !at a reasonable
person !oul" ave "one in te same or similar circumstances (;estatement 023- To
avoi" being negligent( actor must act as Ba reasonable man un"er li+e circumstances.C)
Tis is an objective standard an" te sub,ective belie# o# % at te time is immaterial.
a.) Bolton v. Stone (S6 1>) ? Cric+et case. 9ltoug te ris+ !as #oreseeable( te
li*eli!ood of !arm $as so remote t!at it $as reasonable not to ta*e precautions.
Only si/ balls a" been it in 3D years( an" it !as a very 8uiet roa"( so no liability.
Ho!ever( ,u"ge note" tat at a certain $oint te ris+ o# arm may gro! so large tat
you can't "o an activity at all( regar"less o# your $recautions (ig e/treme o# Learne"
Han").
b.) 9"ams v. Bulloc+ (32) ? 2 #t. !ire case. Car"o3o says te casualty !as
e/traor"inary( not #airly !itin te realm o# or"inary #oresigt. )t's #oreseeable tat
someone migt get electrocute" someo!( but "e#en"ant "oesn't ave to #oresee a +i"
!it an 2*#oot !ire $laying on a bri"ge. He treats reasonable foreseeability as a
prere+uisite for liability. Car"o3o says no reasonable vigilance coul" ave $revente"
te arm.
)n#ormal balancing test to determine standard of care- #actors o# $robability( ris+(
cost( #oreseeability. )n Braun v. Bu##alo (em$ty city lot( uninsulate" !ires) Car"o3o
uses same #actors but #in" te arm !as reasonably #oreseeable an" liability may #lo!.
c.) Carroll To!ing (71) Learne" Han" 5ormula- !ere B(ur"en)E&(robability) F
L(magnitu"e o# loss)( liability soul" not be im$ose" because it !oul" be ine##icient
to s$en" so muc to $revent te acci"ent. )t's an economic e##iciency argument.
9"o$ting tis meto" to "etermine te stan"ar" o# care !ill cause $arties to s$en" te
rigt amount on $recautions.
9 negligence rule an" a strict liability rule( !en tey bot can count in #or
contributory negligence( !ill lea" to te same set o# $recautions ta+en by rational
"ecision*ma+ers. )t's a #li$ si"e o# Coase because in#ormation costs are too ig. .ou
"on't +no! !o you're going to ave an acci"ent !it( so you can't stri+e a bargain in
a"vance.
&osner !ants to $ut liability on Bra3or's e"geC an" ave jury consider t!e #H
variables? get te e/act numbers. A$stein says te $roblem !it tat is !en a si#t
in G1 on te margins canges te !ole outcome.
".) Hagon 6oun" I0 (S6 12) ? Similar situation to Bolton in tat te !arm $as
foreseeable but incredibly unli*ely. Tis court says tat a reasonable man in te
situation !oul" not ave "iscarge" oil bJc it !as cea$( easy to "o( an" re8uire" no
"isa"vantage. Seems similar to te bur"en o# $recaution variable suggeste" by Han".
Common sense sai" e soul" ta+e te non*ris+y $at by not "um$ing oil into te
arbor. )t's as i# B is negative. 6oral argument( not economic.
e.) "ommon "arriers ? )n Betel v. N.CT9 (7=) court re,ecte" $revious strict
stan"ar" an" sai" common carriers soul" be el" to te negligence stan"ar"( !ic is
#le/ible enoug to ta+e account o# te "angerous macinery an" $assenger loa"s over
!ic tey are res$onsible. Common carriers !ill be el" to an ob,ective stan"ar" o#
!at care is reasonable.
#.) 'ubjective ,ntent * Hu"son v. NS&C9 (S6 31) % !ants to be el" to a sub,ective
stan"ar" #or electrocuting "og. Ju"ges say e ougt to ave +no!n it !as cruel.
%oesn't matter !at is sub,ective intention !as or !at !as in is min". The content
of the standard of care should be determined objectively.
g.) "apacity is usually $resu$$ose". Basi v. Ho"ar3 (>7*>>)- Court !on't release
#rom liability % !o su##ers sudden mental illness. 9s long as tey ave minimal
control over car( tey are liable #or teir actions. Same ol"ing in ;oberts v.
;amsbottom #or stro+e victim.
(1) Jules Coleman (S6 3D) says !ile !e "on't ol" a mentally im$aire"
tort#easor morally res$onsible #or is !rong"oing( it is better to lay te liability on
im tan on te com$letely innocent victim. Te loss must be absorbe" by
someone.
Te trend in la$ as been to!ar" im$osing liability even in te #ace o# lac* of
capacity. 6ost o# tese cases are "riven by $olicy consi"erations. Courts +no!
tat insurance companies are in t!e bac*ground to $ay te "amages.
>. THA ;OLA O5 J:%4A 9N% J:;.

)n general( te "uty o# care is #or te court !ile te stan"ar" o# care is #or te ,ury.
a. )n 4oo"man (>2)( Holmes legislates a rule #or te #uture. Sai" "rivers soul" get
out o# teir cars to loo+ #or oncoming trains. Holmes thought judges should do this
to impose rules and wrest discretion away from the jury. Tis is bot e##icient an"
increases consistency. Holmes clearly "i"n't trust te ,ury as an institution an"
!ante" to move a!ay #rom it as te common la! "evelo$e".
Tis rule !as reverse" in &o+ora (<D)( !ere Car"o3o sai" suc issues soul" be
le#t to te ,ury to ensure ma/imum #le/ibility an" to avoi" rigi" rules. %etermining
te standard of reasonable care should be left to the jury. @o3ins+i concurre" in
9n"re!s v. :9L (<7). Heter % soul" ave installe" sa#ety nets is a ,ury
8uestion an" te case !asn't a$$ro$riate #or summary ,u"gment.
<. THA ;OLA O5 C:STO6
&roo# o# in"ustry custom can be evi"entiary o# te stan"ar" o# care o!e"( but it is never
dispositive. Tese are 8uestions #or te ,ury.
a. &roo# o# a common $ractice ai"s in "etermining e/$ectations o# society an" !at
constitutes a reasonable stan"ar" o# care. )n Trimarco v. @lein (<=) te ne! tem$ere"
glass custom (!ic !as custom #or some years an" !as cea$ to im$lement) $rove"
to ,ury tat % lan"lor" a"n't e/ercise" reasonable care in using regular glass.
b. )n La1allee v. 1ermont 6otor )nns (=1) te court $ro$erly "irecte" a ver"ict #or %
base" on testimony tat no otel or motel as emergency ligting in eac room. Hile
not conclusive( suc! evidence of custom is a useful guide in determining reasonable
standard of care.
c. Sometimes a reasonable person $ould not follo$ industry custom( e.g. TJ
Hoo$er (=D)( !ere some boats a" ra"ios an" oters "i"n't.
