Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Legal Liability and Torts: Insanity, Consent, and Emergency Situations, Study notes of Law of Torts

College of Charleston (CofC)Law of Torts

An in-depth analysis of various legal concepts related to liability and torts, focusing on insanity, consent, and emergency situations. It discusses the implications of mental illness on liability for intentional torts, the role of consent in various contexts, and the concept of 'last clear chance'. It also covers the locality rule and informed consent in medical malpractice cases.

Typology: Study notes

2023/2024

Uploaded on 02/28/2024

isabella-de-lorenzi
isabella-de-lorenzi 🇺🇸

5 documents

1 / 36

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTENTIONAL TORTS............................................................................................................................................................................... 3
GOAL................................................................................................................................................................................... ................ 3
INTENT................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
AGAINST PROP (TRESPASS)............................................................................................................................................................ 3
TRESPASS TO LAND................................................................................................................................................................... 3
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL............................................................................................................................................................. 3
CONVERSION.............................................................................................................................................................................. . 4
AGAINST PERSON.............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
ASSAULT....................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
BATTERY..................................................................................................................................................................... ................. 5
TRANSFERRED INTENT........................................................................................................................................................ 5
FALSE IMPRISONMENT............................................................................................................................................................... 5
DEFS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
IIED................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
DEFS TO PROP................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
NECESSITY................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
FORCE NECESSARY................................................................................................................................................................... 6
DEFS TO PERSON.............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
CONSENT.................................................................................................................................................................... ................. 6
INFORMED & UN-COERCED................................................................................................................................................. 6
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY CONDUCT............................................................................................................................ 6
EMERGENCY.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
MINORS........................................................................................................................................................................ .......... 7
ILLEGAL CONDUCT............................................................................................................................................................... 7
ATHLETIC INJURIES.............................................................................................................................................................. 7
SELF DEF & DEF TO OTHERS..................................................................................................................................................... 7
*NEVER* MENTAL INSTABILITY.................................................................................................................................................. 7
NEG............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
REASONABLE PERSON..................................................................................................................................................................... 8
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa
pfd
pfe
pff
pf12
pf13
pf14
pf15
pf16
pf17
pf18
pf19
pf1a
pf1b
pf1c
pf1d
pf1e
pf1f
pf20
pf21
pf22
pf23
pf24

Partial preview of the text

Download Legal Liability and Torts: Insanity, Consent, and Emergency Situations and more Study notes Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  • INTENTIONAL TORTS...............................................................................................................................................................................
    • GOAL...................................................................................................................................................................................................
    • INTENT................................................................................................................................................................................................
    • AGAINST PROP (TRESPASS)............................................................................................................................................................
      • TRESPASS TO LAND...................................................................................................................................................................
      • TRESPASS TO CHATTEL.............................................................................................................................................................
      • CONVERSION...............................................................................................................................................................................
    • AGAINST PERSON..............................................................................................................................................................................
      • ASSAULT.......................................................................................................................................................................................
      • BATTERY......................................................................................................................................................................................
        • TRANSFERRED INTENT........................................................................................................................................................
      • FALSE IMPRISONMENT...............................................................................................................................................................
    • DEFS....................................................................................................................................................................................................
      • IIED................................................................................................................................................................................................
    • DEFS TO PROP...................................................................................................................................................................................
      • NECESSITY...................................................................................................................................................................................
      • FORCE NECESSARY...................................................................................................................................................................
    • DEFS TO PERSON..............................................................................................................................................................................
      • CONSENT.....................................................................................................................................................................................
        • INFORMED & UN-COERCED.................................................................................................................................................
        • EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY CONDUCT............................................................................................................................
        • EMERGENCY..........................................................................................................................................................................
        • MINORS..................................................................................................................................................................................
        • ILLEGAL CONDUCT...............................................................................................................................................................
        • ATHLETIC INJURIES..............................................................................................................................................................
      • SELF DEF & DEF TO OTHERS.....................................................................................................................................................
      • NEVER MENTAL INSTABILITY..................................................................................................................................................
  • NEG............................................................................................................................................................................................................
    • REASONABLE PERSON.....................................................................................................................................................................
    • SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE RULE..................................................................................................................................................
    • CHILDREN.....................................................................................................................................................................................
    • INSANITY......................................................................................................................................................................................
    • DISABILITY....................................................................................................................................................................................
    • COMMON CARRIERS...................................................................................................................................................................
  • CALCULUS OF RISK........................................................................................................................................................................... - TERRY’S 5 FACTORS OF REASONABLENESS................................................................................................................... - HAND FORMULA....................................................................................................................................................................
  • CUSTOM..............................................................................................................................................................................................
    • MED MAL.......................................................................................................................................................................................
      • COMMON KNOWLEDGE RULE...........................................................................................................................................
      • LOCALITY RULE...................................................................................................................................................................
      • INFORMED CONSENT.........................................................................................................................................................
  • STATUTES & REGS - NEG PER SAY...............................................................................................................................................
    • LICENSES...................................................................................................................................................................................
    • PROA UNDER FED STATUTES.................................................................................................................................................
  • JUDGE & JURY..................................................................................................................................................................................
  • PROOF OF NEG................................................................................................................................................................................
    • RES IPSA LOQUITUR.................................................................................................................................................................
  • P’S CONDUCT...................................................................................................................................................................................
    • CONTRIBUTORY NEG (CL)........................................................................................................................................................
      • LAST CLEAR CHANCE.........................................................................................................................................................
    • ASSUMPTION OF RISK (CL & M)...............................................................................................................................................
      • SPECTATOR SPORTS.........................................................................................................................................................
    • COMPARATIVE NEG (M)............................................................................................................................................................
      • CONTRIBUTORY VS. COMPARATIVE................................................................................................................................

