IN THE ELEMENTS
PRIMA FACIE NEGLIGENCE
DUTY
BREACH
CAUSATION
DAMAGES
BESIDES IMMINENT HARM, UNIVERSITIES HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT ITS STUDENTS
Unless the university and the students have a special relationship when there is a mutually beneficial relationship between the parties, such as an athlete who must adhere to intensive control of university policy
PRODUCT DEFECTS
RISK UTILITY ANALYSIS
CONSUMER EXPECTATION OF A PRODUCT
COMBINATION OF RISK-UTILITY AND CONSUMER EXPECTATION
(Prentis v. Yale MFG Co.)
2 SYSTEMS
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: PLAINTIFF CAN COLLECT> TFs AND LEAVE IT UP TO THE DEFENDANT(S) TO OBTAIN CONTRIBUTION FROM OTHER DEFENDANTS TO BEAR THE COST ALONE (Illinois)
SEVERAL LIABILITY: EACH TF PAYS NO MORE THAN HIS APPORTIONED SHARE + THE INJURED PARTY BEARS THE LOSS OF ANY UNCOLLECTIBLE SHARE (Michigan)
UNBORN CHILDREN AND WRONGFUL DEATH
NO RECOVERY UNLESS THE STILLBORN WAS VIABLE AT THE TIME OF THE INJURY
ECONOMIC LOSSES
PAST PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PAIN
FUTURE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PAIN
FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES
LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY
PERMANENT DISABILITY AND DISFIGUREMENT
(Anderson v. Sears Roebuck Co.)
NO DUTY TO RESCUE
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS: HIT AND RUN
PRIOR CONDUCT CREATING RISK: IF YOUR ACTIONS, EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T NEGL. AT THE TIME, CREATED A DNAGER, YOY NOW HAVE A DUTY TO MINIMIZE THE HARM
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
HAS HARM BEEN CAUSED?
WAS THE HARM CAUSED BY YOUR EMPLOYEE?WAS THE EMPLOYEE ACTING IN THE COURSE AND SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT?
OR
WAS THE HARM CAUSED BY AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
PURE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
MISSISSIPPI
STRICT LIABILITY DOES NOT PREVENT, BUT REDUCES A PLAINTIFF'S RECOVERY
PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES ARE REDUCED BY THEIR PERCENTAGE OF FAULT, EVEN IF THEY ARE 99% AT FAULT
VISITOR STATUS TOTEM POLE
PUBLIC INVITEE
BUSINESS NVITEE
LICENSEE BY INVITATION/SOCIAL GUEST
UNINVITED LICENSEE/IMPLIED LICENSEE (SOLICITORS)
TRESPASSERS
INCIDENTAL TASKS/SLIGHT DEVIATIONS
EMPLOYEE'S INTENT
NATURE, TIME AND PLACE OF THE DEVIATION
TIME CONSUMED IN THE DEVIATION
THE WORK FOR WHICH THE EMPLOYEE WAS HIRED
THE FREEDOM ALLOWED WHILE THE EMPLOYEE WAS PERFORMING HIS RESPONSIBILITIES
(O'Shea v. Welch)
TRESPASSERS
KNOWN TRESPASSERS
FORESEEABLE/CONSTANT TRESPASSERS
IMPLIED LICENSEE/TOLERATED INTRUDERS/ACCEPTED SOCIETY VISITORS
MISFEASANCE -- INTENTIONAL RECKLESS CONDUCT
INJURED/TRAPPED TRESPASSERS -- ONLY HOPE OF RESUCE
MECHANICAL DEVICES/BOOBY TRAPS
EMPLOYEE VS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
DEPENDS ON THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYEE -- IF THE EMPLOYER EXERCISES OR HAS THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PHYSICAL CONDUCT OF THE WORK
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR -- IF THE EMPLOYEE ONLY DIRECTS THE RESULT AND THE PARTY IS FREE TO DETERMINE THE MANNER AND MEANS OF THE WORK
MODIFIED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
IDAHO
IF THE PLAINTIFF IS >50% RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN INJURIES, THEY CANNOT RECOVER
J/S ECONOMIC DAMAGES: 1 DEFENDANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES IF ONE CANNOT PAY
SEVERAL (NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES/PAIN AND SUFFERING): DEFENDANT IS ONLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR % OF FAULT
POSSESSOR'S DUTY
