Torts Outline
Fall 2010 - Professor Bush
I. Proving Negligence ................................................................................................................................ 2
A.
B.
C.
Risk Avoidance Analysis.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Negligence Per Se (Safety Statutes) ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
Res Ispa Loquitor (The Thing Speaks for Itself) ................................................................................................................................ 4
II. Proving Causation ................................................................................................................................. 5
A.
Cause in Fact .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Special Rules for Proving Cause in Fact ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
a)
b)
c)
B.
1.
2.
3.
Statistical Evidence (Have Only Statistical Evidence) .................................................................................................................................. 5
Lost Chance ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Multiple Defendant’s .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
(1) Alternative Liability ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
(2) Concert of Action ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
(3) Market Share Liability ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Proximate Cause ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Superseding Intervening Causes (Polemis Rule) .................................................................................................................................... 7
Unforeseen Type of Occurrence(Wagon Mound Rule {Jurisdiction: can use all 3}) .............................................................. 7
Unforeseeable Victim (Palsgraf).................................................................................................................................................................... 8
III. Proving Duty/No Duty .......................................................................................................................... 8
A.
B.
C.
No Duty for Non-Feasance ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
No Duty for Policy/Negative....................................................................................................................................................................10
Limited No Duty for Premises Injury ...................................................................................................................................................10
a)
b)
a)
Traditional/Categorical Rule ................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
S-Std/Modern Rule: .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Types of Victims ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
(1) Invitee: Business Visitor ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
(2) Licensee: Social Guest ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
(3) Trespasser: Intrudes without permission .............................................................................................................................................. 10
D. No Duty for Social Host..............................................................................................................................................................................11
E. No Duty for Government Discretionary Policy ................................................................................................................................11
F. No Duty to 3rd Party (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress) ...........................................................................................11
IV.
A.
B.
Affirmative Defenses ......................................................................................................................... 12
Contributory Negligence ...........................................................................................................................................................................12
Assumption of Risk......................................................................................................................................................................................13
1. Express Assumption of Risk (EAR) ..............................................................................................................................................................13
2. Implied Assumption of Risk (IAR) ...............................................................................................................................................................13
b)
Secondary ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
(1) Unreasonable Assumption of Risk (UAR) ............................................................................................................................................... 14
(2) Reasonable Assumption of Risk (RAR) .................................................................................................................................................... 14
C.
Comparative Fault ........................................................................................................................................................................................14
V.
Proving Loss of Damages..................................................................................................................... 15
A. Economic Damages .....................................................................................................................................................................................15
B. Non-Economic Damages ...........................................................................................................................................................................15
C. Loss of Consortium ......................................................................................................................................................................................15
D. Wrongful Death ............................................................................................................................................................................................16
1. Survival Action .....................................................................................................................................................................................................16
2. Wrongful Death Action ....................................................................................................................................................................................16
VI.
Strict Liability..................................................................................................................................... 17
A.
B.
Restatement 1 (Better for Plaintiff): Ultra-hazardous activity (UDA) ...................................................................................17
Restatement 2 (Better for Defendant): Abnormally Dangerous Activity (ADA)................................................................17
Torts
1
I.
Proving Negligence

Choose 1 of 3 Arguments (A, B, C)
A.
Risk Avoidance Analysis
1.
2.
Torts
Plaintiff’s Argument
a)
Step 1
 figure out did and shoulda done and pick best that passes cause in fact
and won’t be excessive burden
b)
Step 2:
 figure out the risk of the did (foreseeable risk aggregate) all possible
damages, all possible victims, and all possible events (blow up balloon)
c)
Step 3:
 describe why the probability of injury is high for each accident or victim
in step 2. What evidence would back this up
d)
Step 4:
 Cost of the shoulda done you picked in the first step and why they are low
o Anticipate what defendant will saw costs off
o Show costs are actually low
o Cost of should have done: total direct & indirect costs
 Money, time, supplies, cost of people
 If there is a business custom that defendant did not follow:
o Show how should have used it
o Everyone uses it – can’t be that expensive
 If business custom that defendant did follow:
o Can show doesn’t matter still should have done something else
e)
Step 5:
 Risk high
 Cost of avoidance low
 Risk > cost of avoidance = NEGLIGENCE
Defendant’s Response
a)
Step 1
 Predict the plaintiff’s argument for did shoulda done
b)
Step 2
 Risk of the did is low and probability is low
 Rebut every argument in P’s step 2
c)
Step 3
 Cost is high
 Rebut every argument in P’s step 4
 Compare risk and cost
 Lower rps for for
2

