DUTY & DUTY LIMITATIONS
A defendant argues they owed no duty to rescue a stranger drowning at the beach. Under the general rule of duty, are they right?
Yes — there is no duty to rescue absent a special relationship.
What’s the formula for determining whether a defendant breached under the Hand Formula?
B < P × L → if burden is less than the probability times the gravity of the loss, failing to take the precaution is breach.
What’s the default test for factual cause?
The “but-for” test — the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence.
Plaintiff was 30% negligent; defendant was 70% negligent; jurisdiction uses pure comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s recovery?
70% of damages.
What duty is owed to an invitee?
Ordinary care — including reasonable inspection and correction of hazards.
A 13-year-old is driving a snowmobile and crashes into a pedestrian. What standard of care applies to the minor?
Reasonable adult standard — minors engaged in adult activities are held to adult standards.
What effect does industry custom have on the standard of care?
It’s evidence, not conclusive. Custom cannot set a lower standard of care (T.J. Hooper vibes).
Two fires — each large enough to destroy the house — merge and burn down the plaintiff’s home. What factual cause rule applies?
Substantial factor test — each fire is a substantial factor and therefore a factual cause.
A plaintiff knowingly walks across visibly icy stairs that the landlord failed to salt. Negligence? Assumption of risk?
Secondary implied assumption of risk → merges into comparative negligence (not a complete bar).
Hidden dangers known to the landowner but not the guest must be warned of under what entrant category?
Licensees (social guests).
A blind defendant walks with a cane but fails to tap properly, tripping a passerby. What’s the standard for determining breach?
The reasonable person with the same physical impairment.
A plaintiff cannot show how a surgical clamp was left inside them. What doctrine lets the case go to the jury on breach anyway?
Res ipsa loquitur — accident type that ordinarily doesn’t occur absent negligence + exclusive control + no plaintiff contribution.
Two hunters negligently shoot in plaintiff’s direction; one bullet hits him but you can’t tell whose. What doctrine applies and what shifts?
Summers v. Tice alternative liability — burden shifts to defendants to prove they weren’t the cause.
A waiver at a trampoline park says the customer “assumes all risks of injury.” Under Tunkl, when is such an express waiver unenforceable?
When the service implicates public interest (e.g., essential service, unequal bargaining power). Recreational = usually enforceable.
To a trespasser, what is the general duty?
Avoid willful, wanton, or reckless harm.
A statute says: “Store owners must inspect aisles every 20 minutes.” If a customer slips on a grape 3 minutes after it fell, does the statute set the standard of care?
Yes for negligence per se if the elements fit, but the harm is likely not caused by the violation because the store was still within the inspection window — so no breach.
A store argues a spill must have happened moments before a fall, but the plaintiff shows surveillance that the spill sat there for 28 minutes. What doctrine applies?
Constructive notice — hazard existed long enough that a reasonable operator should’ve discovered and corrected it.
A hotel negligently maintains its fire alarm system. During an evacuation, an elderly diabetic guest twists his ankle, develops gangrene, and nearly loses the foot. The defendant argues the extent was unforeseeable. Result?
Defendant loses — thin skull (eggshell) rule. Type of harm foreseeable; extent is irrelevant.
Plaintiff is injured rescuing a child from a burning home that defendant negligently created. Defendant raises contributory negligence. What doctrine blocks that?
Rescue doctrine — rescuers are foreseeable and not barred for assuming risk in an emergency.
When does a landowner owe ordinary care to a trespassing child?
Under attractive nuisance — foreseeable child trespass, known danger, child cannot appreciate risk, burden of protection small.
A plaintiff sues for pure economic loss after a negligent power outage causes her bakery to lose a full day of sales. What result under duty principles?
No duty — negligence generally does not allow recovery for pure economic loss.
A plaintiff argues that a child guest’s parents should’ve prevented the child from climbing a backyard zipline structure. When can a defendant rely on “parental supervision” to defeat breach?
When the hazard is obvious and ordinary, so parents can naturally be expected to supervise. NOT when hazard is hidden/unusual.
A construction company leaves a worksite unprotected near the road. A driver with an epileptic seizure crashes into the site, injuring a worker who is splattered with boiling enamel. Was the seizure a superseding cause?
No — under Derdiarian, negligent failure to shield workers makes third-party driving accidents foreseeable. Manner doesn’t have to be foreseeable, only type of harm.
Plaintiff is injured by a foul ball at a baseball stadium. Defendant claims primary assumption of risk. When does this NOT bar the claim?
When the stadium increases risks beyond inherent ones (e.g., defective netting, promotional stunts like hot-dog throwing).
A motel leaves keys on the front desk overnight; trespasser comes in and assaults a guest. Liability?
Yes — risk of third-party crime was exactly the risk that made the conduct negligent