Chapter 4- Actual Negligence PDF

Preview

Summary

Actual Negligence Lecture Notes...

Description

Tort Law I! Chapter 4: Actual Negligence ! ACTUAL NEGLIGENCE: THE “BUT-FOR” CAUSATION - Did the Δ’s negligent conduct cause the ¶’s harm? - Ask: Was your negligence the cause of the resulting harm? o If the harm would have happened anyway, D is not liable. o The burden of proving the causal “but-for” link is on the P  evidence must show that it is more probable than not that the harm was caused by the tortious conduct of the D. - General Causation: can you prove there is a possibility that the negligence could have caused X? - Specific Causation: can you prove that the negligence did cause X in this case?

(7) Perkins v. Texas & N.O.R. (1962) – ! hits "– blind intersection b/c warehouse – 37mph instead of 25mph

!

Had the ! not been speeding would the accident still have occurred? [BUT FOR] Δ’s speed was not a substantial factor in bringing about the accident

H ¶ has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the negligence was a cause in fact of the tragic death Legal Principle applied in Perkins: When the ¶’s harm would have occurred even if the Δ had not acted negligently, then the Δ’s negligence did not actually cause the ¶’s harm.

(8) Ford v. Trident Fisheries Co. (1919) – mate when overboard and drowned

! H

W the ship not being suspended is what caused ¶’s intestate to drowned? Even if we find Δ negligent - there is nothing to show they in any way contributed to the death

TW: There is a duty to rescue  was the duty breached b/c the lifeboat was not properly maintained? No b/c the best lifeboat could not have helped this guy b/c no one knew that he fell off the boat.

(9) Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Ry. (1885) – fat chick falls down steps leading to train

!

Would she have fallen anyway?

Where negligence of Δ greatly multiplies the chances of accident, and is of a character naturally leading to its occurrence, there mere possibility that it might have happened w/o negligence is not sufficient to break the chain of cause and effect H between negligence and the injury. (the staircase (railing and lighting) is supports to aid people like Ms. Reynolds) Court held they would not let it go to the Jury ! Negligence is very clear WILLIAMS v. UTICA COLLEGE

•

College student assaulted in her dorm room. She doesn’t know if the assailant was someone who lived in the dorm building or not. She sues the school for negligence in security of the building.

•

To survive summary judgment, Williams must provide SOME evidence that her attacker was an intruder  it is her burden to raise a material question of fact on this issue.

FAILURE TO WARN AND CAUSATION - If risk of harm is obvious, then no reason to warn. - If the defendant does not rebut this “heeding presumption” by proving that the particular purchaser/user would not have read and heeded the warning, the defendant is liable for the harm. o Even when the plaintiff doesn’t know of the relevant risk, the negligent defendant will escape liability by proving that the plaintiff would not have read the warning. (Blind, illiterate, intoxicated) - Like in Reynolds, defendant must come forward with evidence that the accident would have occurred even with the warning because for some reason, the plaintiff would not have listened. - The material contribution test asks whether the defendant’s conduct played at least a material causal role in the plaintiff’s injury, although not necessarily sufficient to bring the harm about on its own. SPECIAL PROBLEMS OF PROOF - The issue in these cases is not whether the negligent aspect of the defendant’s conduct contributed to causing plaintiff’s harm, but whether the defendant’s conduct itself had anything at all to do with causing that harm. - Technical evidence is almost always required to establish the necessary connection. IMPROBABLE CONSEQUENCES • Housley v. Cense: provided that “a claimant’s disability is presumed to have resulted from an accident, if before the accident the injured person was in good health, but commencing with the accident the symptoms of the disabling condition appear & continuously manifest themselves afterwards, providing that the medical evidence shows there to be a reasonable possibility of causal connection btwn the accident & the disabling condition.” o

“Reasonable probability” of causation

KRAMER SERVICE INC v. WILKINS (GLASS INJURY  CANCER): Plaintiff visited a business acquaintance at defendant’s hotel and when plaintiff was leaving the room, a broken piece of the glass over the door fell, striking the plaintiff. - It was then found that at the point where the injury occurred, a skin cancer had developed, of which a cure had not been fully effected at the time of the trial. - Heart of the defense argument is that the conduct had nothing to do with the cancer – people get cancer and the conduct has nothing to do with cancer – go find yourself another defendant. - There is nothing in the evidence that says trauma causes cancer, so take the cancer damages out of the case. - Policy issue in regards to lifesaving equipment – policy issue is that it is there to save lives, but there isn’t a policy issue for broken glass and cancer – cannot say fix the glass because you are giving the world cancer....