=. THA ;OLA O5 ST9T:TA
Com$liance !it a governing statute can be evi"ence tat %'s con"uct !asn't negligent(
but it is not conclusive.
a. Te purpose of a statute is crucial. Here % as violate" a statute an" cause" te
ty$e o# arm tat statute !as meant to $revent( e can #oun" negligent $er se as a
matter o# la!( as in 6artin v. Her3og (=3) (no ea"ligts on buggy $roves
contributory negligence).
b. Te"la v. Allman (=<) (!al+ing on !rong si"e o# ig!ay) Here follo$ing a
statute $ould be contrary to its purpose of promoting safety( a court can #in"
tat non*com$liance !as reasonable. See ;estatement 02< an" 022 (S6 30)( !ic
allo! non*com$liance !en tere is a reasonable e/cuse.
c. Here a non*com$liance lea"s to arm different tan te arm envisione" by te
statute's autors( some courts !ill not #in" negligence $er se( as in 4oriss v. Scott
(20) ($enne" see$). Some courts !ill discover ex post t!e purpose of t!e
statute- %e Haen v. ;oc+!oo" S$rin+ler (23) Te statute re8uiring #ences aroun"
te ole must ave been to $revent ob,ects( as !ell as $eo$le( #rom #alling "o!n.
". Here a statute is not applicable in a criminal setting it can still be a"o$te" into
te common la! as evi"ence o# te reasonable stan"ar" o# care. )n Clin+scales v.
Carver (=>)( sto$ signs soul"n't be run.
2. &;OO5 O5 NA4L)4ANCA
&roving a breac o# a "uty o# care re8uires t!o elements- 1.) $roo# o# !at actually
occurre" an" 0.) a so!ing tat % acte" unreasonably un"er tose circumstances.
"onstructive Notice * @no!le"ge o# a #act tat is im$ute" to an in"ivi"ual !o !as
un"er a "uty to in8uire K !o coul" ave learne" te #act troug te e/ercise o#
reasonable $ru"ence9##irmative Obligation. ;ule- %e#ect must be visible K apparent
K it must e/ist #or sufficient time before accident to $ermit L to "iscover K reme"y it
a. Negri v. Sto$ N' So$ (2<) ? )n#erence o# constructive notice base" on
circumstantial evi"ence (bro+en baby #oo" ,ars !ic !ere "irty( !itnesses( etc.)
;easonable to in#er tat tey either knew or should have known tat te bro+en ,ars
!ere tere. Tere#ore( prima facie negligence is establise". Stan"ar" o# $roo# is
$re$on"erance o# evi"ence- is it more li+ely tan not tat te baby #oo" !as tere
#or a su##icient $erio" o# time tat % soul" ave +no!n about itM
b. 4or"on v. 9mer. Hist. 6useum (2=) ? No evi"ence to su$$ort in#erence o#
constructive notice. 6ere #oreseeability tat tere migt be !a/ $a$er aroun" not
enoug- & must $rove that particular piece of paper a" been tere #or su##icient
time tat % soul" ave "iscovere" an" remove" it.
c. -usiness .ractice /ule ? )n businesses !ere customer o#ten creates a3ar"s (#oo"
sel#*service) no constructive notice is necessary. )t is enoug tat % +no!s o# te
generally #oreseeable ris+. % as elevate" stan"ar" o# care.
/es ,psa #o+uitur ? T!o re8uirements to invo+e ;)L un"er ;estatement 302%- 1.) Te
acci"ent must be o# te ty$e tat doesn0t normally occur in t!e absence of negligence
an" 0.) no one else a" control over t!e instrumentality of !arm.
a. Byrne v. Boa"le (N1) Court says barrels "on't usually #all out o# !in"o!s in te
absence o# negligence( so negligence may be in#erre". 9lso( barrel #ell out o# %'s
#actory so only % coul" ave a" control over te instrumentality.
b. Secon" re8uirement not al!ays strictly en#orce" !ere te instrumentality o# arm
can't be "etermine"( e.g. 5o!ler v. Seaton (NN) (!ere & cil" !as in,ure" in "ay
scool but it coul"n't be "iscovere" o!.) C#. Helton (NN) o$$osite ol"ing in
curc "ay scool.
c. Secon" element ? Larson case (N3).
,nference 'tate ? ,ury may but nee" not "ra! an in#erence o# %'s neg. Burden of proof
remains with P. Note- in in#erence state( evi"ence migt be so strong tat ,ury must #in"
negligence in te absence o# $ersuasive e/cul$ation (e.g. 5arina v. &an*9m (N2))
". 6c%ougal" v. &erry (N7) ? ;)L ,ury carge !as $ro$er even toug instrumentality
(te cain) coul"n't be #oun"( bJc % a" e/clusive control over instrumentality an"
tis ty$e o# acci"ent "oesn't normally occur !Jo neg. 5L is an inference state(
!ere ,ury may #in" % liable un"er a ;)L carge.
.resumption 'tate (Bur"en almost si#ts to %( an" ,ury must #in" negligence i# it #in"s
te 0 ;)L re8uirements are met.) )n te absence o# rebutting evi"ence( & is entitle" to a
"irecte" ver"ict. Te $ur$ose is to #orce % to come #or!ar" !it evi"ence an"
in#ormation !ic only e can +no! about te inci"ent an" is inaccessible to &.
e. .barra v. S$angar" (NN) ? ;)L !it multiple defendants an" no evi"ence o# !ic
one cause" te arm. Bur"en si#ts to %s to $rove in"ivi"ually tey !eren't neg.
Only $ossible in a $resum$tion state. & !as unconscious( evi"ence not accessible to
im so eac % $resume" neg to coerce tem to $ro"uce evi"ence about !o actually
a" control over instrumentality. Some critics say tis rule is unnecessary !it te
mo"ern "iscovery $rocess.
(1) )n a $resum$tion state( % may $ro"uce rebutting evi"ence to eliminate te
$resum$tion an" move to an in#erence basis( or even ave case "ismisse"( e.g.
Leonar" v. Hatsonville Hos$ital (N2)( !ere % "octor so!e" e coul" not ave
le#t te clam$ in & an" !as grante" summary ,u"gment.
N. 6A%)C9L 69L&;9CT)CA
9s $art o# is $rima #acie case( & must a##irmatively $rove- 1.) te relevant recogni3e"
stan"ar" o# care e/ercise" by oter "octors an" 0.) tat % "e$arte" #rom tat stan"ar".
A/$ert !itnesses are usually re8uire" to $rove te acce$te" stan"ar" o# care.
Higer standard of care- S$eciali3e" +no!le"ge an" s+ill o# % must be consi"ere".
Custom is a##or"e" muc more !eigt tan in normal neg cases. "ustom is generally
determinativeO
a. Stan"ar" o# care an" custom to be "etermine" at te national level( not local level
accor"ing to Seeley v. 6emorial Hos$ital (1DN).
(1) 4ala v. Hamilton (11>) a "octor can coose eiter o# t!o scools o#
tougt (even a minority a$$roac)( so long as bot are recogni3e" as being
legitimate by e/$erts an" !itin te boun"s o# a res$ecte" an" !ell*
recogni3e" vie!.
b. 12pert $itnesses nee" not be te same ty$e o# $ractitioner as %( so long as tey
ave e/$erience an"Jor #amiliarity !it te relevant #iel" an" $roce"ure( Seeley.
c. Connors v. :niversity 9ssociates says a ,ury may receive a /,# c!arge even
!ere & $ro"uces e/$ert me"ical testimony at trial. A/$ert testimony can bri"ge
te ga$ bet!een te me"ical !orl" an" common +no!le"ge.
