Duty
These three learned professions are the categories that make up what is considered under Professional Negligence.
What are doctors, lawyers, and accountants?
This test is the slim majority rule for NIED.
What is the Zone of Danger test?
This immunity involves both discretionary and ministerial decisions.
What is governmental immunity?
This type of causation involves more than one proximate cause for harm.
What is concurrent causation?
This case established that duty is required from a mental health professional to warn a potential victim that they are in danger. It involved a man who had confided in his therapist his intention to kill his eventual victim.
What is Tarasoff v. The Regents of the University of California?
This exception to the Emergency Doctrine reestablishes liability in a tortfeasor that would otherwise be able to use the Emergency Doctrine as an excuse.
What is the emergency being created by the tortfeasor themselves?
These two exceptions causes a landowner to have to warn an invitee of open and obvious dangers.
What is the invitee being (1) distracted or (2) a long period of time elapsing?
Res Ipsa Loquitor is only used in these two instances.
What is (1) the evidence has been destroyed and (2) witnesses are not wanting to share (or "didn't see anything")?
This type of injury is not an intervening cause.
What is a second injury?
This case established that a doctor from one school of medicine may offer expert testimony concerning the standard of care applicable to another school of medicine. It involved a foot doctor who performed surgery on a patient who later developed an infection from that surgery. The expert witness called was an orthopedic surgeon whose testimony detailed what is good and customary in the practice of podiatry.
What is Melville v. Southward?
This exception allows a child's conduct to be considered under the reasonable person standard.
What is the adult activity exception?
These three factors are used to establish if the landowner has a duty to warn a trespasser of conditions on premises.
What is (1) knowing of the trespasser, (2) knowing of the danger, and (3) knowing the trespasser will encounter the danger.
In this comparative fault system, the plaintiff may not recover if they have 50/50 liability split with the defendant.
What is the Equal Fault Bar?
This rule states the defendant is the proximate cause of all foreseeable harmful results, regardless of the unusual way those harmful results arose, the extent of the harmful results, or the unusual timing of those results.
What is the thin skull rule/egg shell plaintiff rule?
This case established that a duty is owed to everyone in the foreseeable zone of risk. It involved a man who struck a power cable while digging, and it was unknown whether the area was marked safe by the defendant.
These three exceptions to the "no duty to act" doctrine requires a tortfeasor to render aid.
What is a special relationship, instrumentality or conduct, and assuming a duty?
The duty requiring a landowner to inspect or patrol a premises is specific to this entrant status classification.
What is an invitee?
This comparative fault system establishes that if the plaintiff has a higher percentage of fault than the defendant, they cannot recover.
What is the Greater Fault Bar?
These three intervening causes typically DO cut off liability.
What is (1) fire codes, (2) alcohol, and (3) suicide?
In this case Negligence Per Se did NOT apply because the type of harm caused was not what the statute was intended to protect. It involved a boy who was smoking and dropped his cigarette between telephone poles.
What is Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Matlock?
These five excuses for noncompliance may absolve an actor from liability in a Negligence Per Se case.
What is (1) the actor's incapacity, (2) the actor is unable to comply after reasonable diligence or care, (3) the actor neither knows nor should know of the occasion for compliance, (4) there is an emergency not of the actor's own making, and (5) compliance would result in greater risk of harm for the actor or others?
These three factors are considered a modern trend in interpreting NIED for bystanders.
What is (1) whether the plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident, (2) whether the distress resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, and (3) whether the plaintiff and victim were closely related? (Dillon Factors)
These three elements are used to interpret the Wigmore test.
What is (1) the accident must be of a kind that ordinarily does not occur without someone's negligence, (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
These three intervening causes MAY cut off liability.
What are (1) negligent acts of third persons, (2) crimes and intentional torts of third persons, and (3) acts of non-human origin?
In this alternative causation case, both defendants were found jointly and severally liable for negligently shooting their friend during a hunting accident.
What is Summers v. Tice?