PA 165 PA 165 Introduction to TortsIntroduction to Torts

Unit 4Unit 4

Lecture 1Lecture 1

Unit 4 Graded Items

Lecture 1 (10 points)

Lecture 2 (10 points)Quiz (40 points) Discussion (20 points) – 2 Topics

Deadline for Unit 4: 11:59 PM ET, Tuesday, July 5

Unit 4 Lecture 2

No lecture will be given on Monday, July 4 because of the holiday

All students will receive the 10 points for attendance (no alternative assignment required)

Optional lecture will be held on Tuesday, July 5 (no extra credit)

Unit 5 Graded Items

Only 1 lecture in Unit 5 (Wed, July 6)

No lecture on Monday, July 11

Lecture 1 (10 points) – Review for Midterm ExamMidterm Exam (140 points)

Deadline for Unit 5 Midterm Exam: 11:59 PM ET, Tuesday, July 12

Unit 5 Midterm Exam

2 hour time limitonly one attempt140 points total

28 questions total5 points for each questionTrue/false and multiple choice questions

Based on content from units 1-4

Negligence Defined

The failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring others or their property.

It can involve doing something carelessly or failing to do something that should have been done.

Elements of Negligence

Duty of reasonable care Breach of duty Causation (cause-in-fact and

proximate cause) Damages

Intent not required for negligence!

Duty

A legal obligation to another person, who has a corresponding right.

The obligation to do/not to do something

Example: A driver in a vehicle on a highway has a duty to act in a reasonably safe manner.

Scope of duty: Reasonable foreseeability

Foreseeability

Was it reasonably foreseeable that the person hurt would be injured as a result of the tortfeasor's actions?

Breach

Failure to conform to the standard of “reasonable person” under the circumstances.

reasonably prudent person test or reasonable person test/standard

What is “reasonable” often decided by the trier of fact (jury in a jury trial)

Causation

Causation includes both cause-in-fact and proximate causation.

Cause-in-fact: Cause of injury in negligence cases. If the tortfeasor’s actions resulted in the victim’s injuries, then the tortfeasor was the cause-in-fact of the victim’s harm.

Cause-in-fact

But for defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff would not have been injured or harmed.

Example: John is driving his vehicle in a reckless manner and rear-ends a vehicle in front of him and which results in a three-car pile-up. John has caused the resulting damage.

Proximate Cause

Also called “legal causation” or “legal cause”

The proximate cause of an injury is not necessarily the closest thing in time or space to the injury and not necessarily the event that set things in motion because proximate cause is a legal, not a physical concept.

The tortfeasor's actions that cause a reasonablyforeseeable injury to the victim

Substantial Factor Test

Test for indirect causation in negligence cases.

The tortfeasor is liable for injuries to the victim when the tortfeasor’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm.

Example: Three members of a fraternity kick the head of a pledge that causes brain damage. One of the frat brothers was wearing steel tipped boots but all three frat brothers contributed to the injury.

Damages

Money that a court orders paid to a person who has suffered damage Loss or harm by the person who caused the injury.

Compensatory damages common

Damages

What are the potential damages for a person in a slip-and-fall case?

Medical expenses (past and future) Lost wages Property damage Pain and suffering

Special Damages

special damages also know as consequential damages

Punitive Damages

rarely granted in tort casesalso called exemplary damages

The Station nightclub fire

The Station nightclub fire in 2003 killed 100 people and injured more than 200.

The fire began when pyrotechnics for the rock band Great White ignited flammable sound-absorbing foam around the stage. The foam quickly spread the fire.

Who are the potential defendants under negligence?

Nightclub, band, seller/manufacturer of the foam

Taking Victims as You Find Them

A theory in negligence cases which states that the victim’s injuries were reasonably foreseeable even if the tortfeasor was unaware of the victim’s peculiar physical, health, or other preexisting conditions.

In effect, the tortfeasor takes the victims as the tortfeasor finds them, and thus proximately causes the harm.

Gross Negligence

Recklessly or willfully acting with a deliberate indifference to the affect the action will have on others.

Punitive damages may be awarded for gross negligence.

Joint and Several Liability

When two or more persons who jointly commit a tort can be held liable both together and individually.

Similar to substantial factor analysis (multiple tortfeasors)

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Latin for “The thing speaks for itself”

A rebuttable presumption (a conclusion that can be changed if contrary evidence is introduced) that a person is negligent if the thing causing an accident was in his or her control only, and if that type of accident does not usually happen without negligence.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Defendant's negligence is presumed.

The defendant was in exclusive control over the action or object that injured the plaintiff.

The defendant is in the better position to prove his or her lack of negligence than the plaintiff is to prove negligence.

Example of Res Ipsa Loquitur

Infliction of a third-degree burn on the rear area of the plaintiff’s right upper thigh during orthoscopic knee surgery

Babits v. Vassar Bros. Hospital, 287 A.2d. 670 (2001)

Common in medical malpractice cases