5/2/16
TortsThisSemester
6.  AdvancedTopicsin
1.  IntentionalTorts
Negligence
2.  Defensesto
IntentionalTorts
7.  StrictLiability
3.  Negligence
8.  TortDamages
4.  Causation
9.  WrongfulDeathand
5.  Defenses(andPartial
Defenses)to
NegligenceActions
Survival
10.  JointTortfeasors
11.  Immunities
12.  VicariousLiability
WrongfulDeathandSurvival
survival
wrongfuldeath
Decedent’s
death
tort
Decedent’sheirs
trial
statutorybeneficiaries
1
5/2/16
WrongfulDeathAction
•  new,statutorilycreatedcauseofaction
•  w/statutorilydefinedbeneficiaries
SurvivalActions
•  COAsurvivesdeathofeitherparty
•  notnewcauseofaction
•  onbehalfoforagainstdecedent’s
estate
2
5/2/16
ATexasSurvivalStatute
(a)
Acauseofactionforpersonalinjurytothehealth,
reputation,orpersonofaninjuredpersondoesnotabate
becauseofthedeathoftheinjuredpersonorbecauseofthe
deathofapersonliablefortheinjury.
(b)
Apersonalinjuryactionsurvivestoandinfavorofthe
heirs,legalrepresentatives,andestateoftheinjuredperson.
Theactionsurvivesagainsttheliablepersonandtheperson’s
legalrepresentatives.
(c)
Thesuitmaybeinstitutedandprosecutedasifthe
liablepersonwerealive.
TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE§71.021.
TortsThisSemester
1.  IntentionalTorts
6.  AdvancedTopicsin
Negligence
2.  Defensesto
IntentionalTorts
7.  StrictLiability
3.  Negligence
8.  TortDamages
4.  Causation
9.  WrongfulDeathand
5.  Defenses(andPartial
Defenses)to
NegligenceActions
Survival
10.  JointTortfeasors
11.  Immunities
12.  VicariousLiability
3
5/2/16
JointTortfeasors
A. JoinderandLiabilityof
Defendants
B. SatisfactionandRelease
JointTortfeasors
A. JoinderandLiabilityof
Defendants
B. SatisfactionandRelease
4
5/2/16
Bierczynskiv.Rogers
Plaintiff
Rogers
x
Race
Defendant
Bierczynski
Coneyv.J.L.G.Indus.,Inc.
5
5/2/16
JointLiability.[I]nactionsonaccountofbodilyinjuryordeathor
physicaldamagetoproperty,basedonnegligence,orproduct
liabilitybasedonstricttortliability,alldefendantsfoundliableare
jointlyandseverallyliableforplaintiff’spastandfuturemedical
andmedicallyrelatedexpenses.Anydefendantwhosefault,as
determinedbythetrieroffact,islessthan25%ofthetotalfault
attributabletotheplaintiff,thedefendantssuedbytheplaintiff,
andanythirdpartydefendantwhocouldhavebeensuedbythe
plaintiff,shallbeseverallyliableforallotherdamages.Any
defendantwhosefault,asdeterminedbythetrieroffact,is25%
orgreaterofthetotalfaultattributabletotheplaintiff,the
defendantssuedbytheplaintiff,andanythirdpartydefendants
whocouldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff,shallbejointlyand
severallyliableforallotherdamages.
Ill.St.Ch.735§5/2-1117.
JointLiability.[I]nactionsonaccountofbodilyinjuryordeathor
physicaldamagetoproperty,basedonnegligence,orproduct
liabilitybasedonstricttortliability,alldefendantsfoundliableare
jointlyandseverallyliableforplaintiff’spastandfuturemedical
andmedicallyrelatedexpenses.Anydefendantwhosefault,as
determinedbythetrieroffact,islessthan25%ofthetotalfault
attributabletotheplaintiff,thedefendantssuedbytheplaintiff,
andanythirdpartydefendantwhocouldhavebeensuedbythe
plaintiff,shallbeseverallyliableforallotherdamages.Any
defendantwhosefault,asdeterminedbythetrieroffact,is25%
orgreaterofthetotalfaultattributabletotheplaintiff,the
defendantssuedbytheplaintiff,andanythirdpartydefendants
whocouldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff,shallbejointlyand
severallyliableforallotherdamages.
Ill.St.Ch.735§5/2-1117.
