Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
torts mind map
1. wrongful act
2. legally recognized
3. right of the other person to redress
Negligence: a failure to heed a duty of care owed to another that causes injury to that other person
torts
(Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores.Inc. (2000)
injury
Injury is the first and most basic condition for a viable tort claim
bodily harm
Destruction of tangible property
economic harm
emotional harm
duty
Requires a negligence plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed her, or a class of persons including her, an obligation/duty to take care not to cause the type of injury that she has suffered
things that you do—default rule-body & propery
general/unqualified
1. to take reasonable care to avoid causing physical harm to foreseeable victims
2. care a person of ordinary prudence would use.
3. does not depend on strange/nonstranger distinction (relationship)
4. any course of conduct that carves risk of injury to another
5. particularly foreseeable
1
1. to take reasonable care to avoid causing physical harm to foreseeable victims
mislabeled poison bottle
"imminently dangerous" (exception to Winterbottom)
Thomas (1852)
Devlin (1882)-poorly built scaffold imminently dangerous to human life
unsound scaffolding--duty to P if D can foresee that carelessness can cause injury
Heaven (1883)
Torgesen (1908)-bottle explosion inherently dangerous instrument.
YES DUTY
Statler (1909)-coffee urn explosion imminently dangerous
MacPherson (1916)
ELIMINATED PRIVITY RULE IN WINTERBOTTOM
Mussivand (1989)-foreseeability to third party (spouses)
ESTABLISHED PRIVITY RULE
Winterbottom (1942)
Loop (1870)-spinning cast iron wheel no pirvity
NO DUTY
Losee (1873)-steam boiler explosion no privity
things that you don’t do - 4 categories
limited/qualified
1
1. to make reasonable effort to protect or rescue (AFFIRMATIVE DUTIES)
EXCEPTIONS
1. imperilment
2. voluntary undertaking
3. special relationship
Osterlind (1928) - applied basic rule of NO DUTY under nonfeasance
cases
Baker (2003) - exception to basic no duty - SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS
2
2. to provide safe premises
3 RULES
1. majoirty rule: distinction between invitee and licensee is abandoned; trespasser is retained
2. categories retained (old law)
3. All categories abandoned
Leffler v. Sharp (2004) - limited duty under 3 categories
cases
Rowland (1968) - rejects 3 categories - applies general duty to premise liability
3
3. to take care to avoid causing non-physical harm (economic/emotional)
BASIC RULE:
no duty
Aikens v. Debow (2000)- basic rule
economic
EXCEPTIONS
1. special relationships
2. nexus jurisdiction
BASIC RULE:
no duty
Wyman (1880)- basic rule- physical impact rule
Robb (1965)- applies ZOD - rejects physical impact rule
emotional
Gottshall (1994)- applies ZOD (without 3rd requirement
EXCEPTIONS
1. special relationships
2. zone of danger
3. bystander liability
Thing v. La Chusa (1989): bystander liability