Palsgraf - Satz PDF

Preview

Summary

Satz...

Description

Satz Law 550 10/9/20 Pre-Class Notes  If you believe class on election day disadvantages you in any way, please contact Professor Satz. Palsgraf (continued)  Traditionally viewed as case on proximate cause, contemporarily viewed as on relational duty  Long Island owes Palsgraf a duty, but their breach doesn’t align with it  Judge Andrews’ Dissent: duty and proximate cause “empty words” that mask real work of decision. Says duty extends to “anyone you could foresee injuring.” He says we should consider proximate cause as something that puts the brakes on liability. “Rough sense of justice,” foreseeability, directness, spacial and temporal proximity, and public policy as tests (Very broad!)  Palsgraf-type problem: a disjunction between the careless behavior and the harm caused. Superseding Cause Take-Away Points  2 defendants, both of whom engage in tortious act, but second defendant engages in an act of such a degree that it eclipses the liability of the first defendant  Negligence is not normally a superseding cause because it does not break the causal chain, unless there is a willful component or a crime D1 + D2 = P D2 must be the one that is intentional/higher degree Pollard v Oklahoma  FACTS: Kids collecting gunpowder, ignite powder and both are injured.  COURT SAID: Not an attractive nuisance, not Clark v EI Du Pont  FACTS: Solidified glycerin on the farm, employee brought it home and buried it. 2 years pass! 1st Defendant who discarded it is not held responsible. * Control can help us determine whether there is a superseding cause!

* If there is found to be superseding cause of 2nd Defendant, there is no longer proximate cause by 1st Defendant. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v Arcadian Corp  When our knowledge changes, the outcome may change. In general, a manufacturer of a component that is adulterated for criminal purposes won't be held liable for injuries caused by the adulterated end product where the component itself was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and where the component’s adulteration was not reasonably foreseeable Negligence Per Se (Tool for Breach)  Plaintiff must be in protected class (Read statute)  Plaintiff must suffer right kind of injury (Again, read statute)  Some NPS may be excused Dalal v City of New York  Can we use a statute that is essentially for record-keeping to establish liability/negligence?  Court says yes! Since the need for glasses while driving was directly related to the accident, it is evidence of carelessness. Bayne v Todd Shipyards Corp  Shipyard held responsible when lack of toe-guard even though he’s not an employee, when protecting employees was the point of the statute  They say, if municipal ordinances have X force, no reason why regulations shouldn’t.  Dissent: too many regulations, and they shouldn’t be considered as strongly; should just be “evidence” Victor v Hedges  Plaintiff injured when Defendant (Thermtech) drives up on sidewalk while looking at Defendant (Hedges)’s CD player.  The plaintiff’s injury wasn’t the type of injury the statute was intended to prevent; statute was meant to protect pedestrian against obstructed access.

2...