2/19/16
Negligence
A. Duty
1. TheRPP
a) Adult
b) Child
c) Professional
EstablishingaStandardofCare
Adult
RPP
Child
RuleofLaw
Professional
Duty
Statutefor
OtherPurpose
Statutefor
Negligence
1
2/19/16
TheRPProfessional
—  Objectivestandard(Heathv.SwiftWings)
—  Thereasonableprudentprofessionalin
thesameorsimilarcircumstances
—  “professional”?
—  personbelongingtoalearnedprofessionor
whoseoccupationrequiresahighlevelof
trainingandproficiency
Wolskiv.Wandel
— Legalmalpractice
— “SOCestablishedbylaw,not
contract”
— Experttestimonyreq’d
— Unlessw/icommonknowledgeof
laypersons
2
2/19/16
Morrisonv.MacNamara
— Localityrule
— SOC
Hellingv.Carey
— B<PxL
— B=simple,inexpensive,harmless,
accuratetest
— P=1in25,000people
— L=irreversiblelossofvision
3
2/19/16
TheProfessionalSOC
—  Possesslearning,skill,andabilityof
reasonable,prudentprofessional(objective)
—  Willusebestjudgment
—  Willuseduecare
—  Whetherpaidornot
Scottv.Bradford
—  “Informedconsentdoctrine”
—  Physicianrequiredtoinformpatientabout
treatmentprotocol,availablealternatives,and
collateralrisks
—  Requiresfulldisclosureofallmaterialrisks
—  BOPonplaintiff
—  Failuretodoso=breachofSOC
—  Negligence
—  Policyconcerns?
4
2/19/16
InformedConsentDoctrine
—  Dutyelementofnegligence
—  Requiresdoctortoinformpatientabout
treatmentprotocol,availablealternatives,and
collateralrisks
—  Includesinforeresearch,economic,orother
personalinterestsinpatient’streatment
protocol
—  Requiresfulldisclosureofallmaterialrisks
—  BOPonplaintiff
InformedConsentDoctrine
Duty
Reasonable Physician
would disclose
(slight majority)
Reasonable Patient
would want to know
(minority and
Scott v. Bradford)
Objective Causation
Reasonable patient
would decline treatment
(majority and Canterbury)
Subjective Causation
This plaintiff would have
Declined treatment
(minority and
Scott v. Bradford)
Breach
Causation
Harm
5
2/19/16
InformedConsentDoctrine
— affirmativedefensesavailable
—  (a/k/aexceptionstodutytoinform)
— commonknowledge
— therapeuticprivilege
— emergency
—  BOPondefendanttopleadandprove
Moorev.TheRegentsofUniv.ofCal.
— Conversion?
— Negligence
— research,economic,orotherpersonal
interestsinpatient’streatment
protocol
6
2/19/16
Moorev.TheRegentsofUniv.ofCal.
— Breachoffiduciaryduty
1.  Fiduciaryobligation
2.  Breach
3.  Remedy–disgorgementoffees/
economicbenefit
DeterminingDuty(SOC)
REST(2D)TORTS§285
1.  RPPStandard
2.  ApplyingaRuleofLaw
3.  Applyinglegislationnotexpressly
definingSOCtobeusedinanegligence
action
4.  Applyinglegislationexpressly
articulatingSOCinanegligenceaction
7
2/19/16
EstablishingaStandardofCare
1.RPP
Duty
2.Ruleof
Law
3.Statutefor
Non-Tort
Purpose
4.Statutefor
Negligence
Negligence
A. Duty
1.  TheRPP
a)  Adult
b)  Child
c)  Professional
2.  RulesofLaw
3.  ApplyingStatuteEnactedforNon-TortPurpose
4.  ApplyingNegligenceStatute
8
2/19/16
2.RulesofLaw
Baltimore&O.R.v.Goodman
—  Contributorynegligence?
—  “RuleofLaw”–
—  Driverattraintracksmuststop,exit
vehicle,andlookforatrain
—  astandardofcare“laiddownonceandforall
bythecourts”
9
2/19/16
Pokorav.WabashRailwayCo.
— “needforcautioninframing
standardsofbehaviorthat
amounttorulesoflaws”
EstablishingaStandardofCare
1.RPP
Duty
2RuleofLaw
3.Statutefor
Non-Tort
Purpose
Statutefor
Negligence
10
2/19/16
UsingNon-TortStatutetoEstablishDuty
1.  WhenMayaNon-TortStatuteBe
UsedtoEstablishDuty?
—  Osbornev.McMasters
—  Sanchezv.Wal-Mart
2. WhatistheEffectofProofWhena
Non-TortStatuteisUsedtoEstablish
Duty?
Osbornev.McMasters
—  Mayastatuteenactedfornon-tortpurposeseverbe
usedinanegligenceactiontoestablishthestandard
ofcare?
—  When?
1.  Plaintiffinclassofpersonsstatutedesignedto
protectand
2.  Harmsufferedistypeofharmstatutedesignedto
prevent
—  “negligenceperse”=evidenceofnegligence
11
2/19/16
Negligence
A. ElementsofNegligenceAction
B. NegligenceFormula
C. DeterminingDuty
D. ProvingNegligence(Duty/Breach)
EstablishingaStandardofCare
1.RPP
Duty
2RuleofLaw
3.Statutefor
Non-Tort
Purpose
Statutefor
Negligence
12
2/19/16
Sanchezv.Wal-Mart
1.  injuredpartyisintheclassofpersons
whomthestatuteisintendedto
protectand
2. injuryistypeagainstwhichthestatute
isintendedtoprevent
--dissent–legislativeintent?
Stachniewiczv.Mar-Cam
1.  injurytoamemberoftheclassof
personsintendedtobeprotectedby
thelegislationand
2. harmisofkindwhichthestatuteor
regulationwasenactedtopreventand
3.  appropriatemeasureofcareforcivil
liability
13
2/19/16
Perryv.S.N.andS.N.
1.  Thepartyseekingtoprovethe
violationisamemberoftheclassthe
legislatureintendedtoprotectand
2.  Thehazardthatoccurredwasonethe
legislatureintendedtopreventand
3.  Impositionoftortliabilityappropriate
UsingNon-TortStatutetoEstablishDuty
1.  WhenMayaNon-TortStatuteBeUsedto
EstablishDuty?
—
—
—
—
Osbornev.McMasters
Sanchezv.Wal-Mart
Stachniewiczv.Mar-CamCorp.
Perryv.S.N.andS.N.
2.  WhatistheEffectofProofWhenaNonTortStatuteisUsedtoEstablishDuty?
14