1D. )N5O;6A% CONSANT
/easonable .atient 'tandard- 6ost courts !ill consi"er !at a reasonable $atient
!oul" ave !ante" to be tol" about is o$tions( e.g. 6atties v. 6astromonaco (100).
Tis $olicy tries to enance sel#*"etermination an" autonomy an" $revent "octors #rom
im$osing teir o!n values on $atients. Te minority a$$roac (N.) is to consi"er !at a
reasonable "octor !oul" ave tol" a $atient.
a. )t "oesn't matter !eter te $roce"ure actually em$loye" !as non-invasive.
9ll te o$tions an" material ris+s tat a reasonable $atient !oul" !ant to +no!
about( inclu"ing invasive ones( must be o##ere".
Negligence #iability /e+.3 1)5ailure to %iscloseO 0) )n,ury Su##ere"O 3)Causation
($atient !oul"'ve cosen alternative i# $resente")
b. Causation-
(1) 'ubjective- Hat !oul" this $atient a" cosenM ($rinci$ally( tis is
soun"er bc more matter o# #act)
(0) 4bjective (ma,.)- Hat !oul" reasonable person ave cosen i# given
coiceM (sub,. $rone to in"sigtonly evi". is P's). Te ob,ective
a$$roac is #avore".

". A/ce$tions- Tere's no "uty o# "isclosure in an emergency situation( or !ere
#ull "isclosure coul" reasonably be "etermine" to be "etrimental to $atient (e.g.
$!en patient is distraug!t or unstable).
THA %:T. ;AQ:);A6ANT (&H.S)C9L H9;6)
%uty o# care is an issue #or te court( not te ,ury. 9 "uty must be establise" be#ore
liability can #lo!.
1.) Te &alsgra# (71N) rule- Car"o3o says t!ere is a 5one of foreseeable !arm and duty
s!ould be limited to t!is 5one. Te mere #act tat you've !ronge" an in"ivi"ual an"
arme" a tir" $arty "oesn't mean you're liable #or tat arm. Tis is te tra"itional
libertarian( rigts*base" a$$roac to tort la!.
a. 6ndre$s says a "uty is o!e" to all te !orl" to $rotect against arm.
:tilitarian( concerne" !it te !i"er societal im$act o# te ruling( not ,ust te
rigts o# te in"ivi"ual $arties.
b. .rosser (S6 33) "isagrees( saying tat i# someone must bear te costs it soul"
be te neg %( not te innocent &. )# te cost is out o# $ro$ortion to %'s #ault( it's
certainly also out o# $ro$ortion to &'s innocence.
c. Hart and Honore says % a" li+ely been negligent be#ore but a"n't been
$unise"( so ol"ing im liable isn't all tat un#air.
". 7eeton ? Sli$$ery slo$e argument against 9n"re!s. )# !e ol" % liable base"
on acts tat !eren't a !rong to &( !e move to!ar"s sub,ective consi"erations li+e
!o is a better $erson.
0.) 4bligations to 4t!ers
Tere is no general duty to act. )# % sees & in "anger( e is un"er no legal obligation to
attem$t even an Beasy rescueC ? ;estatement 317. No liability !ill #lo! #rom
non#easance unless tere is a superseding special relations!ip li+e inn+ee$er*guest(
common carrier*$assenger( $ossessor o# lan" o$en to $ublic( or !ere % as ta+en
custo"y over & suc as to "eny & o# te normal ability to $rotect imsel#. (;estatement
3179)
a. 8oreseeability or 'uperior 7no$ledge o# a "angerous con"ition is not
su##icient to establis a "uty o# care( even i# % soul" ave +no!n & nee"e"
$rotection( unless a 3179 s$ecial relationsi$ e/ists. )n Har$er v. Herman (131)(
%'s +no!le"ge tat !ater !as sallo! "oesn't im$ose a "uty to !arnO & !asn't in
is custo"y( !asn't $articularly vulnerable( an" "i"n't lac+ ability to $rotect
imsel# nor "i" e e/$ect any $rotection #rom %. Tis case arguably involve"
non*negligent ris+ creation( toug te ma,ority "i" not #in" tis $ersuasive.
b. Duty to prevent aggravation ? 6al"ona"o v. Soutern &aci#ic (13>) (man's
arm urt !ile boar"ing train) relies on ;est. 300( saying i# % +no!s or as
reason to +no! is con"uct (!eter tortious or innocent) as cause" an in,ury
!ic is in "anger o# !orsening( e as an a##irmative "uty to e/ercise reasonable
care to $revent #urter arm.
c. Non-negligent creation of ris* ? Simonsen v. Torin (13<) says % as
a##irmative "uty to use "ue care to remove te a3ar" or !arn oters( toug e
!as not negligent in creating te a3ar". ;est. 301.
". Duty arising from a promise ? 6organ v. County o# .uba (13=) (seri##
$romise" to !arn la"y about release o# stal+er( but "i"n't( an" ten stal+er +ille"
er.)( % coul" be liable i# & coul" $rove se relied on te $romise an" would have
acted differently had the promise never been made.
e. "ommon 9nderta*ings ? in 5ar!ell v. @eaton (13=) % a" a "uty to $rotect a
com$anion !o !as beaten u$ in a common social un"erta+ing. )m$licit in teir
relationsi$ in te common social venture !as an un"erstan"ing tat one !ill
come to te assistance o# te oter i# it's re8uire". Te court create" a s$ecial
relationsi$( toug te "issent argue" tis im$ose" liability #or non#easance.
#. 6ssumption of duty by rendering assistance ? ;est 303J307. 5ar!ell also
el" tat !ere % as voluntarily begun to assist &( e assumes a "uty not to leave
im in a !orse con"ition tan e #oun" im in (by leaving & unatten"e" an"
unconscious overnigt in a car). 303 states D may stop rendering assistance at
any time, so long as doing so will not likely worsen Ps condition.
g. ,mpeding :
rd
.arty aid ? ;est 30< an" Relen+o v. 4imbel Bros (S6 7<) ol"
tat % assumes a "uty !ere e $revents 3
r"
$arty assistance #rom reacing
in,ure" &.
3. #imitation on t!e ;one of Duty ? courts ave limite" te "uty o# care on public
policy groun"s.
a. Concerns o# crus!ing or indeterminate liability #or %. )n 6oc v. ;ensselaer
(173)( Car"o3o calle" te negligent #ailure to $rovi"e #ire y"rant !ater mere
non#easance( Bat most te "enial o# a bene#it(C an" not te commission o# a
!rong. % "i"n't contract "irectly !it &. 5in"ing oter!ise *S unlimite" liability.
b. Strauss v. Belle (177) (blac+out in common area o# a$artment) te court ignores
tra"itional tort $rinci$les an" "enies liability on te basis o# $reventing unlimite"
liability. Court says tere is $rece"ent #or consi"ering te proliferation of claims.
Te dissent argue" no $roo# o# $roli#erating claims or crusing liability an" tat &
!as a #oreseeable victim. 9lso( allo!ing liability !oul" allo! #or loss*s$rea"ing.
7.) Duties 6rising from a 'tatute ? !en "oes a statute give rise to a $rivate cause o#
actionM
a. :r v. Aast 4reenbus (1>1) establises 3 $rong test #or allo!ing an implied
private rig!t of action-
(1) !eter & !as one o# te class #or !ose $articular bene#it te statute
!as enacte".