B.
Negligence Per Se (Safety Statutes)





1.
Statutes that criminalizes a specific behavior
Violating a statute is negligent in itself if statute meets 4 ½ conditions
Plaintiff must satisfy all conditions to keep statute in
Defendant only needs to negate one condition or bring up excuse to keep statute out
Note: Cause in fact is still required after this – case does not end here
Conditions
a)
b)
c)
Torts
o Physical
 Look at people with same disability
o Youth
 Look at person same age
 Look at intelligence and experience
Raise rps for
o Superior skill or training
Statute covers and/or regulates defendant’s conduct (Who of Defendant)
 Ex: Martin – traveling on highway
 Why this condition? Shows legislative judgment is about our situation
(1)
Plaintiff Argument
 Show statute is about what defendant did
(2)
Defendant Argument
 Based on facts and wording of statute try to show it does not
regular what you were actually doing
Statute purpose is safety or accident prevention (Why)
 Ex: damages to life and limb in martin
 Why? Shows legitimate judgment is about safety
(1)
Plaintiff Argument
 Show all about safety
(2)
Defendant Argument
 Show not about safety but something else: conservation, economic,
morals
Statute purpose is to prevent this type of accident (What)
(1)
Plaintiff Argument
 Use facts of case to show statute is preventing this actual accident
o Ex: type of accident in martin case = collision
(2)
Defendant Argument
 Use statute and facts and say it was not meant to prevent THIS
type of accident
 Ex: Not like DiPonzio - car doesn’t start fire, but rolls
3
d)
e)
C.
(1)
Plaintiff Argument
 Show that they are the victim statute is trying to protect
(2)
Defendant Argument
 Show that they are not actually the type of victim statute is trying
to protect
1/2 : No excuse for violation
 Defendant had no excuse for violation
 Excuse = emergency circumstances out of defendant’s control
 Excuse = not just safer to violate as in Tedla but impossible to comply
(1)
Plaintiff Argument
 Show defendant had no excuse for violation
(2)
Defendant Argument
 If cannot negate any element, try to use excuse defense
Res Ispa Loquitor (The Thing Speaks for Itself)


1.
Torts
Statutes purpose is to prevent this type of victim (Who of Plaintiff)
No evidence of DID; Don’t know WHY accident happen
But facts of the accident are such that allow courts to presume negligence
Plaintiff Argument: Conditions (Need all 3)
a)
Probability of Someone’s Negligence
 Accident must be type that normally would not occur in the absence of
negligence
 Shown through Precedent
 If not Precedent look at Scenarios
o Make list of negligent explanations v. non negligent explanations
and comparatively disprove all non negligent acts
 Example
o Negligent acts
 Manufacture defect
 Bad or lack of maintenance
 Operator error
 Tampering
 Mechanical error
o Non negligent
 Normal wear and tear
 Natural disasters
b)
Defendant had exclusive care and custody
 Shown through
o Elimination
 Clear reason why you can eliminate certain people
o Dominion
 Person in charge
 Defendant holds umbrella over all possible handlers that
cannot be eliminated
4
o Majority control
 Multiple parties can be responsible but one had greatest
degree of involvement during one of the instances of the
possible negligence
o Combo
c)
2.
II.
No Plaintiff Participation
 There was no contribution to the plaintiff’s injuries by the plaintiff or any
third party
 Shown through facts
Defendant Argument
 Negate one of the conditions using facts and circumstances
 Rebut inference with due/care evidence
Proving Causation
A.
Cause in Fact

