Torts Outline 1. Negligence a. Elements i. Duty 1. To use reasonable care 2. An actor must conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk 3. Whether a duty exists is a question of law (court decide) ii. Breach 1. Failure to meet the duty, whatever the duty entails iii. Causation 1. A reasonably close causal connection iv. Damages 1. Caused by the breach of duty b. Duty i. Burden of Proof 1. Evidence must show a greater probability than not that the defendant a. failed to meet the required standard of care b. failure was the proximate cause of injury c. plaintiff suffered damages 2. Can demonstrate failure by introducing evidence of the required standard of care through custom and usage, violation of statute, or res ipsa loquitur ii. Cost Benefit Analysis 1. Primary factors to consider in determining whether the defendant has acted negligently a. Foreseeable likelihood that the defendant’s conduct would cause harm b. Foreseeable severity of any resulting harm c. The defendant’s burden (costs) in avoiding the harm d. United States v. Carroll Towing – barge attendant left, barge sunk iii. Cases 1. Lubitz v. Wells – Not unreasonable to leave a golf club lying in one’s backyard 2. Blythe v. Birmingham - The reasonable person acts with reference to the average circumstances and is not liable for accidental happenings outside those average circumstances. Definition of Negligence- Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable would not have done. 3. Pipher v. Parsell - Driver owes a duty of care to passengers. Driver may be held liable where the actions of the passengers are foreseeable 4. Chicago v. Krayenbuhl – a jury must consider a # of factors in determining whether conduct meets the reasonable standard of care a. A party is negligent if it fails to take the precautions that an ordinary man would take under the circumstances. 5. Davison v. Snohomish County – “under the circumstances” not very safety measure is required under a “reasonableness” standard c. Standard of Care i. Standard of care imposed is that of a Reasonably Prudent Person under the same circumstances ii. Objective standard – measured by what a reasonably prudent person would do, not whether a person acted in good faith or using her best efforts—If a reasonably prudent person would have been aware of the consequences in a similar situation, the defendant can be held liable 1. Vaughn v. Menlove – farmer and the haystack fire a. Standard for negligent conduct is what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances, not what defendant believed was reasonable b. No allowance was made for the fact that the defendant’s judgment was not as good as that of an ordinary farmer. iii. Defendant is deemed to have the knowledge of things known by the average member of the community, not the knowledge that the person actually has a. Delair v. Macadoo - Drivers will be presumed to know of any danger that could have been discovered during a reasonable inspection iv. Custom – Within a Community or Industry 1. Evidence of custom or industry practice may be used as evidence of what the reasonable person would do under the circumstances, but it is not conclusive 2. Trimarco v. Klein – Landlord did not replace glass shower door that led to tenant’s injury. A party is liable for negligence when a custom or accepted practice was ignored and this departure was the proximate cause of one’s injuries. v. Emergency vi. vii. viii. ix. 1. Must act as a reasonable person would under the same emergency – “reasonable person in an emergency” 2. Cannot be an emergency of defendant’s own making a. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation – Armed robber jumps in the back of taxi. Driver jumps out with car still in motion Physical Disabilities 1. Physical characteristics are considered in determining the reasonableness of defendant’s behavior 2. Reasonableness of conduct of defendant with physical disability will be determined based upon a reasonably careful person with the same disability 3. Roberts v. Louisiana – Blind man must act as any other reasonable blind man would under the circumstances Mental Illness 1. Defendant’s own mental disability is not considered in determining negligence 2. Mentally disabled person is held to the standard of someone of ordinary intelligence and knowledge 3. Breunig v. American Family Ins. – In cases with no forewarning mental illness may be treated equivalently to an onset of a sudden physical illness—In this case the defendant had notice Children 1. Standard of care of a child is that of a reasonable child of similar age, intelligence, and experience. 2. Subjective standard 3. Children Engaged in Adult Activities are held to the adult standard of care-It would be unjust to allow a child to defend his negligence on the basis of age when he was willfully engaged in activity normally not undertaken by individuals his age. a. Held to same standard of care as an adult b. Robinson v. Lindsay – child drives snowmobile Professionals 1. Expected to exhibit the same skill, knowledge, and care as an ordinary practitioner in the same community under similar circumstances a. Heath v. Swift Wings - Reasonable person standard within a particular profession is an objective standard and does not vary based on an individual’s personal training and experience within that profession. 2. Specialist held to a high standard 3. Professionals who meet the standard of care are not liable for mere errors in judgement that result in a bad result a. Hodges v. Carter – attorney served insurance company improperly, used process customary to NC attorneys 4. Establishing Negligence by Professional a. Requires expert testimony to establish the standard of care and the defendant’s deviation from that standard b. Unless the negligence is so apparent a lay person can identify it c. Boyce v. Brown – plaintiff did not establish deviation from standard of care x. Informed Consent 1. Physicians are obligated to explain the risks of a medical procedure to a patient in advance of a patient’s decision to consent to treatment 2. If an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would have withheld consent to the treatment = breach of duty 3. Standards for Evaluating Medical Professionals Conduct a. National Standard b. Strict Locality – practitioner in good standing in the local community in which the practitioner practices c. Similar Community in Similar Circumstances d. Morrison v. MacNamara – Standard of care for board certified physicians, hospitals that are nationally certified is a national standard 4. Reasonable Physician Standard – what a reasonable physician would disclose-majority 5. Reasonable Patient Standard – what a reasonable patient would want to know-minority a. Scott v. Bradford – doctor adequately informed patient of risks 6. 