(0) !eter a $rivate rigt !oul" $romote te legislative $ur$ose.
(3) !eter a $rivate rigt is consistent !it te legislative sceme.
Te court #oun" a $rivate rigt "i"n't e/ist bJc not consistent !it 3
r"
$rong. Te
state a" enacte" a"ministrative en#orcement measures an" specifically
immuni!ed D for misfeasance in giving te scoliosis tests. Tere is no !ay(
tere#ore( tat a $rivate rigt #or non#easance is consistent.
b. Tere is no common la! negligence reme"y #or non#easance !J no s$ecial
relationsi$ (i.e. #ailure to give a scoliosis test)( but P wanted to adopt the statute
into the common law to create a duty of care. He coul" not "o so barring a $rivate
rigt o# action.
c. 1T "uty o# Beasy rescueC criminal statute ($g. 1>>). Li+ely !oul"n't give rise
to $rivate rigt o# action bJc o# te to+en G1DD $enalty.
>.) 4bligation to "ontrol "onduct of 4t!ers
)n 4eneral( tere is no "uty to control te con"uct o# oters. 6ere +no!le"ge tat a
tort#easor may act is not su##icient to create a "uty at common la!.
a. Duty to $arn of ,mminent Harm * Taraso## v. Boar" o# ;egents (1>2) says if
a psychiatrist has reason to know that a patient is likely to harm a specified third
party, the doctor owes a duty of care to warn the intended victim or the police.
(1)Hile tis is $ure non#easance an" tere's no relationsi$ bet!een %
an" victim( te court establises tis "uty on $olicy groun"s. %octor is in
te best $osition to +no! about( troug is s$ecial relationsi$( an"
$revent te arm.
(0) Taraso## contrasts !it Strauss ? ere( $ublic $olicy e/$an"s a "uty(
!ile in Strauss in contracte" one.
b. Duty to $arn of possible medical dangers ? suc "uties arise out o# te
s$ecial relationsi$ bet!een "octor an" $atient.
(1) in &ate v. Trel+el (1<>) %r. o!e" a "uty to !arn $atient tat er
cancer $as genetic i# e +no!s $atient as +i"s !o coul" bene#it #rom
early "etection.
(0) in ;eisner (1<7) %r. gave $atient 9)%S transfusion< didn0t tell !er(
an" se got boy#rien" in#ecte". Te %r. o$ed boyfriend a duty. Aasy
mis#easance case.
(3) Tenu"o (1<=) ? %r*$atient relationsi$ triangulate" #rom in#ant to is
#ater !o got $olio. %r o!e" a "uty to #ater.
c. Duty not to "reate /is* !ru (isrepresentation * )n ;an"i H. v. 6uroc
(1=D) court #oun" once % scool "istrict un"ertoo+ to re$resent molester's
caracter( it a" a "uty to "o so onestly i# not "oing so create" a #oreseeable ris+.
Te misre$resentation amounte" to mis#easance an" foreseeably induced
reliance.
". Negligent 1ntrustment ? Su$$lying "angerous instrumentality to 3
r"
$arty
!o $oses unreasonable ris+ o# causing arm to sel#Joter #oreseeable $ee$s.
(1) 1ince v. Hilson (1=N) bot 9unt (!o $ut u$ money) an" car "ealers
can be #oun" to o!e a "uty to & it by car o# ba" ne$e!. Dealers had no
duty to in"uire, but if they knew the risk, they can be liable. Neg. Antrust
can a$$ly to loans as !ell as sales.
e. 'ocial Host #iability ? #ocial hosts do not owe a duty to #oreseeable victims o#
teir guest's "run+enness. )n ;eynol"s v. Hic+s (12>) $olicy concerns o# bur"en
o# monitoring on social osts "es$ite statute $roibiting service o# alcool to
minors. Commercial ven"ors "o ave suc a "uty.
#. Note on c!ain of causation ? anyone in te cain o# causation can o!e a "uty
to #oreseeable victims i# teir con"uct enables a tort#easor's tortious activity(
toug !ill#ul or !anton acts o# te tort#easor can brea+ tis cain an" "e#eat
$ro/imate cause( e.g. Hamilton v. Beretta.
<. 4ccupiers0 #iability
a. Tree common la! categories o# entrants-
1.) respassers ? one on te lan" !itout a $rivilege to be tere. No "uty is ever
o!e" #or natural con"itions.
a. :n+no!n ? No "uty o!e" e/ce$t not to arm by !il#ull or !anton
con"uct. No "uty to !arn or $rotect against a3ar"s.
b. %iscovere" * tere's a "uty to e/ercise reasonable care in one's active
con"uct( e.g. o$erating macinery. %uty to !arn o# or ma+e sa#e +no!n
con"itions i# non*obvious an" highly "angerous.
c. 5re8uent ? Same "uty as above.
". Cil" ? "uty to !arn or $rotect i# ris+ out!eigs e/$ense o# eliminating
"anger an" cil" !oul"n't a$$reciate te "anger.
0.) #icensees inclu"es social guests an" oters #rom !o occu$ier "erives no
material bene#it. Te "uty on licensees is to e/ercise reasonable care in is active
con"uct an" must !arn o# or ma+e sa#e any conceale" "angerous con"itions of
which he has actual knowledge. Can't be liability i# % "oesn't ave actual
+no!le"ge o# te ris+. Occu$ier is not un"er an obligation to ins$ect #or
"angerous a3ar"s.
a. )n Carter v. @inney (1ND) Bible grou$ visitor !as licensee bJc licensor
not receiving material bene#it #rom is $resence an" invitation !as only to
a select grou$( not te general $ublic. Tere#ore( no duty to $arn about
t!e un*no$n ice patc!. % a" sovele" te nigt be#ore an" !as not
a!are o# te ne! a3ar".
3.) ,nvitees ? member o# $ublic (i# event is o$en to te $ublic) or business visitor.
Same "uty as #or licensee( but is also un"er affirmative duty to make reasonable
inspections to discover non$obvious dangers and warn or make them safe.
7.) .ublic 1mployees li+e co$s an" #iremen are o!e" "i##erent "uties "e$en"ing
on te state.
b. Heins v. Hebster (1N=) ? court abandons the distinction between invitees and
licensees as arbitrary an" inconsistent. Bot no! o!e" te same "uty o# care
tra"itionally o!e" invitees. Tere's no! an ob,ective stan"ar" o# care base" on
reasonable #oreseeability.
=. #andlord-enant ? at common la!( lan"lor"s only liable #or i""en "angers( common
areas( or re$airs negligently ma"e.
a. Courts increasingly #in" a "uty !ere lan"lor" as promised to ma*e repairs
but as not bJc & relie" on $romise an" coul" ave ma"e re$airs imsel#. No "uty
#or #ailing to ma+e re$airs !ere no $romise !as ma"e.
b. Lan"lor" must ta+e reasonable steps to prevent crimes on te $remises. )n
@line v. 1>DD 6assacusetts 9ve (0D<)( lan"lor" o!e" a "uty to $revent assault in
all!ay !en suc crimes !ere #re8uent an" tus 8uite #oreseeable.
2. -usiness 4$ners and "rime ? ;est 31>(b) im$oses "uty to $rotect $atrons (invitees)
#rom #oreseeable criminal acts o# oters. 5our tests #or "etermining a "uty-
(1) 'pecific Harm rule ? no "uty unless a!are o# s$eci#ic imminent arm.