Imagine situation without X (DID): Would harm still happen?
o If NO  DID is necessary cause in fact
o If YES  DID not necessary cause in fact
1.
Plaintiff Argument
o But for defendant’s action there would be no harm
o Necessary link in chain
 If defendant acted differently  no injury
o So, defendant’s conduct made the difference  CAUSE IN FACT
o Show through evidence:
 Testimonial
 Expert
 Circumstantial
 Statistical
o NOTE: BURDEN OF PROOF ON PLAINTIFF
 More likely than not: >50% Probability of Cause in fact
2.
Defendant Argument
o Even if no bad conduct you would be injured anyway
o If defendant acted differently plaintiff would still be injured
o SO: Defendant’s conduct made no difference  therefore, NOT CAUSE IN FACT
3.
Special Rules for Proving Cause in Fact
a)
Statistical Evidence (Have Only Statistical Evidence)
o Most courts: admissible, but additional individuating evidence
necessary
o Some courts: statistical evidence alone sufficient if proves > 50%
probability cause in fact
(a)
Torts
Problems with statistical evidence
o tends to confuse and intimidate juries
o conclusion about individual case based on group of cases
5
o statistic prove to much (Over/Under
deterrence/compensation)
(b)
Potential solution: Recovery proportional to proof
o Accept statistical evidence but limit collection of damages
o Recovery proportional to proven statistical probability of
causation
o Victims get imperfect but substantial compensation
o NO COURT THAT ADOPTS THIS RULE COMPLETELY
b)
Lost Chance
 Says in medical cases where someone has proven chance of recovery with
proper treatment but get improper treatment they are allowed to recover
for losing the chance
(a)
Conditions
o Medical malpractice only
o Statistical evidence shows survival/success rate
o Chance of recovery < 50%
(b)
Effect
o Recovery proportional to chance lost
(c)
Limit
o Chance/probability > 50%  FULL RECOVERY
c)
Multiple Defendant’s
(1)
Alternative Liability
o > 1 possible (cause in fact, but no more than 5) must be 1, can’t id
which one
o never be able to figure out which one
o all possible cause in fact’s negligent
o plaintiff is innocent
o all possible cause in facts sued in court
o 2, 3, or 4 defendants
(a)
Effect
o Switch burden of proof to defendants
o Whoever knows what happened better speak up and
exculpate themselves or both liable
o Actually proves cause in fact AND joint and several liability
o Can recover 100% from 1 defendant
o That defendant can then recover from the other defendants
(b)
Reasons
o Meant to smoke out culprit
o Someone knows what happened but nobody will speak
o Need because of conspiracy of silence
(2)
Concert of Action
(a)
Conditions
o > 1 possible cause in facts
Torts
6
o engaged in joint activity
o with mutual encouragement, tacit or explicit (encouragement or
silence)
o (drag race)
(b)
Effect
o Joint and several liability because all responsible
o If any pulls out, no concert of action
(3)
Market Share Liability
(a)
o
o
o
o
Conditions
> 1 possible cause in fact, must be 1, can’t ID which
all possible cause in facts negligent
plaintiff innocent
plaintiff sues producers responsible for substantial share of total
market sales
(b)
Effect
o Liability of each possible cause in fact limited to market share
o Shift of burden of proof  if can’t exculpate themselves they are
held liable
B.
Proximate Cause


1.
Defendant wants to argue that even though negligence and cause in fact  he was not
the proximate cause
NOTE: UNFORSEEABLE AMOUNT/EXTENT OF DAMAGE IRRELEVANT
Superseding Intervening Causes (Polemis Rule)
a)
b)
2.
Defendant’s Argument
(1)
Conditions
 Third party interveners condition: reckless or deliberate
o Risks are huge and costs of avoidance are low
o Had actual knowledge (grossly negligent)
 And third party’s reckless or deliberate conduct  unforeseeable
to defendant
(2)
Effect
 Defendant (original actor) free of liability
 ONLY INTERVENING CAUSE PAYS
Plaintiff’s Argument
 Show
o Third party’s conduct was foreseeable to defendant OR
o Third party interveners were not reckless or deliberate
Unforeseen Type of Occurrence(Wagon Mound Rule {Jurisdiction: can use all 3})
a)
Defendant’s Argument
(1)
Torts
Conditions
 Actual accident/occurrence unforeseeable per se
7