AGAINST PROP (TRESPASS) TRESPASS TO LAND PFC

  1. Intent (by D to invade land of another);
  2. Volitional act (unauthorized physical entry onto land); &
  3. Causation PHYSICAL HARM/DAMAGES ≠ REQ - DAMAGES = TRESPASS ITSELF ● Intentional & unauthorized entry onto REAL property of which another has: a. Rightful ownership of or b. Otherwise has exclusive possession & control of (e.g., tenant) ● D person engages in trespass if he intentionally: a. Enters land in possess of the other (or causes thing or 3rd person to do so); b. Remains on land; or c. Fails to remove from land a thing which he = under duty to remove ● DOES NOT req actual damages ● Includes some area below & above physical land Dougherty v. Stepp Brown v. Dellinger TRESPASS TO CHATTEL PFC
  4. Intent (by D);
  5. Volitional act (D’s act which interferes w/ personal property (chattel) in P’s possession);
  6. Causation; (BUT FOR D’s act P would NOT have been harmed (i.e. right to possess interfered w?)
  7. Damages (to chattel or deprivation of its use) ● Intentional interaction w/ PERSONAL property of another - meddling w/ chattel resulting in harm to legally protected interest ○ EX: ■ Deprivation of use ■ Impairment of use ■ Some injury to person or property ● Mistake of fact ≠ def ● Must be BOTH :
  8. Interference &
  9. Damage ● 1 DOES NOT have to own the chattel - possession = suffic ○ Unlike conversion ● Liable ONLY WHEN : a. Trespass = harmful to possessor’s material valuable interest in physical condition, quality or value of chattel or b. Possessor = deprived of chattel’s use ● Gen lesser form of conversion - D = liable for ACTUAL damages ( NOT full value of chattel) Blondell v. Consolidated Gas Co. Intel Co. v. Hamidi CONVERSION PFC
  10. Intent (to exercise d&c over P’s property for 1’s own use);
  11. Volitional act (of exercising d&c over property);
  12. Causation; &
  13. Damages
  • SERIOUS interference w/ another’s possessory interest in property Poggi v. Scott Fouldes v. Willoughby Maye v. Yappan Moore v. Regents of the University of California Jetblue

● Higher degree of trespass to chattel ● Intentional exercise of d&c over PERSONAL property of another which SERIOUSLY interferes w/ true owner’s right to control it ● Converting to one's own use ● Includes:

  1. Fraud;
  2. Duress;
  3. Barring access;
  4. Destruction;
  5. Fundamental altering;
  6. Using in some way that deprives owner of control;
  7. Using in unlawful way;
  8. Refusing to give something back; &
  9. Accepting control from someone else knowing it = stolen ● Mistake of fact ≠ def - you intended to exercise d&c over property REGARDLESS of who you thought it belonged to ● Strict liability tort - D need ONLY intend to exercise d&c (take possession of property) ● IRRELEVANT if actor:
  10. Knew who owned property &/or
  11. Had action plan to convert property or not ○ If results in serious interference = conversion ● Good faith ≠ def BUT can = aggravating or mitigating factor Microsoft Ebay Kremen v. Cohen Sotelov