REASONABLY INSPECT THE PROPERTY TO DETECT UNREASONABLY HAZARDOUS NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL CONDITIONS
AND
IF THE POSSESSOR KNOWS OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION OR WOULD KNOW OF THE CONDITION UPON CONDUCTING A REASONABLE INSPECTION AND KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW THAT THE INVITEE HAS NO REASON TO KNOW OF THE CONDITION AND THE RISK IT POSES TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO REMEDY THE CONDITION OR WARN THE INVITEE OF THE CONDITION
ULTRAHAZARDOUS
INVOLVES A HIGH DEGREE OF RISK OR HARM
THE GRAVITY OF THAT RISK
WHTHER THAT RISK CAN BE ELIMINATED BY THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE CARE
WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS A MATTER OF COMMON USAGE
WHETHER THE ACTIVITY IS APPROPRIATE TO THE PLACE IT WAS CARRIED OUT ON AND
WHETHER THE VALUE OF THE ACTIVITY TO THE COMMUNITY > THE DANGER INVOLVED
(Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.)
COLLATERAL RULE
TO REBUT THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THEY WERE COMPELLED BY FINANCIAL NEED TO RETURN TO WORK PREMATURELY OR FOREGO ADDITIONAL MEDICAL CARE
TO SHOW THAT THE PLAINTIFF ATTRIBUTED HIS MEDICAL CONDITION TO SME OTHER CAUSE RATHER THAN THE ACCIDENT
TO IMPEACH THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT HE PAID HIS MEDICAL EXPENSES HIMSELF
TO SHOW THAT THE PLAINTIFF ACTUALLY CONTINUED TO WORK INSTEAD OF BEING OUT OF WORK AS THEY CLAIMED
EXCESSIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGES
THE DEGREE OF REPREHENSIBILITY OF THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT (HOW BADLY DID THEY BEHAVE)
THE DISPARITY B/W THE ACTUAL/POTENTIAL HARM SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD; AND
THE DIFFERENCE B/W PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARDED AND THE CIVIL PENALTIES AUTHORIZED/IMPOSED IN SIMILAR CASES
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLGIENCE
VIRGINIA
IF THE PLAINTIFF'S CONDUCT WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE IN ANY WAY OF THE INJURY, THE CASE IS DISMISSED
PERMISSION TO ENTER LIMITATIONS
SCOPE OF PRIVILEGES: REASONABLE TIME AND MANNER
LIABILITY: WHILE IT MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL TRESPASS, ENTRANT MAY STILL BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY
PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIM
INJURY
DEFENDANT SOLD THE PRODUCT TO THE PLAINTIFF EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH RETAILER
THE DEFENDANT WAS A COMMERCIAL SELLER OF SUCH PRODUCT
THE PRODUCT WAS DEFECTIVE AT THE TIME OF SALE
DEFECT MUST BE THE ACTUAL AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURIES
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR AND INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
NON-DELEGABLE DUTY: CREDITORS AND ITS AGENTS MUST NOT BREACH THE PEACE DURING REPOSSESSION; IF A BREACH OF THE PEACE OCCURS, A COMPANY CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE BREACH OF AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO TRESPASS
TO AVOID IMMINENT PUBLIC DISASTER
TO PREVENT SERIOUS HARM TO SELF OR ANOTHER
TO RECLAIM GOODS (REPOSSESSION)
CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
THOSE WHO MAY HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER THE LAND BUT THAT PERMISSION HAS BEEN REVOKED W/O ADVANCED NOTICE
A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO REMAIN FOR A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO REMOVE PERSONAL PROPERTY BEFORE LEAVING THE PROPERTY
MODIFIED COMPARATIVE FAULT
IOWA
ONLY TFs WHO ARE <50% RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLAIM WILL BE HELD J/S LIABLE
TYPES OF DAMAGES
NOMINAL
COMPENSATORY
PUNITIVE