TORTS
Seton Hall University School of Law
Fall 2011
Syllabus
Professor Solangel Maldonado
Office: Room 416
Telephone: 642-8830
Email: solangel.maldonado@shu.edu
Office Hours: Mondays 3:30-4:30pm
Course Description
This course examines the law governing private recovery for injuries caused by “civil wrongs.”
These wrongs may be intentional or unintentional and include collisions, medical malpractice,
defective products, assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress, among others. As we
learn the law of torts, we will examine when, if ever, the law should shift the loss suffered by the
victim to the injurer, whether tort law deters risky activities, and whether it is the most efficient
method of providing redress to those that have been harmed.
Learning Objectives
After completion of this course, you should be able to competently:
1. Analyze appellate opinions and extract legal principles and rules, draw analogies and
distinctions, and develop legal arguments.
2. Recognize the policies underlying the relevant legal principles, standards, and rules.
3. Articulate rules, standards, and principles of tort law from memory, explain what they
mean, and provide appropriate illustrations.
4. Recognize commonly encountered issues in tort law and apply relevant standards,
principles, and rules when presented in hypothetical and unfamiliar fact patterns.
5. Communicate, both orally and in writing, appropriate legal and factual arguments in
support of each side of controversies involving commonly encountered issues in tort law.
Required Reading
FRANKLIN, RABIN & GREEN, TORT LAW & ALTERNATIVES (9th ed. 2011)
The assigned readings should keep you sufficiently busy and I recommend that you read the
assigned material several times before turning elsewhere. But if you want to read supplementary
materials, consider the following recommended books:
▪
▪
JOHN DIAMOND, UNDERSTANDING TORTS (4th ed. 2010)
KENNETH ABRAHAM, THE FORMS AND FUNCTIONS OF TORT LAW (3rd ed. 2007)
Although supplementary materials can be useful, I caution you not to rely on them excessively.
You must learn how to extract legal principles from primary sources such as cases, rules, and
1
statutes. Supplementary study aids may help you memorize the blackletter law, but they do not
help you develop the analytical skills you will need as a lawyer or to perform in law school
exams.
I urge you to read these recommended books before using a commercial outline. If you decide to
use a commercial outline anyway, be warned that they oversimplify complex issues and are
sometimes wrong.
Attendance Policy and Class Participation
In accordance with the Law School’s attendance policy, you must attend a minimum of 75% of
class sessions or you will be administratively withdrawn from the course. You must sign the
attendance sheet during each class to be marked present.
Participation in class discussions is an essential component of your legal education. You should
come to class prepared to discuss the material facts of each of the assigned cases, the legal issues
raised, the holding and legal reasoning underlying each judicial opinion, and the dissenting and
concurring opinions if any. You should also be prepared to construct legal arguments in support
of a position, to reply to opposing arguments, and to analyze the legal and societal implications
of each case.
To ensure that everyone participates on a regular basis, I will call on a different group of students
in each class. If I call on you and you are unprepared, please say so. Your lack of preparation
will be noted and you can expect to be called on sometime in the next two or three classes. If,
due to extenuating circumstances, you are unable to prepare for class on a particular day, you
should attend class and, before the start of class, leave me a note on the podium with your name
on it asking to be excused from class participation that day. You will be allowed three such
opportunities during the semester.
I encourage students with questions or comments to “voluntarily” participate, but due to time
constraints, it may not always be possible for me to address all of your questions during class. If
you have a question or comment that I was unable to address during class, see me after class or
in my office.
Laptop Policy
Some studies suggest that laptop use is detrimental to classroom discussion, student engagement,
and quality notetaking. See generally Kevin Yamamoto, Banning Laptops in the Classroom,
(available on Blackboard). In order to give this class an opportunity to experience a course
without laptops, you may not use laptops in class during the first three weeks of the semester.
After that, you may use laptops for notetaking if you wish. You MAY NOT use your laptop (or
phone) to play computer games, check e-mail, or surf the Web during class, as this is distracting,
unprofessional, and disrespectful to me and to your colleagues. Violation of the laptop policy is
grounds for negative discretion.