FALSE IMPRISONMENT PFC

  1. Intent to confine/restrain another w/in fixed boundaries (bounded area);
  2. Volition act (done on purpose);
  3. Causation; &
    • Act directly or indirectly results in confinement
  4. Damages
    • P =: a. Conscious of confinement or b. Harmed by it

DEFS

  1. Protection of person or prop
  2. Consent ( Herd )
    • Apparent consent precludes liability IF actor reasonably believes P ACTUALLY consents to confinement
  3. Safe alternate exit ( Zavala ) Coblyn v. Kennedy’s Inc. Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority Herd Zavala IIED PFC
  4. Intent (or recklessness) (to inflict emotional distress);
  5. Volitional act (extreme or outrageous behavior by D);
  6. Causation: &
  7. Damages
  • SEVERE emotional distress to P ● Conduct =:
  1. Extreme &
  2. Outrageous ● Regular person hearing facts would say “outrageous!” ● Can be PARASITIC to other torts - may be pursued EVEN IF 1 DOES NOT sue for underlying tort ○ EX: underlying tort = trespass - P sues for IIED BUT NOT for trespass ● Person can = liable for IIED INDIRECTLY to 3rd party present during act Wilkinson v. Downton State Rubbish v. Siliznoff Hustler Republic of Sudan DEFS TO PROP

NEVER MENTAL INSTABILITY

● MENTAL ILLNESS NEVER = DEF IN CIVIL - ONLY IN CRIM

● If a legally insane person causes intentional damage to the person or prop of another, he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a sane person would be liable ● Mental illness does not negate intent for intentional torts ● Where a loss must be borne by 1 of 2 innocent persons - shall be borne by 1 who caused it ● Pub policy req enforcement of the liability for insane ppl so: ● Those interested in the estate of the insane person (relatives or otherwise) may be under inducement to restrain him & ● Tortfeasors may not simulate or pretend insanity to def their wrongful acts of causing damage to others ● Insanity may = def to liability for neg if individual = suddenly overcome w/out forewarning by mental disability or disorder that = him incapable of conforming his conduct to standards of reasonable man under like circumstances ● Mental incapacity of this type should be treated = sudden physical incapacity (i.e. heart attacks, strokes, or epileptic seizures) ● 2 reqs for def of insanity: ● Mental illness must have significant impact on person's capacity to understand & appreciate (act w/) duty to exercise ordinary care & ● Must be absence of prior warning or notice to person that they could unexpectedly experience this form of insanity ● Insanity ≠ def if individual has some warning or knowledge that insanity could occur & impact his behavior ● Intent Requirement: Trespass often requires proof of intent or knowingly entering another person's property without permission. In many legal systems, a defense based on mental illness may only be successful if the individual can demonstrate that, due to their mental state, they lacked the necessary intent to commit the trespass. ● ● Volitional Control: Some legal standards for mental health defenses require not only a mental disorder but also a lack of volitional control over one's actions. If the person with a mental illness still had the ability to control their behavior and understand the wrongfulness of their actions, the defense may not be as effective. **NECESSITY ***HAVE TO MENTION IF PRIV OR PUB*****

PRIV

● ≠ COMPLETE DEFENSE - DOES NOT COMPLETELY BAR D FROM RECOVERY

○ D STILL REQ TO COMP P LANDOWNER

● Going onto someone’s land as means of necessary protection (think hurricane in-class essay) ● "Conditional" or "incomplete privilege" - D has privilege to use/enter land BUT he must PAY for privilege by tendering reasonable: a. Rental value or b. Comp for lost or damaged prop ○ i.e. D CANNOT = punished (D ≠ liable for trespass ITSELF ) BUT D STILL = liable for damages (pay for damaged prop) resulting from trespass ( Lake Erie ) “Act of God” ● Necessity caused by “act of God” or other natural disaster resulting in inability to control movements justifies entries upon land & interferences w/ personal prop that would otherwise have = trespasses ● Gen - trespasser ≠ liable for prop damage that results from “act of God” BUT WILL = liable to comp for damages that resulted otherwise ● EX: storm suddenly came out of nowwhere & D was too far from marina to dock his boat so he docks it at ● An individual cannot be held responsible for damages caused to another person’s prop during an unavoidable & accidental occurrence. However, if the individual intentionally causes harm to the prop to protect their own assets, they are obligated to compensate the affected party for the Mouse's case Ploof v. Putnam Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. Brewer v. State Katko v. Briney Bird v. Holbrook