6
5/2/16
JointLiability.[I]nactionsonaccountofbodilyinjuryordeathor
physicaldamagetoproperty,basedonnegligence,orproduct
liabilitybasedonstricttortliability,alldefendantsfoundliableare
jointlyandseverallyliableforplaintiff’spastandfuturemedical
andmedicallyrelatedexpenses.Anydefendantwhosefault,as
determinedbythetrieroffact,islessthan25%ofthetotalfault
attributabletotheplaintiff,thedefendantssuedbytheplaintiff,
andanythirdpartydefendantwhocouldhavebeensuedbythe
plaintiff,shallbeseverallyliableforallotherdamages.Any
defendantwhosefault,asdeterminedbythetrieroffact,is25%
orgreaterofthetotalfaultattributabletotheplaintiff,the
defendantssuedbytheplaintiff,andanythirdpartydefendants
whocouldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff,shallbejointlyand
severallyliableforallotherdamages.
Ill.St.Ch.735§5/2-1117.
JointLiability.[I]nactionsonaccountofbodilyinjuryordeathor
physicaldamagetoproperty,basedonnegligence,orproduct
liabilitybasedonstricttortliability,alldefendantsfoundliableare
jointlyandseverallyliableforplaintiff’spastandfuturemedical
andmedicallyrelatedexpenses.Anydefendantwhosefault,as
determinedbythetrieroffact,islessthan25%ofthetotalfault
attributabletotheplaintiff,thedefendantssuedbytheplaintiff,
andanythirdpartydefendantwhocouldhavebeensuedbythe
plaintiff,shallbeseverallyliableforallotherdamages.Any
defendantwhosefault,asdeterminedbythetrieroffact,is25%
orgreaterofthetotalfaultattributabletotheplaintiff,the
defendantssuedbytheplaintiff,andanythirdpartydefendants
whocouldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff,shallbejointlyand
severallyliableforallotherdamages.
Ill.St.Ch.735§5/2-1117.
7
5/2/16
JointTortfeasors
—  “JointandSeveralLiability”
—  Jointliability–liablewithothertortfeasors
—  Severalliability–individuallyliable
—  Atcommonlaw,applicablewhen
tortfeasors
—  Actinconcert(e.g.,Bierczynski)or
—  Failtoperformacommondutytoplaintiffor
—  Causeanindivisibleharm(e.g.,Coney)
JointTortfeasors
A. JoinderandLiabilityof
Defendants
B. SatisfactionandRelease
8
5/2/16
Bundtv.Embro
Plaintiffs–passengersofbothcars
CourtofClaims
—
ΔStateofNY
NYStateCourt
—  ΔOwnersofbothcars
—  ΔDriversofbothcars
—  ΔContractorsrepairing
highway
Bundtv.Embro
— Satisfaction–fullcompensationforinjury
9
5/2/16
Coxv.PearlInvestmentCo.
— Release
—  surrenderofaplaintiff’sclaim
—  C/L–releaseofonejttortfeasorreleases
all
— Covenantnottosue
—  contractnottosueonCOA
Elbaorv.Smith
— ΔD/FWMed–settled
— ΔDr.Gatmaitan--nonsuited
— ΔACH--$75,000
— ΔDr.Syrquin--$350,000
— ΔDr.Stephens--$10
— ΔDr.Elbaor
10
5/2/16
— MaryCarterAgreements
— Permittedinmajorityofjurisdictions
— Requirementsvary
— inTX,voidasagainstpublicpolicy
JointTortfeasors
A.  JoinderandLiabilityofDefendants
B.  SatisfactionandRelease
—  Satisfaction–fullcompensation
—  Release–surrenderofplaintiff’sclaim
—  Covenantnottosue–contractnottosue
—  MaryCarterAgreements
11
5/2/16
Immunities
►  PrivilegesorDefenses
v  Avoidordecreaseliabilityonlyin
particularcircumstances
►  Immunities
v  absolutionfromliabilityinall
circumstances
v  basedonthestatusofthedefendant
Heinov.Harper
— C/L–interspousalimmunitydoctrine
— historicalrationale–
—  can’tsueoneself(husband)
—  promotetranquilityinmarriage
—  collusionconcerns
—  increaseinlitigation
12
5/2/16
Zellmerv.Zellmer
— parentalimmunitydoctrinebars
recoveryinnegligence,notintentional
torts
Families
► Interspousalimmunityhasbeen
abolishedinmajorityofjurisdictions
► Parentsstillimmunefromliabilityin
negligencebroughtbychildrenin
majorityofjurisdictions
13
5/2/16
Charities
► Thedoctrineofcharitableimmunity
hasbeenabandonedinthemajority
ofjurisdictions
► Existsinmodifiedforminseveral
jurisdictions
EmployerImmunity
► Employersimmunefromemployee
liability
► Employeesmayrecoverfrom
employersforwork-relatedinjuries
underWorkers’Compensation
statutes
14
5/2/16
StateandLocalGovernments
► Governmentalimmunityappliesto
local,state,andfederalgovernments
► Governmentisimmunefromliability
unlessithasgivenpermissiontobe
sued(e.g.,statelegislation,Federal
TortClaimsAct)
Rissv.NewYork
— publicdutydoctrine
— noduty
— notaffirmativedefense
15
5/2/16
DeLongv.ErieCounty
— wrongfuldeathaction?
