In Summers v. Tice, the California Supreme court held two hunters liable on a concert of action theory.

True or False. False.. why? Concert of action? Is that real? On a substantial factor test? Still false. Alternative liability Plaintiff purchases bottle of silver cleaner, no warning label but a bit of glue hinting a label might be gone, she used it, and then got a rash, both friends saying they followed the directions on the jar and used rubber gloves… P wants to file suit against manufacturer governed by section 402A…. a. P case might be governed by a true strict liability standard, in which the reasonableness of manufacturer, behave wont matter b. P action can only be for a design defect, failure to warn, and although rhetoric of strict liability used, will not be actual c. Case that will be governed by strict liability in which actions will play no part of manu d. Section 402a does not apply Answer: Can’t for sure say one way or the other without knowing more about the potential label, so the answer is A because it uses the word “might”

Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior which of the following is true a. An employer may be held strictly liable for its negligent acts something, look it up b. Employer may be held liable for negligently hiring an unsuitable employee c. Employee is absolved from liability of his negligent acts while under “work” order and instead the employer is held liable (Not true) d. A and C e. B and C

-

Intentional torts involving physical injury o Battery  Vosburg  Think in terms of Restatement for exam  Intent: Either you want it to happen or you are

not substantially certain.- - substantially certain that the result desired will occur • Fire gun randomly at a room 25% full. most courts will take position that you better be right o Doctrine of Necessity  Ploof v. and so substantial factor test then goes into affect there • Summers Tice was odd case. etc where but-for doesn’t work. like the 2 joining fires. Putnam Unintentional torts o Actual cause  999/1000 is it true that but for the D conduct would the result still have occurred • Special cases. may be incredibly negligent. very rare circumstance  Market Share DES  Sindell Case • Theory may be applied again if new situations arise • Not used now?  Ybarra • Not alternative liability o Didn’t know who did what  Kingston – o Concert of action  Think drag racers  Xplicit agreement to act in a way that would be legally culpable  2 manufacturers agree to market a defective product  must be agreement to do the thing that makes them legally culpable o Know Respondeat superior (same chapter as actual cause)  Underlying legal culpability of the employee  That requires negligence on part of employee in torts . but not substantially certain of a result  Consent: Restatement sees it as an affirmative defense o Trespass to chattels o Trespass to land Privileges o Consent – Restatement…. o Self-defense  If it’s a third party you are protecting.

or how much are you directing them in the details of the work. what will plaintiff argue. o Independent contractor. not keeping them from getting swept overboard • So not Per Se  Breaking statute of having a driver’s license while driving. how much are you in control. but must have the legally culpable link between employee and victim or whoever • Employer liable as long as employee still trying to act within his duty as an employee o Test most often offered  Who is controlling the details of the work  Common law test • A lot of people have someone who cleans their house (who comes every other week) are they your employee or an independent contractor o Who supplies tools. you kind of expect a little bit of independence Chapter 3 Negligence o Think about the facts separately. just because there is harm doesn’t meant there is negligence. or strict liability (must be acting under order of employer) • Link between employee and employer is strict liability. defendant. will be judged on how the driving was . or an ordinance or a regulation  Sugar Burough case  What was the statute trying to avoid? • Sheep overboard case o Statute was about disease control. you could’ve held employee liable by negligence. etc  Must show they did not act as a reasonable person would have  If neither foreseeable or direct. then that makes them an employee. usually not ruled as Per Se. so you can say he’s subject to strict liability under ultrahazardous blah. analyze the facts. hard to hold defendant liable o Per Se Negligence  Was there a statute that was violated.- usually • If employee is engaged in blasting.

no matter how. and for hitting someone. is no liability. if you non negligently cause the baby to be in the predicament you have a duty to rescue o Gratuitous acts  Even just saying I’m gonna rescue the baby. you must then do it because it stopped someone else from helping the baby Proximate Cause o Think in terms of palsgraf o Don’t worry about cardozo/Andrews dispute o For our purposes we are in jurisdiction where cardozo opinion prevails. Invitee. Christian Approach  Straight reasonableness standard  Usually failure to intervene. but it must have been from negligence on part of defendant Land Owner Liability o Traditional  Trespasser. this takes middle ground  Different because you must go and make land safe for all. foreseeablility of the victim class for duty talk early on o Make sure u go over breach of duty. cause. not just invitee Special Relationships o Cause the baby to be in the puddle. have duty to pick the baby up  If saw the baby crawling and picked it up. have to take reasonable care to get rid of danger  Only invitees have a right to be protected against natural dangers o Rowland v. but by invitee rule. must be negligent. etc  Cover all elements o Know polemis and wagon mound Emotional and Economic Harm o Exceptions  People Express Case • Foreseeability in particular o Onto idea that there are gonna be some people who haven’t had a physical impact that nonetheless have a strong . Licensee  Nordstrom has a bunch of rats. didn’t put the rats there.- - - - o Res Ipsa Loquitor  We don’t know exactly what happened. damage.

Christian o Tarasoff o Palsgraf o Polemis o Wagonmound o Fletcher v. Rylands o Ultramarez o Shutt v. Kauffmen? Restatement o Def. Carrol Towing o Rowland v. of Battery o Don’t need Numbers but do know general rules o Know Private Nuisance o 402A Know Immunities a little bit. Putnam o Vincent v. briefly. o Federal torts claims act.- - - - enough case that they deserve compensation • Airlines loss of business because forced to shut down from someone else’s mistake o Emotional injury case with attention  Bystander Cases • Dillon v Legg o Court imposing liability with a very flexible rule  Where do we draw the line for “close relationship” for who can claim emotional distress from being horrified from seeing an accident • Know thing la chusa vs Dillon CASES TO KNOW o Vosburg v. Erie o Summers v. Spanguard o United States v. Putney o Ploof v. know it semi well o And sovereignty o Charitable. not a lot to say Reallocation o Know and understand it o Defendant will ask for it Trespass and Nuisance o Didn’t really go over public nuisance . Tice o Ybarra v.

go down to where it says 5 years. interest is 3%  Find column with 3%. Atlantic cement  Temporary vs permanent damages Rylands v Fletchers o Abnormally dangerous arose from this case but wasn’t used in this case.- - - Most we know is that there are some cases like the blockage on the road  Not likely to get public nuisance questions o Bloomer v. not what theya re talking about o Talking Products Liability o PV  What is PV of 10k that would be payable 5 years from now. multiply the decimal by 10k or your amount and you have your answer o 3 important things  discount rate  cost of living raises  raises for increased productivity  Market Rate Analysis  “Real” rate of interest Commercial torts of fraud or interference  .

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.