DEFS TO PERSON

CONSENT INFORMED & UN-COERCED ● Person must be given full disclosure of necessary/relevant info for making decision to consent or not ● Exceptions to gen rule of informed consent:

  1. Pt = unconscious or otherwise can't consent BUT situation = urgent (emergency)
  2. Psychological state is or would be compromised by info that disclosure may prevent them from making rational choice

EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY CONDUCT

● Expressed - saying yes (by oral or written words) ● Implied - inferred from conduct ○ EX: ■ Holding arm out to receive vaccine ■ Thumbs up ■ Shaking head yes/no

EMERGENCY

● Consent = implied IF :

  1. Scenario = life threatening &
  2. Person ≠ capable of giving consent ● If person = capable of consenting - MUST be respected ○ EVEN IF = emergency

MINORS

● Minors & incompetents req guardian consent ○ UNLESS emergency

ILLEGAL CONDUCT

● Majority - CANNOT consent to illegal acts ● Minority - CAN consent

SPORTS

● SEE ASSUMPTION OF RISK §

● Gen rule - person consents by participating so (i.e. assumption of risk) athletic injuries in line w/ "rules of the game" ≠ liability ○ HOWEVER , if D DOES NOT play by rules = liable - ■ Consent here ≠ def bc P DID NOT consent to be involved in (& thus assume risk of harm to) any activity NOT permitted by rules ● Exceptions:

  1. Formal settings (organized contact sports):
    • D CAN = liable for injury done w/in rules of game IF jury decides D acted: a. Willfully; b. Deliberately; or c. W/ reckless regard for safety
    • D breaches duty of care ONLY IF they: a. INTENTIONALLY injure another participant or b. Engage in conduct TOTALLY OUTSIDE range of ordinary Canterbury v. Spence O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co. Hoofnel v. Segal Mohr v. Williams Kennedy v. Parrott Allore v. Flower Hospital Christensen v. Royal School District Hudson v. Craft Hart v. Geysel Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals Pickel v. Springfield Stallions Avila v. Citrus Community College District Turcotte v. Fell Marchetti v. Kalish

SELF DEF & DEF TO OTHERS ● Valid under mistaken belief (i.e. acted in self-defense under false assumption that you were being attacked/harmed) ● Can defend others (3rd parties) from harm ● Accidental harming of innocent bystander by force reasonably intended in self-defense to repel attack by 3rd party ≠ actionable ○ i.e. NO liability - valid defense Courvoisier v. Raymond Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority NEVER MENTAL INSTABILITY

● MENTAL ILLNESS NEVER = DEF IN CIVIL - ONLY IN CRIM

● If a legally insane person causes intentional damage to the person or prop of another, he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a sane person would be liable ● Mental illness does not negate intent for intentional torts ● Where a loss must be borne by 1 of 2 innocent persons - shall be borne by 1 who caused it ● Pub policy req enforcement of the liability for insane ppl so: ● Those interested in the estate of the insane person (relatives or otherwise) may be under inducement to restrain him & ● Tortfeasors may not simulate or pretend insanity to def their wrongful acts of causing damage to others ● Insanity may = def to liability for neg if individual = suddenly overcome w/out forewarning by mental disability or disorder that = him incapable of conforming his conduct to standards of reasonable man under like circumstances ● Mental incapacity of this type should be treated = sudden physical incapacity (i.e. heart attacks, strokes, or epileptic seizures) ● 2 reqs for def of insanity: ● Mental illness must have significant impact on person's capacity to understand & appreciate (act w/) duty to exercise ordinary care & ● Must be absence of prior warning or notice to person that they could unexpectedly experience this form of insanity ● Insanity ≠ def if individual has some warning or knowledge that insanity could occur & impact his behavior ● Intent Requirement: Trespass often requires proof of intent or knowingly entering another person's property without permission. In many legal systems, a defense based on mental illness may only be successful if the individual can demonstrate that, due to their mental state, they lacked the necessary intent to commit the trespass. ● ● Volitional Control: Some legal standards for mental health defenses require not only a mental disorder but also a lack of volitional control over one's actions. If the person with a mental illness still had the ability to control their behavior and understand the wrongfulness of their actions, the defense may not be as effective. McGuire v. Almy Polmatier v. Russ