2. Breach or Violation of Duty of Care a. Negligence Per Se (Statutory Negligence) i. A criminal or regulatory statute imposes a penalty for violation of a specific duty ii. Defendant violates the statute by failing to perform that duty iii. Plaintiff is in the class of people intended to be protected by the statute iv. The harm is of the type the statute intended to protect against 1. Cases a. Osborne v. McMasters b. Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp. - sued the owners of the bar, claiming a violation of an OR statute requiring bar owners to “prevent the recurrence of abuses associated with” bars c. Ney v. Yellow Cab – Trial court must determine the risk against which the legislature intended to protect the class of persons from. P was among the class of persons intended to be protected and the harm was one the legislature intended to prevent. v. Perry v. S.N. (Child Abuse at Daycare) 1. Plaintiff can be members of the class and suffer harm against which the statute was intended to protect, but a criminal statute can nonetheless be found inappropriate to import a duty and standard of conduct in tort. 2. Factors to consider include a. whether the statute clearly defines the prohibited or required conduct; b. whether applying negligence per se could create liability without fault; c. whether the statute would impose ruinous liability disproportionate to the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, and d. whether the injury resulted directly or indirectly from violation of the statute vi. Effects of Statute 1. Violation of a statute can constitute both negligence per se (assuming causation and injury demonstrated) and can apply equally to plaintiff and defendant a. Martin v. Herzog – Driver collided with car that didn’t have headlights on 2. The presumption that a violation of a statute constitutes a prima facie case of negligence may be rebutted by offering an adequate excuse under the circumstances of the case. a. Zeni v. Anderson – P walked in road when sidewalk covered with snow vii. Proof of Negligence 1. Circumstantial Evidence a. Goddard v. Boston & Maine – banana peel on platform. No evidence on how long the banana had been on the platform. b. Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway – old banana peel platform. i. Even without direct evidence (testimony as to how long peel had been on platform), the circumstantial evidence (testimony re condition of the banana) was sufficient for jury to infer it had been there long enough c. d. e. f. for defendant’s employees to have noticed it and removed it. Joye v. Greater Atlantic – banana peel on floor at market i. Where circumstantial evidence cannot establish how long banana has been on floor, plaintiff failed to present enough evidence to jury Ortega v. Kmart - P has the burden of producing evidence that the dangerous condition existed for at least a sufficient time to support a finding that D had constructive notice of the hazardous condition. Jasko v. F.W. - Where D is responsible for creating the dangerous condition (including through its operating method), P need not demonstrate either actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused P’s injury. H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez – The P slipped and fell near a grape display owned by the D. A mere display or produce for customer sampling, without more, does not constitute an unreasonable risk of harm to customers. 2. Proof of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) a. The fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish a breach of duty b. Inference of Negligence i. Plaintiff must establish that the accident causing the injury is the type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent ii. Other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence and the inferred negligence is within the scope of the D duty to P. iii. Byrne v. Boadle – Barrel fell out of the window. Under certain circumstances the fact finder is permitted to infer negligent conduct in the absence of evidence of negligent conduct. Here, it was possible for the jury to infer negligence simply from the happening of the accident itself. iv. Cruz. V. DaimlerChrysler-The P bought a used vehicle from the D. The P was inside the vehicle cleaning it when the airbags spontaneously deployed for no reason, causing him injury negligence is permitted only when the event is v. James v. Wormuth – The Defendant performed a lung biopsy on Plaintiff. At some point during the procedure, the guide wire dislodged inside of Plaintiff. The defendant searched the wire but felt it was best to stop the surgery. Res Ipsa Loquitor is applicable only if the subject is unintentionally left in a patient following an operative procedure. vi. Sullivan v. Crabtree – The inference of the D negligence that comes about due to the res ipsa loquitor is not conclusive because there was other possible causes of the accident. It was possible that the brakes gave way, or that the accident could have been caused by the combination of several factors. c. Negligence Attributable to Defendant i. Plaintiff must establish evidence connecting defendant with the negligence to support a finding of liability d. Traditional Standards of Res Ipsa Loquitur Plaintiff Must Prove – Larson v. St. Francis Hotel – chair fell out hotel window i. There was an accident that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence ii. It was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control and management of the defendant iii. It was not due to any action on the part of the plaintiff