— survivalaction?
WhereWe’veBeen…
1.  IntentionalTorts
6.  AdvancedTopicsin
Negligence
2.  Defensesto
IntentionalTorts
7.  StrictLiability
3.  Negligence
8.  TortDamages
4.  Causation
9.  WrongfulDeathand
5.  Defenses(andPartial
Defenses)to
NegligenceActions
Survival
10.  JointTortfeasors
11.  Immunities
16
5/2/16
WhereWeAreGoing…
12.VicariousLiability
VicariousLiability
A. RespondeatSuperior
B. IndependentContractors
17
5/2/16
PapaJohn’sInt’lv.McCoy
— ΔWendellBurke(driver/employee)
— ΔRWT(employer/franchisee)
— ΔPapaJohn’s(franchisor)
PapaJohn’sInt’lv.McCoy
—  maliciousprosecution
1.
2.
3.
4.
malicious/intentional
initiationoflawsuit
lackofprobablecauseand
favorableterminationoforiginallawsuit
—  defamation
—  falsewrittenororalstatementthatdamages
another’sreputation
18
5/2/16
VicariousLiability
A. RespondeatSuperior
1.
2.
3.
4.
“withinscopeofemployment”
maybeaQOF
“frolicanddetour”exception
comings-and-goingsexception
B.  IndependentContractors
1.  NovicariousliabilityfortortsofICs
2.  ICscontrolthedetailsoftheirwork
ReviewSession
— tomorrow(Wed.)
— pleasesubmitsubstantive
questionsinwrittenformbefore
10:00a.m.
— noquestionsfromthefloor
19
5/2/16
AnnasuesABCDeliveriesandBill,adeliverypersonemployedbyABC
Deliveries,forinjuriesarisingfromanaccidentallegedlycausedbyBill’s
negligencewhilehewasworking.Billanswersthecomplaintandmoves
thatheshouldbedismissedfromthesuitbecausehewasactingwithinthe
scopeofhisemploymentforABCDeliveriesatthetimeoftheaccident.
AnnamovestostrikeBill’sdefenseasinsufficient.Whichofthefollowing
statementsiscorrect?
A.  ThejudgeshouldgrantBill’smotionbecauseifBillwasactingwithinthe
scopeofhisemployment,onlyABCDeliveriescanbeheldliableforAnna’s
injuries,notBill.
B.  ThejudgeshouldgrantAnna’smotionbecausebothBillandABCDeliveries
maybeheldliabletoAnnaforBill’snegligence.
C.  IfBillwasengagedinafrolicatthetimeoftheaccident,ABCcouldstillbe
heldvicariouslyliabletoAnnaforherinjuries.
D.  Twoandonlytwooftheabovestatementsarecorrect.
E.  Noneoftheabovestatementsiscorrect.
AnnasuesABCDeliveriesandBill,adeliverypersonemployedbyABC
Deliveries,forinjuriesarisingfromanaccidentallegedlycausedbyBill’s
negligencewhilehewasworking.Billanswersthecomplaintandmoves
thatheshouldbedismissedfromthesuitbecausehewasactingwithinthe
scopeofhisemploymentforABCDeliveriesatthetimeoftheaccident.
AnnamovestostrikeBill’sdefenseasinsufficient.Whichofthefollowing
statementsiscorrect?
A.  ThejudgeshouldgrantBill’smotionbecauseifBillwasactingwithinthe
scopeofhisemployment,onlyABCDeliveriescanbeheldliableforAnna’s
injuries,notBill.
B.  ThejudgeshouldgrantAnna’smotionbecausebothBillandABCDeliveries
maybeheldliabletoAnnaforBill’snegligence.
C.  IfBillwasengagedinafrolicatthetimeoftheaccident,ABCcouldstillbe
heldvicariouslyliabletoAnnaforherinjuries.
