Duty
Do persons with mental disabilities owe a duty of care to caretakers?
No
What does Negligence Per Se establish?
Duty and Breach
What is the primary test to establish factual causation?
The "But For" Test
What is the two step analysis for Duty?
1. Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty?
2. If so, what is the applicable duty/standard of care?
What are the three Carroll Towing Factors?
Likelihood of Harm
Gravity of Harm
Burden of preventing the harm/safer alternatives
Is factual causation met if the plaintiff's harm would have occurred even if the defendant had acted non-negligently?
No
What duty of care do people with mental disabilities owe?
General standard of care, same as a reasonably prudent person without mental disability under the same or similar circumstances.
What role does custom play in assessing breach?
Custom also does not change the ordinary standard of care. It’s relevant, but not dispositive.
What are the elements to the alternative liability test?
The factual cause element is satisfied against each defendant using the alternative liability test, where:
1. Two or more defendants, all of whom are before the court;
2. All defendants breached the duty of care;
3. Injury was caused by only one of the defendants; AND
4. Impossible to tell from the facts which defendant caused the injury.
Paul is riding his motorcycle down an empty road. Seeing nobody around, he decided to go 45 miles over the speed limit. As he hits a turn, Laura crosses the street. Unable to stop in time, Paul runs over Laura's foot, fracturing it. If Laura sues paul for negligence, what standard of care would apply?
The reasonably prudent person standard. Here, a reasoably prudent person under same or similar circumstances would not have driven 45 miles above the speed limit.
A candy shop, in business for 20 years had an avid following for their “healthy candy.” Many people with health problems found their candy did not cause reactions that candy by other companies did. Recently, they quietly switched from a natural sweetener to a high fructose corn syrup that other companies use because it was cheaper and readily available, despite knowing their fan base. Under Carroll Towing, analyze whether the candy shop exercised reasonable care.
1. Likelihood for harm is high because people with health problems eat that candy shop’s candy.
2. Gravity of harm is medium to high because the health problems that HFCS can cause to people that rely on the “healthy candy"
3. Burden to prevent harm is low because the candy shop could have notified their fan base.
If a defendant was in a joint or several liability jurisdiction, what would happen?
Joint Liability: Where you have more than 1 defendant AND plaintiff suffered an indivisible harm. Plaintiff can recover the entire amount from any of the defendants.
Several Liability: D is just liable for the portion of the injury they caused.
David, a crane operator, suddenly experiences a heart attack while moving steel beams from one spot to another. As he blacks out, he accidently hits the release button, dropping the steel beams on a car in the street. David has had prior heart issues in the past and suffered a heart attack a year prior. Is he liable for negligence?
For sudden incapacitation, when the incapacitation is forseeable, there is liability. Here, David knew he had heart issues, so it was forseeable that at some in time they would come up again. Therefore, it is likely he would be held liable for negligence.
A distracted motorist went through a red light at an intersection, violating a statute, and hit a pedestrian in the crosswalk causing extensive injuries. A woman that lived in the building (8th fl.) above the intersection witnessed the entire accident, therefore suffering panic attacks and has been unable to work. How would a court rule if she sued the motorist asserting negligence per se?
Negligence per se would not be satisfied, because the woman was not in the class of persons that the statute was intended to protect. She was not a motorist or a pedestrian.
Two construction workers are at the rooftop of a New York City apartment building. After hours of working, they take a lunch break. For their amusement, both workers wished to see who had the ability to throw their soda cans the farthest away from the roof. Each can were identical to one another. Both simultaneously threw their cans. A tenant below the apartment, got hit by one of the cans thrown by the workers. They were injured and suffered a concussion. Can the tenant prevail in a claim against both workers?
Yes. Alternative Liability Test.
First, there are multiple defendants. Second, both behaved negligently by throwing soda cans when they were on a rooftop. Third, only one of the cans hit the tenant, meaning only one defendant could have caused the injury. However, the tenant would be unable to identify which defendant caused the injury as all the cans were identical to one another. Finally, each defendant would be the factual cause of the plaintiff's injury.