A. STRICT LIABILITY. In certain circumstances, defendants may be
held liable for the compensable injuries that their conduct causes
others, even if the defendant was not at fault (i.e., did not behave
unreasonably). These circumstances include:
Damages caused by party engaging in self-help under necessity
Abnormally dangerous activities
Nuisance
Trespass
Animals
Vicarious Liability
B. NEGLIGENCE: Defendants will generally be held liable for injuries
caused by their unreasonable behavior. To establish D’s liability in a
negligence claim, plaintiff must prove each of the following four
elements:
1)
Defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care;
Parties who choose to engage in activities
that create a risk of injury to others
generally have a duty to exercise reasonable
care to avoid such injuries.
On the other hand, parties generally do not
have a duty to rescue or offer affirmative aid
to those who face risk from sources other
than the defendant’s conduct. However,
courts sometimes create exceptions to the
traditional no-duty-to-rescue principle
(identify examples, as well as the factors that
courts consider when deciding whether to
impose a duty to rescue or aid, and the tort
law purposes to be furthered by those
factors/exceptions).
Note that special – and varying – duties of
care may apply to land occupiers when
visitors are injured (discuss traditional and
modern approaches to the varying duties of
care owed by land occupiers to their visitors,
and the tort law purposes to be furthered by
each)
2)
Defendant breached that duty of care;
Explain this element in more detail: A
defendant breaches a duty of care by failing
to conform his/her/their conduct to that
which would expect from a reasonable
person in the same circumstances.
a)
Which of the defendant’s circumstances –
e.g., physical, mental, and/or other
limitations – should we consider in assessing
the reasonableness of his/her/their behavior?
b)
How do we determine what a “reasonable
person” would do in those circumstances?
Possible guides include:
Cost-benefit analysis (Hand formula)
Custom
Statute/ordinance
Res ipsa loquitur
3)
Defendant’s breach caused harm to plaintiff;
To satisfy this element, the plaintiff must
establish that the Defendant’s breach of
duty was both a but-for AND a proximate
cause of P’s injuries.
But-for causation:
Define/explain
Identify situations in which but-for
causation is relaxed and why
Proximate causation:
Identify and explain guides to determining
proximate causation.
AND
4)
That harm is compensable by the award of money
damages. (Identify the various components of both
compensatory and punitive damages, how we might
value them, and the tort law purposes to be
furthered by each)
5)
Even if P successfully establishes the defendant’s
negligence, the defendant may still eliminate or
reduce its liability by establishing one or more of
the following affirmative defenses:
Defenses based on the plaintiff’s own fault:
a)
contributory negligence
b)
comparative negligence
i.
pure comparative negligence
ii.
various forms of modified
comparative negligence
Defenses based on the plaintiff’s assumption of risk
a) express assumption of risk (must be
knowing, voluntary, and not against
public policy – explain in more detail,
including the three exceptions)
b) implied assumption of risk
i)
primary implied assumption of
risk: P’s behavior indicates
willingness to assume inherent
risks of an activity
ii)
secondary implied assumption
of risk -- where P reasonably
assumes risks created by D’s
carelessness (jurisdictions split
as to what effect, if any, P’s
reasonable assumption of such
risk should have on P’s ability
to recover)
iii) secondary implied assumption
of risk -- where P unreasonably
accepts risks created by D’s
carelessness (most courts now
treat this as a
comparative/contributory
negligence issue rather than an
assumption of risk issue)
C. PRODUCTS LIABILITY
1)
Plaintiff must show the existence of a
a.
manufacturing defect (must show that this product
deviated from the product as designed)
b.
design defect (depending on jurisdiction must satisfy
consumer expectations or risk/utility test or feasible
alternative design)
and/or
c.
failure to provide adequate warning (reasonableness
standard)
In some cases, extreme and unforeseeable misuse of a product
may defeat the plaintiff’s ability to show the existence of a
defect and/or absence of adequate warning)
2)
P must also show that the D’s defect (or failure to warn) was the
but-for and proximate cause of P’s injury. (In some cases,
unforeseeable misuse of the product may defeat the plaintiff’s
ability to show that the D’s defect was the proximate cause of
his/her/their injury)
3) P must also show that his/her/their injuries are
compensable by money damages.
Even if P successfully establishes the defendant’s defective
product and/or failure to warn, AND that that defect/failure caused
his/her/their injuries, in some circumstances the defendant may still
eliminate (e.g., unforeseeable misuse) or reduce (e.g., comparative
negligence) its liability by establishing the plaintiff’s own fault.