b)
3.
III.
(2)
Effect
 Defendant free of liability and nobody pays
 Overruled polemis rule
o Original polemis rule: did not matter if damage was
unforeseeable
(3)
Test
 If force that involves danger looks different but same containment
measures would contain both equally  not different
o If same measures to contain force a and b (unforeseeable
one), although look different, they are not, you pay for it
 If unforeseeable force could still have happened taking avoidance
measures for force a, then different and not negligent
Plaintiff’s Argument
 Test: are forces behind accident subject to same controls as forces behind
unforeseeable type of harm
 IF YES  NOT Unforeseeable type of harm
Unforeseeable Victim (Palsgraf)
a)
Defendant’s Argument
 Even if occurrence = foreseeable harm
 Plaintiff/victim is unforeseeable
o Given facts/circumstances of case
o Purely factual argument
o Use time and space
 SO: IN Wagonmound jurisdiction
o First argue unforeseeable type of harm
o If foreseeable type of harm  argue unforeseeable victim
 Unforeseeable victims cannot recover
b)
Plaintiff’s Argument
 Argue they were a foreseeable victim
Proving Duty/No Duty


Torts
o As factual matter, given evidence
AND actual accident/occurrence different in kind/character for
foreseeable types of harm
o Test: are forces behind accident subject to same controls as
forces behind unforeseeable type of harm
o IF YES  NOT Unforeseeable type of harm
o IF NO  Unforeseeable type of harm
Like Proximate cause  Defendants issue
o So defendant makes “no duty” argument
o Plaintiff must anticipate and “parry”
But this argument is more powerful than no proximate cause
o No proximate cause argument  goes to jury during trial
o No duty argument  block trial, for courts to decide
8


A.
No Duty for Non-Feasance

Torts
Raised on summary judgment, motion to dismiss
If successful, no trial
Feasance = doing something; involves risk changing; Risk increasing behavior
1.
Defendant’s Argument
o If you do not change the risk at hand you are not liable
 Ex: taxi driver just picked up the injured guy from accident, he didn’t do
anything to change the situation so nonfeasance
2.
Plaintiff’s Argument (Show RIB Conduct)
o New risk creation does not have to be at time of incident it can be before
(supplying water)
a)
Specific Affirmative Conduct
 Show exactly where new risk is added (plaintiff wants to show this to
negate the no duty argument)
 Direct imposition (move body)
 Indirect imposition (stop, start to help, retreat)
 Two ways to argue this:
 Argue one or both, BUT SEPERATELY
b)
Initiation of special relationship
 Must argue type of relationship
 Landlord/tenant
 Doctor/patient
 Teacher/student
 Two types of relationships
 Control: Defendant becomes controller of 3P
o Prove by:
 Precedent
 Factors
 Defendant has ability to predict need for
control
 Defendant has ability to exercise control
 Defendant role takes charge, 3 party role
submits
 Protection: type of relationship where defendant becomes
protector of victim
o Prove by
 Precedent
 Factors
 Defendant has ability to predict need for
protection
 Defendant role has ability to provide
protection
 Victim role surrenders self protection ability
 defendant role takes under wing
9
B.
No Duty for Policy/Negative
1.
C.
Defendant’s Argument
 Clearly feasance
 But, Policy dictates no trial/inquiry:
o Because of neg. economic impact of costs of trial/liability
 Would increase prices for everyone
o Applicable in Public utility and other similar cases
o Only where class of V’s is large and undefined
Limited No Duty for Premises Injury


Victim injured on defendant’s premises by condition of premises
2 different rules:
a)
Traditional/Categorical Rule
 The duty owed by the defendant depends on the category of victim
b)
S-Std/Modern Rule:
 Duty is reasonable care for all; courts originally started to use modern
rule then they just stopped and went back to the traditional rule (most,
some still use the modern rule)
 Better for plaintiff
1.
Plaintiff’s Argument
 Try and show by defendant’s class of victims (one of three below) that he was
owed a duty of warning/take reasonable care
2.
Defendant’s Argument
 Show plaintiff was not owed a duty by plaintiff based on type of victim
 Each type have to make a different argument
a)
Torts
Types of Victims
(1)
Invitee: Business Visitor
 Comes for the material/economic benefit of defendant
o i.e. boss, tax preparer
 Duty owed is reasonable care to discover/fix dangerous conditions
(2)
Licensee: Social Guest
 Comes for social contact with permission
o i.e. a friend, relative, etc.
 Duty owed is to warn of dangerous conditions known to
defendant, but hidden from licensee
 Duty ends at warning, don’t have to fix it, just warn
o if it is an obvious danger, then don’t have to warn
(3)
Trespasser: Intrudes without permission
 Duty owed is just not to set traps; otherwise no duty is owed to
trespassers.
10
D.
No Duty for Social Host
1.
E.
No Duty for Government Discretionary Policy