%oesn't matter i# e soul" ave +no!n about it. 1ery limite".
(0) .rior 'imilar ,ncidents rule ? #oreseeability establise" by $rior similar
inci"ents on $remises or in te area.
(3) otality of "ircumstances rule * ta+es into account te con"ition an" nature
o# te lan"( $revious crimes in te area( etc. Tis is te ma,ority a$$roac. 1ery
broa".
(7) -alancing test ? balance #oreseeability an" gravity o# arm !it bur"en o#
$rotection( a la Learne" Han". Tis a$$roac gives all power to the judge(
virtually merges "uty an" stan"ar" o# care.
a. Balancing test a"o$te" in &osecai v. Hal*6art (0D<). Tere !as ig
crime in te neigboroo"( but not on te $remises( so not #oreseeable.
Hig bur"en o# iring security guar"s com$are" to lo! ris+.
a. Tere is never a duty to accede to criminal demands( even !en tis $uts a $atron
at ris+( accor"ing to @5C v. Su$erior Court (013). &olicy concerns over encouraging
ostage*ta+ing.
N. ,ntrafamily Duties ? Common la! as establise" certain #amilial relationsi$s !ic
grant immunity #rom suit base" on tort. S$ouses may not sue eac oter( nor may a cil"
sue is $arents. Te states are stea"ily abolising tese immunities( o!ever.
a. .arent-"!ild relations!ips ? Te court in Broa"bent v. Broa"bent (017)
abolise" te "octrine o# $arental immunity. )nstea"( it a"o$te" te reasonable
parent test<% saying a ,ury must "eci"e i# %'s con"uct !as !at !oul" be
e/$ecte" #rom a reasonable an" $ru"ent $arent un"er similar circumstances. )n
tis case a ,ury may #in" tat leaving a 0*yr ol" by te $ool #aile" tis test.
(1) te Broa"bent court re,ecte" te 4oller "istinction bet!een "uties
o!e" to te !orl" (no immunity) an" tose o!e" ,ust to te cil"
(immunity).
(0) )n Holo"oo+ v. S$encer (N.)( no liability #or $arental negligent
su$ervision (non#easance).
(3) Ri+ely v. Ri+ely (baby burnt in tub) (N.) e/ten"e" Holo"oo+. No
liability #or negligent creation o# ris+ (mis#easance).
Amotional Harm
Tra"itional B)m$act ;uleC- emotional arm only recoverable i# "irectly cause" by
$ysical arm. ;ecovery barre" #or #reestan"ing emotional arm.
1. ;one of Danger rule- & may recover #or #reestan"ing emotional arm if e a"
reasonable fear of imminent physical danger an" is arm as physical, clinically$
diagnosable manifestations.
a. 5al3one v. Busc (0<1). & nearly it by a car an" su##ere" slee$lessness an"
tremors( etc. Te court "iscar"e" te B$ysical im$actC rule an" a"o$te" te 3one
o# "anger rule.
(1) Te court "i" not a"o$t a general #oreseeability test. 6ere #rigt or
$aranoia !ill not sustain recovery. .!ysical< diagnosable manifestations
must be $resent an" & must ave a" reasonable fear of imminent
p!ysical !arm.
(0) )n Quill v. TH9 (=6>) ? airline passengers !ere reasonably $lace" in
#ear o# teir lives an" te courts allo!e" recovery.
b. 12posure to Disease ? Courts ave varie" on tis sub,ect.
(1) )n 6etro*Nort v. Buc+ley (0=D) SC sai" "irect contact !it asbestos
"ust "i" not constitute a treat o# imminent $ysical arm( tus not in 3one
o# "anger. . could not recover for fear of cancer% unless !e actually
got cancer. %oncerns over unlimited liability and frivolous cases.
(0) Here e/$osure ma+es & clinically Bmore li+ely tan notC to contract a
"isease( some courts ave allo!e" recovery( e.g. 5irestone.
(3) H,? needles ? 6ost courts re8uire & to be in 3one o# "anger( i.e. t!e
needle $as actually infected. But Hilliamson (0==) allo!e" recovery to
com$ensate #or #ear a reasonable $erson !it or"inary +no!le"ge about
H)1 !oul" su##er !ere nee"le !as not in#ecte".
b. 12ceptions to ;one of Danger rule- in BcorpseC an" BtelegramC cases( te
#oreseeability o# emotional arm is so obvious tat accom$anying $ysical
mani#estations or $resence in te 3one o# "anger is not re8uire". Tis is a
#oreseeability*base" rule.
(1) 4ammon v. Osteo$atic (0=2) ? & receive" "ea" "a"'s leg. Base"
solely on #oreseeability( not 8uite an e/tension o# te cor$se rule.
0. -ystander0s /eaction to Harm ? more #le/ible a$$roac tan 3one o# "anger.
a. &ortee v. Ja##ee (020) a"o$te" a #our*$rong test to "etermine !eter an
emotional in,ury !as recoverable because #oreseeable- ).) .ro2imity of . to
accident@sensory impact< =.) close relations!ip bet$een . and victim (spouse
or family member)< :.) . must !ave $itnessed t!e negligently-caused deat! or
serious injury< and &.) resulting severe emotional distress. Ds duty of
reasonable care to avoid physical harm e&tends to the avoidance of this type of
emotional harm.
(1) )t "i" not matter tat & "i" not !itness te acci"entO it !as enoug tat se
arrive" to !atc te ours*long rescue.
(0) O#( course $ysical mani#estation o# arm must be $resent to allo! recovery.
b. )n Barnill v. %avis (02<) (son !itnesses mom's car cras) te court a"o$ts a
more #le/ible a$$roac. Aven toug mom !asn't actually arme"( . son
reasonably t!oug!t s!e $as injured and recovered.
c. Ne$ Aor* as a"o$te" a muc stricter test( insisting tat . must !ave been in
t!e 5one of danger. )n Jonson v. Jamaica Hos$ital (0N1) no "uty o!e" to &
moter !ose in#ant !as ab"ucte". Concerns o# unlimite" liability.
(1) Te N. court cite" @alina v. 4eneral Hos$ital !ere no "erivative
"uty !as o!e" to $arents #or negligent circumcision. 9 "uty !as
o!e" to te son only. 1ery restrictive a$$roac in bot cases( $era$s
too rigi".
(0) Ha!aii is uni8ue in tat it allo!s recovery #or emotional arm su##ere"
#rom loss o# $ersonal $ro$erty an" arm to e/ten"e" #amily. 1ery
loose test.
Aconomic Harm
Aconomic arm accom$anie" by $ysical arm as al!ays been recoverable at common
la!. Te more "i##icult 8uestion is #reestan"ing economic arm.
1. &ro#essional's Liability ? te +ey in tese cases is !eter % induced reliance.
a. 6ccountants ? )n Nycal v. @&64 (3D0) & bougt 4ul# base" on %'s negligent
#inancial statements. Tere !as no "uty in tat % "i"n't $re$are te statements #or
&'s bene#it an" tus did not induce reliance. Court consi"ere" : tests-
(1) Beneral foreseeability test ? Te &alsgra# rule. Tere is a "uty o!e"
to any $erson tat % coul" ave reasonably #oreseen !oul" obtain an"
rely on te accountant's o$inion( inclu"ing +no!n and unknown
investors. Tis is too broa" #or econ arm an" "is#avore". 5ears o#
unlimite" liability.