Grading
2
Your grade will be based on your performance on the midterm and final exams, worth 25% and 75%
of the final grade, respectively. I do, however, reserve the right to give “discretion” grades, positive
or negative, as authorized by Seton Hall Law’s grading policy. I will schedule an additional class to
review the midterm. Both exams will be closed book.
Office Hours
I encourage all of you to stop by to discuss the course, law school, career paths, etc.
Assigned Readings
The following is a list of the topics and pages I expect we will cover each week. Keep in mind
that it is difficult to anticipate how long it will take to discuss each topic and occasionally we
may spend more time on a topic than initially anticipated. Accordingly, we may need to make
adjustments to the syllabus throughout the semester.
All page references refer to the casebook. You are responsible for all of the pages assigned,
including the notes that follow each of the principal cases.
Aug. 22nd
I.
Aug. 24th
Vicarious Liability (pp. 17-30)
Christensen v. Swenson
Roessler v. Novak
II.
Aug. 25th
INTRODUCTION (pp. 1-17)
Hammontree v. Jenner
Read Syllabus carefully (on Blackboard)
THE NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLE
A.
Historical Development (pp. 31-39)
Brown v. Kendall
B.
The Standard of Care (pp. 39-49)
Adams v. Bullock
United States v. Carroll Towing
______________________________________________________________________________
Week of Aug. 29th
C.
The Reasonable Person (pp. 49-60)
Bethel v. New York City Transit Authority
D.
The Roles of Judge and Jury (pp. 60-68)
Baltimore v. Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman
Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.
Andrews v. United Airlines, Inc.
E.
The Role of Custom & Statutes (pp. 68-85)
3
Trimarco v. Klein
Martin v. Herzog
Tedla v. Ellman
______________________________________________________________________________
Week of Sept. 5th (no class Sept. 5th)
F.
Proof of Negligence (pp. 85-106)
Negri v. Stop & Shop, Inc.
Gordon v. American Museum of Natural History
Byrne v. Boadle
McDougald v. Perry
Ybarra v. Spangard
______________________________________________________________________________
Week of Sept 12th
G.
Medical Malpractice (pp. 106-28)
Sheeley v. Memorial Hosp.
Sides v. St. Anthony Medical Center
Matthies v. Mastromonaco
III.
THE DUTY REQUIREMENT: PHYSICAL INJURIES
A.
Affirmative Obligations to Act (pp. 129-68)
Harper v. Herman
Farwell v. Keaton
Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified Sch. Dist.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the Univ. of California
Uhr v. East Greenbush Cent. Sch. Dist.
Read Martin v. Herzog on p.74 again & compare to Uhr
______________________________________________________________________________
Week of Sept. 19th
B.
Policy Bases for Invoking No Duty (pp. 168-88)
Strauss v. Belle Realty
The Moch case
Handout: Kelly v. Gwinnell
Reynolds v. Hicks
Vince v. Wilson
C.
Landowners & Occupiers (pp. 189-211)
Carter v. Kinney
Heins v. Webster County
Posecai v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
D.
A Reprise on Duty (pp. 211-17)
A.W. v. Lancaster County Sch. Dist.
______________________________________________________________________________
4
Week of Sept. 26th (no class Sept. 29th)
E.
Intra-familial Duties (pp. 217-27)
Broadbent v. Broadbent
F.
Governmental Immunities (on Blackboard)
IV.
DUTY REQUIREMENT: EMOTIONAL HARM (pp. 260-98)
Falzone v. Busch
Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co. v. Buckley
_____________________________________________________________________________
Week of Oct. 3rd
Gammon v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Maine
Portee v. Jaffee
Johnson v. Jamaica Hosp.
V.
CAUSATION
A.
Cause in Fact
1.
Basic Doctrine (pp. 334-64)
Stubbs v. City of Rochester
Zuchowicz v. United States
Matsuyama v. Birnbaum
_____________________________________________________________________________
Week of Oct. 10th (Fall Break)
______________________________________________________________________________
Week of Oct. 17th
2.
Joint & Several Liability (pp. 364-93)
Summers v. Tice
Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
B.
Proximate Cause
1.
Unexpected Harm (pp. 393-409)
Benn v. Thomas
In re Arbitration Between Polemis
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Docks
2.
Superseding Causes (pp. 409-18)
Doe v. Manheimer
Assignments for the second half of the semester will be posted this week.
5