F.
Defendant’s Argument
 No liability of social host for acts of drunken guests to THIRD PARTY
 Policy Bases
o Negative Economic Impact
o Social Relations/Civility  “What’s a party without lubrication?”
Depends on the situation
1.
Defendant’s Argument
o No duty for governmental acts (acts a private citizen cannot commit)
 Includes any decisions on resource allocation
 i.e. NYC police have policy to only respond to 911 calls if there is
an immediate threat due to a lack of resources
o So: making policy—No duty
2.
Plaintiff’s Argument
o BUT there is a duty for acts of government official if:
 Meaning: executing policy
o BUT: carrying out policy—duty
o And duty if affirmative undertaking
 government personnel attempt to go above and beyond required duty
and fail to follow through
No Duty to 3rd Party (Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
1.
Defendant’s Argument
o In any other situations NIED is not recoverable/or “there is no duty to avoid
emotional distress unless in one of the three situations
2.
Plaintiff’s Argument
o Show defendant subjected plaintiff to (1 of 3):
a)
Defendant has subjected plaintiff to risk/threat of imminent death or serious
bodily injury
 Almost hit with car; zone of danger
 If freight leads to physical symptoms that’s a good case, but don’t need
physical symptoms, just normal person would suffer emotional distress
from situation
b)
No threat of death or serious bodily injury but defendant exposed plaintiff to
shocking situation
 Recovery when:
 Positive teast results for deadly disease but you don’t really have it
 Mishandling/loss of body parts
 No subsequent physical injury needed.
Torts
11


c)
IV.
Witness of 3rd party
 3 approaches—some jurisdictions stretch and some don’t allow it
because of costs:
(1)
Factor Rule (Dillon):
 Close relationship
 Observation with senses
 Contemporaneous observation
(2)
Conditions Rule (Portee):
 Must be a marital or intimate family relationship
 Observation has to take place at the same as injury
 Victim must be seriously injured or dead
 There must be extreme emotional distress
(3)
No Duty (Tobin):
 NY state allows for only one exception:
o Only if concerned about the safety of self not if distressed
from watching a loved one die
 Why?
o Because too high a cost to allow any other recoveries
(public policy)
Affirmative Defenses



A.
Focuses on plaintiff’s conduct
Affirmative defenses are only needed if plaintiff is able to establish ALL the elements of his
case and defendant cannot negate any of them
o Negating elements is easier than using an affirmative defense
Burden of proof is shifted to the defendant
Contributory Negligence





Torts
Just need objective symptons
Recovery allowed when reasonable person would suffer emotional
distress
Mirror of the negligence action
Proving plaintiff’s negligence
Defendant makes out a case that plaintiff caused his own injury
If proven it completely bars plaintiff recovery even if both plaintiff and defendant were
negligent
Reasonable person standard is lower for mentally impaired victim
o important for when defendant is doing risk avoidance argument for plaintiff, it is
lower for them!
12
1.
B.
a)
Plaintiff’s Negligence
 Defendant is saying “at the time I injured you, you were being negligent
yourself”
 Plaintiff was taking unreasonable risks with their own safety
 Defendant can use a risk/avoidance analysis or negligence per se (if there
is a safety statute involved)
b)
Plaintiff was Cause in Fact
 Defendant has to show that plaintiff’s contributory negligence was a
cause in fact of plaintiff’s own injuries
 Plaintiff can try to negate by saying that although he took risks, they were
not the cause in fact of his injury
c)
Plaintiff was the Proximate Cause
 Prove that Plaintiff’s conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s own
injury
d)
Restrictions
 Contributory negligence is only a defense against a charge of negligence
 Contributory negligence is not a defense to recklessness
 Almost always a contributory negligence question is sent to the jury
Assumption of Risk