STRICT LIABILITY

● Holds Ds liable for their conduct re certain actions that causes P’s harm NO MATTER WHAT ○ D = liable REGARDLESS OF:

  1. D’s intent &/or
  2. If D’s conduct = neg ● ONLY Q - did D do the harm? ● If D did damage/harm to P - D = responsible for paying for damage/harm (i.e. comp P) UNLESS : ○ Damage resulted from providence or an act of god ○ The plaintiff was contributorily negligent ○ The defendant exerted his/her “best efforts” to avoid the accident; or ○ It was an inevitable/unavoidable accident ● Unlike neg - NO req to prove D’s fault or intention to cause harm ● ● - Common Examples: ● - Often applies to inherently dangerous activities or products, such as keeping wild animals, using explosives, or manufacturing certain goods. ● ● - Focus on the Act: ● - The key is whether the act itself caused harm, rather than the defendant's state of mind. ● ● - Rationale: ● - Aimed at protecting the public and ensuring those engaged in certain activities bear the risk of harm they might cause. ● ● EX: If someone keeps a wild animal as a pet, and it escapes, injuring a neighbor, the owner may be strictly liable for the harm caused by the animal, even if they took precautions. ● ● Forms of Pleading: Available Writs ● Trespass – available for harms caused by D’s direct and immediate application of force against P ● Trespass on the case – available for indirect harms not involving the use of force ● EVOLUTION ○ Williams v. Holland (1833): allowed a P to recover, holding that a P allowed to “sue in case, no matter whether the harm was immediate or consequential as long as the plaintiff could show that the harm occurred as a result of the defendant’s negligence” ○ Common Law Procedure Act 1852: allow P to allege trespass and case in a single writ ● Strict liability in torts is a legal concept that holds a person or entity liable for certain actions or activities regardless of their intent or fault. Unlike negligence, where liability is based on the failure to exercise reasonable care, strict liability imposes responsibility regardless of the level of care exercised. This means that a person can be held liable for the consequences of their actions even if they were not negligent or did not have any wrongful intent. ● ● There are generally two main categories of strict liability in torts: ●

SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE RULE ● Pro in his pro trade = req to behave as reasonable member of the trade would act under the circumstances ( HIGHER STDRD ) Dakter v. Cavallino MINORS ●^ Minors = entitled to be judged by stdrd of care comparable w/ their:

  1. Age;
  2. Experience; &
  3. Wisdom ● Minor stdrd ONLY APPLIES WHEN engaged in activities appropriate for their:
  4. Age;
  5. Experience; &
  6. Wisdom
  • Think motorcycle case ( Daniels ) Daniels v Evans INSANITY/MENTAL ILLNESS ● Adults usually held liable for mental illness IF sudden incapacitation = due to ONGOING mental illness ● Rationale:
  1. Where 2 innocent people = injured - causer would bear brunt of damages
  • Protects innocent victim
  1. To induce those interested in insane to control him
  2. Fear that insanity def would be overused in false claims Breunig DISABILITY ●^ Strd of care req of person w/ disability = that of level of care reasonable person under same or similar disability would exercise under circumstances whether a reasonable person with similar disabilities would have acted differently in the given situation. The law considers whether the person causing harm could have reasonably foreseen the impact of their actions on an individual with a disability. If the disability and its potential consequences were foreseeable, the person may be held to a higher standard of care. Fletcher v City of Aberdeen COMMON CARRIERS ●^ Owe duty of utmost care & vigilance of very cautious person to passengers ( HIGHER STRD ) Andrews v. United Airlines CALCULUS OF RISK ● Person acts negly IF person DOES NOT exercise reasonable care under ALL the circumstances ● Factors to determine if conduct lacked reasonable care:
  3. Foreseeable likelihood that person’s conduct will = harm;
  4. Foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue; &
  5. Burden of precautions to eliminate/reduce risk of harm