(0) Near-.rivity test ? re8uires 1.) % +no!s te $arty is relying on teir
"ata to tat $arty's "etriment 0.) tat te re$orts are use" #or a
$articular $ur$ose in #urterance o# !ic a +no!n $arty or $arties is
inten"e" to rely an" 3.) tere as to ave been some con"uct on te
$art o# te accountant to create a lin+ to te suing $arty. Too
restrictive. Te tir" evi"entiary element is arbitrary an" "oesn't
re#lect on actual reliance.
(3) /estatement CC= test ? Similar to n*$ but !Jo te 3
r"
element. Liable
to a Blimite" grou$ o# $ersons #or !ose bene#it K gui"anceC te in#o.
!as su$$lie". Tis is te test te court cooses. D did not intend for
P to use the statements, so no duty owed. 'o induced reliance.
b. 6ttorneys ? )n &etrillo (311) ol"s attorney a" a "uty to a tir" $arty bJc
client as+e" attorney to sen" a "ocument !ere te purpose of the doc was to
induce reliance. See also 4lan3er belo!.
c. ,nterference $it! 6not!er0s -usiness ? 12clusionary% rule- tere !ill be
no "uty #or #reestan"ing economic loss. 6ust be accom$anie" by $ysical arm.
Concerns over unlimite" liability an" #rau". >30 6a"ison 9ve. 4ourmet v.
5inlan"ia Center (301)( !ere no "uty to stores tat su##ere" lost business #rom
buil"ing colla$se in mi"to!n 6anattan. Toug e2ceptions ave been carve"
out-
(1) ,nduced /eliance can be groun"s #ro establising a "uty. )n 4lan3er
v. Se$er" (310) Car"o3o #oun" te $ublic !eiger o!e" a "uty to 3
r"

$arty bJc e in"uce" reliance !it is measurements an" +ne! tat te
Ben" aim o# te transactionC !as to in#orm te buyer o# te amount to be
$ai".
(0) .articular 8oreseeability ? )n &eo$le A/$ress v. Con;ail (313) % a"
a cemical lea+ an" &'s airline terminal a" to be evacuate". %'s
emergency $lans inclu"e" $lan to evacuate. Te NJ court el" tat a "uty
o# care e/iste" to ta+e reasonable $recautions against arming an
i"enti#iable class tat is particularly #oreseeable. Not a general "uty(
toug. TH)S )S THA 6)NO;)T. 9&&;O9CH.
(1) Te &eo$le A/$ress test is some!at amor$ous. )n ;ic+ar"s
v. Sun Oil (303) te NJ court earlier "enie" liability #or barge
itting bri"ge an" cutting o## customer stream to stores( !ic
te &eo$le A/$ress court "istinguise" as general
#oreseeability. Tis is te e2clusionary rule.
Causation
1.) Te Bbut forC test is te usual test #or causation. )# T !oul" not ave occurre" but #or
.( ten . is a cause*in*#act o# T. )# te arm !oul" ave occurre" any!ay !itout te
negligence( !e assume tere is no cause*in*#act.
a. ;ouleau v. Blotner (S6 7N) & !oul" ave crase" is car even i# % a" not
been negligent in #ailing to use is in"icator( so te Bbut #orC test says %'s neg !as
not a cause*in*#act.
0.) The but for test fails where there are two or more tortfeasors an" any one o# tem
alone coul" ave cause" te arm (e.g. 0 $ee$s $using car over cli## !en only one is
necessary). None o# tem is a Bbut #orC cause so tere !oul" be no liability. Tis o##en"s
our sense o# ,ustice an" #airness. Te substantial factors test overcomes tis "e#iciency.
a. Tis test( as outline" in te ;estatement( ol"s tat !ere neiter #orce is a
necessary cause( but bot !oul" be su##icient to bring about te arm( tey are
Bsubstantial #actorsC an" bot are "eeme" causes*in*#act.
b. N1'' est ? ;icar" Hrigt's teory tat !it multi$le #orces at !or+( te
#orces soul" be "istille" into sets minimally su##icient to cause te arm. 9ny
necessary element o# a su##icient set (NASS) soul" be consi"ere" a cause.
c. )n @ingston v. Cicago ;; (S6) t!o #ires( one set negligently by %( one o#
un+no!n origin. Aiter !oul" ave been su##icient to "estroy &'s $ro$erty. Te
court( using te substantial factors test( el" tat %'s #ire !as a cause*in*#act
even toug te but #or test !oul" ave cleare" im.
(1) Damages in tis case !oul" "i##er base" on te source o# te secon"
#ire. )# tortious( % !oul" be liable an" un"er ,oint*an"*several liability
an" !oul" o!e 1DDU #ull "amages. )# non*tortious( % !oul" still be
liable( toug !oul" not o!e "amages as te ouse !oul" ave been
"estroye" any!ay.
(0) A/ce$tion- @ingston court note" tat if one fire $ere very small( te
bigger #ire !oul" be consi"ere" a su$erse"ing or intervening #actor
an" te small #ire !oul" not satis#y pro2imate cause re+uirements(
even toug tere !as a causal contribution. There is no causation if
the contribution is too minimal. Tis is "one #or $olicy reasons( not
strict tort $rinci$les.
(3) )n %illon v. T!in State (S6) te cause*in*#act !as not in "is$ute( but
court el" tat i# & a" #allen an" maime" or +ille" imsel# a#ter te
electrocution "amages must be re"uce" accor"ingly.
a. -arge !ypot!etical- )# in %illon tere !as a barge negligently
moore" at te bri"ge an" & !oul" ave #allen on tat( !oul"
barge be liableM No( bJc barge !as not a cause*in*#act o# te
in,ury. He ,ust got luc+y. Te electric com$any !oul" still be
liable( an" !oul" ave to $ay #ull "amages un"er @ingston
logic.
3. "ausal 9ncertainty (Difficulties $it! .roof)
a. Ruco!ic3 v. :S (37N) ? & got negligent over"ose o# %anocrine( got &&H( "ie".
No +no!n stu"ies on te connection. Bur"en si#te" to % to $rove tat te
negligent overdose (not ,ust te "rug) "i"n't cause &&H. .ublic policy
consi"erations $erva"e in tis case- Calabresi !ants to give te rigt incentives to
#uture $arties- namely( "on't negligently $rescribe over"oses o# "rugs.
(1) 12pert Ditnesses ? very little +no!n about connection( so te e/$erts
!oul"n't be $ermitte" un"er te %aubert test( but trial ,u"ge allo!e"
tem any!ay. Eudge !as $ide discretion in allo$ing e2perts.
(0) !e proof ? er sym$toms #it tem$orally !it oter +no!n cases o#
"rug*in"uce" &&H. 9lso( te "rug li+ely cause" ormonal canges
!ic can cause &&H. Te negligence !asn't necessarily su##icient(
toug tere !as strong evi"ence it !as te cause.
(3) -urden s!ifts to D to $rove te negligent overdose (not ,ust te "rug)
!as not te Bbut #orC cause in #act. Court invo+e" 6artin v. Her3og(
saying !en % violates a statute meant to $revent te ty$e o# arm tat
!as cause"( te bur"en si#ts.