Torts
Elements that defendant needs to prove:
Plaintiff must know he is entering a dangerous situation
Plaintiff must know the gravity of the danger
Plaintiff voluntarily does it anyway
Complete bar to recovery as well
Two Kinds:
1.
Express Assumption of Risk (EAR)
 A signed waiver holding the defendant free from liability
 Plaintiff relieved defendant of duty
 Not all are enforceable there must be: (Tunkle Factors)
o Freely and fairly made
o Equal bargaining power between the parties
o Agreements are enforced only when terms are VERY clear
o Policy
 Necessity
 Going to hospital and needs car
 No social interest being interfered with
 performing a service to the public is considered a social
interest for which a waiver of liability is not valid
2.
Implied Assumption of Risk (IAR)
 Conduct implies an assumed risk
13


C.
a)
Primary
 NOT an affirmative defense at all
 Victim was contributory negligent OR the defendant was NOT negligent
OR there was no duty
o i.e. playing an amateur sport
b)
Secondary
 A true defense
 Only after Plaintiff establishes a Prima Facie case against Defendant
 Defendant says that Plaintiff screwed up
 Plaintiff can either Unreasonably or Reasonably assume the risk
(1)
Unreasonable Assumption of Risk (UAR)
o CANNOT RECOVER
o Plaintiff had knowledge of danger
o Plaintiff knows and appreciates that he is taking a risk
o This is Plaintiff Recklessness
(2)
Reasonable Assumption of Risk (RAR)
o If plaintiff is harmed while saving someone’s life/performing a
heroic action then they can recover (spontaneous)
o If plaintiff is harmed through a dangerous job then can’t recover
because they are paid to take on the risk (Firefighters Rule deliberate)
 NY has abolished the firefighters rule and now allows
recovery
Comparative Fault

Torts
Plaintiff relieved the risk
Two kinds
Not a complete bar to recovery
14

V.
1.
Modified Rule:
o Only recovery if Plaintiff’s fault is less than Defendants
2.
Pure Rule
o Plaintiff recovers based on percentage of fault
 if 30% at fault then only recover 70% of damages
Proving Loss of Damages
A.
Economic Damages


B.

C.



Torts
Integrates Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk
Medical Expenses
Lost income, lost earnings based on life expectancy (usually the largest amount)
Non-Economic Damages
Pain and Suffering (for physical injury)
Loss of Consortium
Loss of services such as cooking, cleaning, child care, book keeping (called the “Deprivation of
Service Theory)
Loss of physical and emotional relationship
Emotional Distress from having lost a healthy spouse/loss of companionship
15


D.

Torts
Spouse and parents can recover
This is ONLY where there is severe emotional distress
Wrongful Death
Legislatures have adopted statutes in two forms:
1.
Survival Action
 Cause of action that can be brought by the administrator of the decedents estate
 Administrator allowed to sue for pre-death expenses
 medical costs, ambulance costs, etc.
2.
Wrongful Death Action
 Cause of action brought by surviving dependants
 Loss of a source of economic support (income stream)
 Loss of future earnings now goes to the family
 Also allowed for quasi-services (housekeeping, child care, etc.)
 Also allows for grief and sadness (not allowed in NY)
 If decedent is an elderly person (non-wage earner) then loss is a source of wise
advice and companionship
 If decedent is a child (non-wage earner) then loss is companionship and future
earnings/future care giver
16
VI.
Strict Liability




A.
IF you do harm to someone else THEN you pay
Still need to prove harm came from defendant
o AKA Causation of Injury
If involved in a very dangerous activity and it causes an injury  Held STRICTLY LIABLE
There are two rules
Restatement 1 (Better for Plaintiff): Ultra-hazardous activity (UDA)

B.
Restatement 2 (Better for Defendant): Abnormally Dangerous Activity (ADA)



Torts
Must prove two factors:
o The activity has a high non-eliminating risk (NER).
o It is not a common activity
 transporting a bomb via railway
Plaintiff needs to prove #1 and 2 or 3
Defendant needs to disprove 1 or both 2 and 3
o Defendant is free from strict liability of you can prove it was highly beneficial to
scoeity
Must prove the following factors:
a)
High non-eliminating risk (NER)
 Negligence in the how
 High probability of harm
 High probability of harm will be great
 Inability to eliminate risk to excessive risk of reasonable care
 Extent to which activity is not common
b)
Inappropriate Location
 Negligence in the where
c)
Low Value
 Negligence in the fact that it is done
17