TERRY’S 5 FACTORS OF REASONABLENESS

  1. Magnitude of risk
    • How much/serious harm = if risk occurs
  2. Value or importance of object of risk
    • Person’s life = most valuable
  3. Value or importance of collateral object
    • Collateral object - what actor could gain by taking risk (actor’s reasoning for taking it)
    • If more valuable/important than object of risk - may = reasonable to take risk
  4. Utility of risk
    • How likely collateral object would be obtained by taking risk
  5. Necessity of risk
    • Probability that collateral object would not be attained some other way
    • If more likely than not actor can gain the collateral object, by doing something else (safer alts) - prob ≠ reasonable to Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks Eckert v Long Island

take risk acting in this way

HAND FORMULA

● Liability due to failure to take safety precautions exists when burden of those precautions (B) = LESS THAN probability of injury (P) MULTIPLIED by cost of injury if did occur (L) ● B < P(L) CUSTOM ● Helps define reasonable person under spec circumstances (modified to custom of area/practice/trade) ● Actor’s compliance w/ custom of community or others in like circumstances = evid that actor’s conduct ≠ neg automatically ○ BUT DOES NOT preclude finding of neg (i.e. ≠ determinative) ● Actor’s departure from custom of community or of others in like circumstances in way that increases risk = evidence that actor’s conduct = neg ○ BUT DOES NOT req finding of neg Titus v Bradford Lucy Webb v Perotti

  1. Interest against kind of harm which has resulted; &
  2. Interest against hazard that caused harm ● Actor = neg IF (w/out excuse):
  3. Actor violates statute that = designed to protect against type of accident actor’s conduct causes &
  4. Accident victim = w/in class of persons statute = designed to protect ● Violation of statute = “per se” neg ○ Excused when compliance w/ statute = LESS SAFE than non-compliance LICENSES ●^ Person’s lack of license^ ≠^ neg per se^ UNLESS^ they^ ALSO^ violate substantive safety stdrds enforced by licensing req Brown v. Shyre PROA UNDER FED STATUTES ● Factors for determining if priv right to sue (PROA) = implied in statute that DOES NOT explicitly provide for 1 (per Cort v. Ash ):
  5. Is P someone statute = designed to protect or benefit (thus creating fed right for them)?
  6. Is there any clear indication in leg intent (either explicit or implied) to create or deny such remedy (remedy = PROA)?
  7. Does impliedly allowing this remedy (PROA) align w/ overall goals/purposes of statute?
  8. Is this type of case traditionally handled by state law (typically under state juris) which would = inappropriate to create fed suit based SOLELY on fed law? Cort v Ash JUDGE & JURY ● Prevention of BOTH (judge or jury) from taking control so don’t abuse unlimited power by deciding contrary to law or w/ bias/passion ● Limits jury discretion - unlimited jury discretion may undermine central principle of justice (all cases should be treated =) ● Q of due care should be left to jury BUT stdrd of conduct should be laid down by court (judge) ● “Jury hindsight bias” - when jury believes bc something DID occur - it = likely TO occur ○ Jury must look NOT at what precautions WOULD be taken now that we know BUT what precautions SHOULD HAVE been taken at the time Baltimore & Ohio RR v. Goodman Pokora v Wabash PROOF OF NEG ● P has exhausted possibilities of proof when he shows:
  9. What D did;
  10. How dangerous it was;
  11. D’s opportunity to recognize (be aware of) danger;
  12. Availability of safer alts; &
  13. D’s opportunity to know about safer alts

RES IPSA LOQUITUR PFC ● Event/harm must:

  1. Kind that DOES NOT ordinarily occur in absence of someone’s neg (but for);
  2. Caused by agency or instrumentality w/in exclusive control of D; &
    • i.e. D must have sole or primary control over object or process that causes resulting event/harm
  3. NOT have been due to ANY voluntary action/contribution on part of P ( NO CN ) ● “Thing speaks for itself” ● Jury should infer neg from very fact that situation occurred ● Invoked by P to establish D’s neg by circumstantial evidence ● D HAS BURDEN OF PROOF OF SHOWING WHY ≠ NEG ● Can reach jury: a. Through this doctrine ALONE or b. By adding exp witness test (doctrine + test) Colmenares Holzhauer Ybarra DEFS (P’S CONDUCT)