(7) "ausal lin*age is given great !eigt ere bJc Bbut #orC causation is so
"i##icult to $rove in a case li+e tis. :sually both are re8uire". Tis is
very ra"ical an" not te ma,ority rule. Justi#ie" on $ublic $olicy
groun"s.
b. #oss of "!ance ? !ere the defendant has negligently deprived or reduced Ps
chance to survive. Te in,ury is te lost o$ty o# a better result( not te arm
cause" by te $resenting $roblem. & as bur"en o# $roo# tat te arm #or !ic
e originally sougt treatment !as ma"e !orse by te lost cance.
(1) 'tandard of .roof ? liability i# & can "emonstrate( to a reasonable
degree of medical probability( tat tere !as a causal lin* bet!een te
negligence an" te lost cance.
a. )n 9lberts v. Scult3 (3>N)( & coul" not $rove tat tere !as a
!in"o! o# time "uring !ic measures coul" ave been ta+en
to save &'s leg( bJc it !asn't clear e a" te rigt +in" o# vein.
Tere#ore( tey "i" not "emonstrate a causal lin+.
(0) (easure of Damages ? i# te cance o# survival goes 7DU *S 0DU
an" li#e is !ort G1 million( "amages are (.7D*.0D)(G1 million) V
G0DD(DDD. %one on a $ro$ortional basis as "etermine" by te U value
o# te $atient's cance #or a better outcome $rior to te negligent act.
6ulti$le %e#en"ants
1. Eoint and 'everal #iability * Summers v. Tice (3=7) ? !ere & cannot $rove !ic o#
t!o negligent %s cause" te in,ury( te bur"en o# $roo# si#ts to eac %( who are in the
best position to know what actually happened. Te goal is to #orce %s to come #or!ar"
!it in#ormation( $er .barra. Oter!ise( tey !ill be #oun" ,ointly an" severally liable
an" & can collect 1DDU #rom eiter one o# tem. 9LTA;N9T)1A L)9B)L)T.M
a. )# only one o# te %s !ere negligent( tis rule coul" not be a$$lie" bJc tere
isn't a preponderance of t!e evidence t!at negligence caused t!e !arm.
0. (ar*et '!are #iability@,ndeterminate D ? Here bur"en o# $roo# o# !ic %'s
negligence cause" te arm is insurmountable( liability !ill be a$$ortione" $ursuant to
eac %'s national m+t sare o# te given $ro"uct as a !ay o# ol"ing eac % accountable
#or te sare o# ris+ to !ic it sub,ecte" te $ublic. )n Hymo!it3 v. Ali Lilly (3=2) te
court rule" tat % could not produce e2culpatory evidence to so! its $ills "i"n't cause
te arm( as tis !oul" "istort te $ro$ortional sceme troug ran"om anomalies !ere
evi"ence a$$ens to e/ist. . may sue one D if *no$n t!ey supplied t!e pills. 9lso( te
court re,ecte" inflationary liability( so tat i# certain %s are no! insolvent( & cannot
#ully recover. Liability un"er Hymo!it3 is several only.
a. A$stein argues #or a B$ureC m+t sare a$$roac( "isallo!ing e/cul$ation. Arror
rates an" a"ministrative costs !ill be iger. 9lso( e suggests no ,oint an"
several liability( on te groun"s tat it im$oses un#airly ig costs on %s an"
intro"uces #urter error into te $rocess. He "oes not tin+ a & !o +no!s !ic
% su$$lie" te $ills soul" be allo!e" to sue "irectlyO must enter te m+t sceme
or else "istortions.
b. Tere is also a loss-spreading rationale to tese cases.
3. !e ,ndeterminate .laintiff ? Here &'s class can so! as a !ole tat %'s $ro"uct
cause" arm( but unclear to !ic &s bJc o# bac+groun" ris+s. )n 9gent Orange (S6 <<)(
%s liability soul" be $ro$ortional to te amount o# ris+ create" by te $ro"uct multi$lie"
by te in,uries cause".
a. Hy$o- 0(>DD e/$osure victims. 3U !ill get cancer any!ay (bac+groun" ris+s)
an" 1U !ill get cancer bJc o# negligence. %amages in eac case is G1(DDD. So .
D7(0>DD) V 1DD $ee$s get cancer( so .0>(1DD $ee$s) *S 0> $eo$le got cancer #rom
9O. 0>F1DDD V G0>(DDD is total liability o# % "ivi"e" by 1DD cancers V
G0>DJvictim in "amages. 9s in Sin"ell( D pays for t!e increase in ris* it caused
(MMMMMMMMMMM)
&ro/imate Cause
&C is a normative conce$t o# !at constitutes te +in" o# causal cain #or !ic !e !ant
to im$ose liability on a negligent $arty. % !ill usually be liable #or un#oreseeable
severity o# arm( but not un#oreseeable type o# arm.
1. /easonable 8oreseeability test is te general rule #or establising $ro/imate cause. )n
Hagon 6oun" ) (7D>)( % "um$e" oil( is liable #or "amage to te "oc+s but not #or te
ensuing #ire( which was not reasonably foreseeable. Assentially( you are liable #or te
same tings #or !ic you ave a "uty o# care to $revent.
a. Tis overturne" te &olemis directness test( !ic el" tat a negligent act is
te $ro/imate cause o# any arm it "irectly causes( regar"less o# #oreseeability.
0. 1ggs!ell .laintiff /ule ? tis is an e2ception to te reasonable #oreseeability test #or
$ro/ cause. % must ta+e & as e #in"s im. Damages can be re"uce" by $roving &
!oul" not ave live" muc longer (as $er %illon).
a. )n Benn v. Tomas (3NN) & !as rear*en"e"( bruise" is an+le an" cest( an"
"ie" o# eart attac+ < "ays later. Court sai" te eggsell & rule soul" a$$ly an"
% is liable( toug "amage migt be re"uce" bJc o# is #ragile con"ition.
b. 5or emotional !arm( te action must o# te ty$e tat !oul" cause "istress in
te ordinarily sensitive person.
c. 'c!i5op!renia cause" by minor #en"er ben"er is actionable( but "amages can
be greatly re"uce" $er %illon. Steinauser v. Hert3.
". 'ubse+uent 6ggravation o# an in,ury can result in liability #or % bJc & !oul"
not ave been in tat $osition but #or %'s original negligence( e.g. Hagner v.
6itten"or#. (edical 6ggravation is an e/tension o# tis (!ere % liable #or
arm#ul me"ical care & gets a#ter % in,ures tem( e.g. te ambulance cras).
;i"ing in an ambulance is a reasonably #oreseeable conse8uence o# being in,ure"(
so % is liable.
3. "oincidence "ases ? 4enerally no $ro/ cause !ere te arm is not te ty$e tat
#oreseeably arises #rom te negligent con"uct. )n Berry v. Sugar Notc( tere !as no
$ro/ cause !ere a tree #ell on a s$ee"ing trolley.
a. $o rental car scenarios ? )n 1entricelli v. @inney (711)( % car rental
com$any not liable #or "e#ective car $ulle" into legal $ar+ing s$ot an" & renter
it. Just a coinci"ence. C#. %er"iarian v. 5eli/ (710)( !ere & !as #orce" to $ull
over to si"e o# busy ig!ay( !ic is #oreseeably "angerous. Tus % !as liable.