D.  Twoandonlytwooftheabovestatementsarecorrect.
E.  Noneoftheabovestatementsiscorrect.
20
5/2/16
ReviewSession
Negligence
1.  Duty
2.  Breach
3.  Causation
a)  Causationinfact
b)  Proximate/LegalCause
4.  Harm
21
5/2/16
Sindellv.AbbottLabs
Corrective
Justice
Optimal
Deterrence
Compensation
Loss
Distribution
Tort
liability?
Redressof
Social
Grievances
PublicPolicyConsiderations
1.  Compensation
2.  Optimaldeterrence
3.  Distributionofloss
4.  RedressofSocialGrievances
5.  Correctivejustice
22
5/2/16
TransferredIntentDoctrine
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Battery
Assault
Falseimprisonment
Trespasstochattel
Trespasstoland
TrespasstoChattel
—  intentionallyinterferingwiththe
possessionofanother’schattelbycausing
either
—  actualimpairmentofcondition,value,or
qualityofchattelor
—  deprivationofchattel’suseforsubstantial
periodoftime
23
5/2/16
Necessity
defendantactingtoprevent
threatenedinjuryfromsomeforce
ofnatureorotherindependent
causenotconnectedwithplaintiff
PublicNecessity
— so-called“championofthepublic”
—  privilegedtodestroy,damage,orusereal
orpersonalproperty
—  ifdefendantreasonablybelieves
—  itisnecessarytodosotoavert
—  imminent
—  publicdisaster
24
5/2/16
PrivateNecessity
— toprotectinterestuniqueto
defendant(notapublicinterest)
— limited(orpartial)privilege
— noliabilityfortechnicaltort
— mustpayforactualdamages
caused
Negligence
1.  Duty
2.  Breach
3.  Causation
a)  Causationinfact
b)  Proximate/LegalCause
4.  Harm
25
5/2/16
EstablishingaStandardofCare
1.RPP
Duty
2RuleofLaw
3.Statutefor
Non-Tort
Purpose
Statutefor
Negligence
ResIpsaLoquitur
—  evidentiaryrule
—  instrumentalityofharminexclusivecontrolof
defendantand
—  accidentnottypethatordinarilyoccursin
absenceofnegligence(breachofSOC)
=primafacieevidenceofdutyandbreach
—  BOPshiftstodefendanttoprovefacts
inconsistentwithnegligence
26
5/2/16
EstablishingaStandardofCare
1.RPP
Duty
2RuleofLaw
3.Statutefor
Non-Tort
Purpose
Statutefor
Negligence
UsingNon-TortStatute
1.  Plaintiffinclassofpersonsstatutedesignedto
protectand
2.  Harmsufferedistypeofharmstatutedesignedto
prevent
27
5/2/16
EffectofProofofaStatute’s
Violation
A. RebuttablePresumptionof(orPrima
Facie)Negligence
B. NegligencePerSe
C. EvidenceofNegligence
DramShopAct
Acommercialentity“whoknowinglysells,furnishes,or
servesalcoholicbeveragestoapersonwhoisinastateof
noticeableintoxication,knowingthatsuchpersonwill
soonbedrivingamotorvehicle,maybecomeliablefor
injuryordamagecausedbyorresultingfromthe
intoxicationofsuch…personwhenthesale,furnishing,or
servingistheproximatecauseofsuchinjuryordamage.”
GA.CODEANN.§51-1-40(b)(2009).
28
5/2/16
WagonMoundII
— reasonableforeseeabilitytest
— typeofharmmustbe
reasonablyforeseeable(e.g.,
injurybyfire)
SupersedingCause
— Interveningcauseissuperseding
eventif
— extraordinary
— unforeseeableor
— independent
29
5/2/16
StatutesofLimitation
—  AccrualRule
—
—
—
—
generalrule
SOLbeginstorunwhenharmoccurs
a/k/aoccurrencedoctrine
a/k/atime-of-damagerule
—  DiscoveryRule
—  SOLbeginstorunwhenplaintiffknowsor
shouldhaveknownoftheinjury
—  subjecttotolling
Limitationv.Repose
StatutesofLimitation
•  DatebywhichCOAmustbefiled
•  Limitsthetimebywhichacauseofactionmust
befiled
•  subjecttotolling
StatutesofRepose
—  PeriodafterwhichCOAcannotbebrought,even
ifbeforeplaintiffdiscoversinjury
—  Limitsthetimeduringwhichacauseofaction
canarise
—  generallynotsubjecttotolling
30
5/2/16
FinalExam
— Mon5/9at6:00pm
— 240BLB
— 3GTsduenolaterthan5/9
— Iamavailablethrough5/8
— examinstructions
31