This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Brief Negligence in this case was determined by combining economic feasibility of inspecting pipes or replacing pipes. The costs were determined to be greater than the risk of injury. Court ruled there was no ordinary care of defendant expected, therefore defendant cannot be liable.
T.J. Hooper Menlove Roberts
Respondeat superior case, how blind man would be held liable if employer not sued. Held that physical handicaps may alter ordinary duty of care. STD that of a reasonable blind person. Applies only to physical handicaps, not being mentally inferior. Husband, with no lights on, hit by oncoming car that crosses lane. Both sides violated a statute. Must give instruction accounting for both being negligent. Couple killed walking on wrong side of highway as indicated by statute. They did so because they thought it was safer as is had less traffic. Negligence per se does not apply when violated for a safer course. Sheep were lost because not restrained according to health code law. Court found that Negligence Per Se did not apply as it was the wrong type of harm to be prevented. Worker bitten by spider in violation of consumer protection law, the worker was not the goal of statute therefore was the wrong class of victim. Bottle thrown from balcony hit plaintiff in head at theatre. Claims negligence on part of theatre for not removing rowdies. No evidence that if theatre removed rowdies harm would not have occurred, therefore failed but-for test. Firecracker thrown in theatre injuring plaintiff. Court found the theatre negligent for not turning on the lights. Held that action on the theatre s behalf would have prevented harm.
Strait Martin Tedla
Potts Zerby Rutledge
Basko Pennfield Bichler Piner Follet Lancaster Blatz Glendola Wagon Mound I
Wharf destroyed by oil leak from Wagon Mound. Trial found fire was direct consequence of oil release. Polemis overruled; foresight of reasonable man alone determines responsibility. Foreseeability case; not normal zone of danger approach, but looks at foreseeability on individual basis. Asks is plaintiff was foreseeable within zone of danger. Dissent argues for directness.
Honeywell Dupont GM Case
Wife is mistakenly told husband was hurt in car accident. Testbank Heathman Adamson Stitt General Speaking 1. Relationship with Victim d. Need something longer lasting besides fear. This requirement attempts to avoid liability for ordinary life. Gave rise to physical manifestation requirement. The rule is that if a rescue is commenced. Prior Conduct c. There is no liability. Upheld the Impact rule that held that purely emotional damages may not be recovered without physical injury. Because the Coast Guards rescue attempt did not reach the stage where would be rescuers would be induced to cease efforts. United States Schenk v. Relationship with perpetrator. Rule was abandoned for plaintiffs who were in personal danger of physical impact because of direction of negligence force against him and where plaintiff actually did fear physical impact. grief. She lost control of emotions and bowels. Appellant suffered heart attack when appellee s vehicle hit son standing next to him. a duty is created as the underlying assumption is that other rescuers will not act if help is already being administered. Court created the Bystander Rule for recovery of NIED. Mother saw her daughter struck and killed by automobile. United States Bosley v. Decedent was provided with oversized waders by the defendant. She was not in the zone of danger. Court held that defendant was not liable. Mercury Galanti v.Seco Lacy v. Grounded its arguments as a nonfeasance issue. . who was being threatened by the man he was to testify against. Arguments for this 1) medical science s difficulty in proving claimed damages and alleged fright 2) fear of fraudulent or exaggerated claims 3) flood of litigation. Pender general duty to all owed. Originally dismissed for failing to meet the impact rule. 2. Andrews Niederman Sinn Armstrong There is no duty to help for the on looker and the Coast Guard does not have a duty to rescue recognizable under tort law. a concern of Roberts in Dissent of Sinn Case. FBI agent was the handler of an informant. Needs 1) to be near scene of accident 2) harm must be from direct sensory observation 3) must be closely related to the victim. Heaven v. rage. New Rule: Direction of negligence puts plaintiff in personal danger of physical impact. Plaintiff was frightened by bull and suffered heart attack. Giving wades was not rendering any form of authority or service to decedent. Death due to falling off a boat and drowning. Good Samaritan b. Nonfeasance a.
but simply exceptions to the no Duty Rule Bystander Liability Test .Despite Foreseeability.