7. 'uperseding "ause ? )# a tir" $arty's con"uct is sufficiently egregious and $illful it
can brea+ te cain o# causation an" relieve negligent % o# liability. )n 6cLauglin v.
6ine Sa#ety (710)( %'s negligence in not labeling te eating bloc+s coul" be su$erse"e"
by te #ireman's actual *no$ledge tat tey !ere "angerous an" re#usal to !arn te
nurse. BJc #ireman a##irmatively remove" te bloc+s #rom te bo/( !ic a" te
!arnings( it !asn't ,ust non#easance. Bot actual +no!le"ge an" te a##irmative action
are necessary to absolve % #or is negligent action.
a. Here .0s negligence $as sufficiently un$arranted( e may be "enie"
recovery #or %'s initial negligence. )n Agan( !or+er ,um$e" out o# elevator a#ter
only 1D minutes( coul"n't recover.
b. )n te case o# special relations!ips( tere !ill still be liability even i# tere's a
su$erse"ing cause.
(1) ,nn*eeper-Buest ? in 9""is v. Steele (71=) % inn+ee$er !as liable
#or #ailing to $rotect against #ire( even toug starte" by arson. His
"uty is to $rotect against any ty$e o# #ire.
(0) "ommon "arrier ? Hines v. 4arrett * % railroa" liable #or missing
sto$( #orcing & to !al+ an" get ra$e". Tere's an a##irmative "uty to
$rotect $assengers.
Com$arative 5ault ;egimes
1. Tere are 3 a$$roaces-
a. B.ureC ;egime ? &'s "amages are re"uce" $ro$ortional to is sare o# te
#ault( regardless of what that fault is.
b. 1+ual 8ault -ar ? &'s "amages are re"uce" by is o!n #ault( an" e can
recover only i# e is less at fault than D.
c. Breater 8ault -ar ? &'s "amages are re"uce"( an" e can recover i# is
#ault is less tan or e"ual to Ds fault.
0. Numerical e/am$les- Hy$o 1- &V7D( %1V>D( %0V1D- !J aggregation( % collects
#rom bot. HJo agg( % collects only #rom %1. )# ,Ks( e can get <DU #rom %1(
oter!ise only >DU.
a. Hy$o 0- &V7D( %1V3D( %0V3D. HJ agg( % collects #rom bot. HJo agg(
neiter.
3. Some cases !on't use com$arative #ault !ere one $arty's be!avior is socially
unacceptable.
a. )n Bar+er v. @alas (77>)( court bars recovery #or & !o !as ma+ing
bomb. Houl"n't even assign #ault.
7. ,mputation ? !ere & sues base" on arm "one to a tir" $arty victim.
a. Derivative actions allo! "e#enses tat !oul" be available against B"irectC
victim. 9$$lies only loss of consortium an" $rongful deat! claims.
b. ,ndependent 6ctions ? %irect "uty. %e#enses not trans#erable( e.g.
bystander cases an" parent-c!ild cases.
>. Doctor0s Defenses ? 9 victim's negligence causing te original arm may not be
te basis o# com$arative #ault #or subse8uent me"ical mal$ractice.
a. )n 5ritts v. 6c@inne (7>0) % "octor can't submit evi"ence tat & !as
"run+ "riving an" "rug user( on policy grounds. %rs must treat $atients as
tey #in" tem.
(1) Suc evi"ence can be used in damages calculation( $er
%illon.
<. 6voidable "onse+uences ? !en & #ails to mitigate an" su##ers aggravation o#
arm. )# & "oesn't get me"ical attention( % migt be relieve" o# liability #or any
!orsening o# te initial arm. )# t!ere is any reasonable degree of ris*(
o!ever( a court !ill nto re8uire & to un"ergo treatment.
a. 6nticipatory 6voidable "ons ? #ailing to !ear seatbelt.
9ssum$tion o# ;is+
;e8uires tat & 1.) recogni!ed and understood the risk an" 0.) voluntarily chose to
encounter it.
1. 12press ? re8uires actual +no!le"ge o# te ris+ an" e/$ress consent to !aive one's
rigt to "ue care.
a. Te courts sometimes !ill not en#orce suc agreements on policy grounds( e.g.
!it res$ect to $ublic e"ucation an" common carriers( or !ere bargaining $o!er
is mismatce". See %alury v. S@).
0. ,mplied ? & im$licitly assumes te ris+s inerent to an activity.
a. .rimary- % creates ris+ tat & knowingly chooses to en"eavor. 9ctual
+no!le"ge o# ris+ not re8uire". Not an affirmative defenseO it goes to initial
consi"eration o# !eter tere !as a "uty.
(1) Hatcing or $laying a s$orting matc is )&9; o# getting it by $uc+ or
tac+le". )n @nigt v. Je!ett no "uty o!e" #or & urt in touc #ootball.
&olicy- don0t $ant to c!ill competition.
(0) )n 6ur$y v. Stee$lecase (7<N) no liability bJc & un"erstoo" an"
voluntarily encountere" te ris+( !ic !as te !ole $oint. Tere#ore %
o!e" a "iminise" "uty.
b. 'econdary- 9 "uty an" breac e/ist( but &'s contrib. neg can be consi"ere" on
com$arative basis. Secon"ay is a true defense. ;e8uires actual *no$ledge o#
ris+ create" by %'s neg. an" "ecision to assume it. No consent involve".
(1) )# reasonable( & can #ully recover( e.g. !ere & as no oter !ay to
$rotect its interests #ollo!ing %'s neg li+e in Bo""ie v. Scott (saving
valuable $ro$erty #rom #ire).
(0) )# unreasonable( re"uction o# "amages. %aven$ort v. Cotton Ho$e (3
stair!ays).
a. ;unning into #ire #or at( or "iving into sallo!Jmur+y
s!imming $ool can bar recovery as superseding acts.
&reem$tion
9 "e#ense tat state common la! is overri""en by #e" regs inten"e" to create a uni#orm(
$re"ictable stan"ar". )n 4eier v. Hon"a claim !as $reem$te" by su$remacy clause.
Here te #e" regs only create a floor o# min stan"ar"s( state tort la! may a$$ly(
toug.
&ro"ucts Liability
1. Design Defects ? !ere one ,ust one s$ecimen( but te entire "esign is "e#ective. T!o
tests use" concurrently in Bar+er v. Lull-
a. 4rdinary "onsumer0s 12pectations est (OCA) ? 6inimum sa#ety
assum$tions base" on every"ay e/$erience. ;e8uires- 1) %i"n't $er#orm as sa#ely
as e/$ecte"O 0)%e#ect !as Blegal causeC o# P's in,.O 3):se" in ;eas. #oreseeable
manner. ;oote" in conce$t o# implied $arranty of merc!antability.
(1) Soule v. 46 says only to be use" $!en no e2pert testimony
re+uired( toug some cases say O@ i# issues are $lainly !itin $eo$le's
+no!le"ge.
(0)
b. /is*--enefit 6nalysis (/-6) ? %oes "esign e/ibit Be2cessive preventable
dangerMC Loo+ into ;easonable 9lternative %esigns (/6Ds).
(1) )n Camaco v. Hon"a( = #actors to consi"er.