Torts Readings 11:5 PDF

Preview

Summary

Torts Readings...

Description

Torts Readings 11/5 McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. Facts:  Π driving when Suzuki in front of him swerves off roadway & rolls. Π stops to assist.  Trooper later arrives on scene asking π to place flares to warn approaching vehicles  Victim taken to hospital & π walks back to car when he is struck by car  Π sued ∆ for making defective car and causing injury History:  TC grants summary judgment for ∆  COA reverses, reinstating action  WA SC affirms Issues:  Must π show proximate causation under rescue doctrine? (YES) Logic:  Rescue doctrine allows injured rescuer to sue party which caused danger requiring rescue in first place. “Danger invites rescue”  Doctrine’s purposes: o Informs tortfeasors it is foreseeable that rescuer will come to aid of person imperiled by tortfeasor’s actions, therefore tortfeasor owes rescuer duty similar to duty owed to person he imperils o Negates presumption that rescuer assumed risk of injury when knowingly undertook dangerous rescue, so long as he doesn’t do act recklessly or rashly  To gain rescuer status, π must demonstrate… o ∆ was negligent to person rescued & such negligence caused peril to the rescued o Peril or appearance of peril was imminent o Reasonably prudent person would conclude such peril or appearance existed o Rescuer acted w/ reasonable care in effectuating rescue  Π was rescuer but must still show proximate causation  Issue of foreseeability of intervening cause is sufficiently close (decide by jury not court)  Suzuki found to be defective, jury could find foreseeable Suzuki would roll & approaching car would cause injury to those in car or rescuer  Alleged fault of Suzuki NOT so remote from injuries that liability should be cut off as matter of law Kelly v. Gwinnell Facts:  Guest, after driving ∆ home (Zak), spent hour or two before returning home  Gwinnell has 2-3 drinks while there. On way home G was involved in car accident w/ π  Π sued ∆ for serving guest alcohol & letting him drive home drunk History:  TC grants summary judgment for ∆  Appellate court affirms  NJ SC reverses, reinstates claim

Issue:  Is social host who enable adult guest at home to become drunk liable to victim of car accident caused by drunk driving of guest? (yes) Logic:  Guest was severely intoxicated, ∆ must have known when he sent him home. Reasonable person in ∆’s position could foresee quite clearly that continued drinking would make it more likely that guest would not be able to operate his car carefully  ∆ could foresee that unless he stopped serving guest, guest would like injure someone  Public policy of state dictate that court should impose duty in this type of situation  Policy considerations served by imposition far outweigh those asserted in opposition Dissent:  Legislature better suited effectuate goals of reducing injuries from drunk driving  Imposes too high of duty on hosts (hosts not proficient in figuring out who is drunk like bartenders, guests serve themselves, bars can spread liability w/ insurance & hosts can’t)  NOTE: minority rule. NO other states follow this. Only liable for serving to minors. Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co. Facts:  Π’s grandmother ingested DES as miscarriage preventative, resulting in birth of π’s mom  Π’s mother developed abnormalities of reproductive system due to exposure to DES and abnormalities led to premature birth and cerebral palsy of π History:  TC dismissed π’s claims  Appellate court affirmed but reinstated strict product liability count  NY COA reverses, dismissing all claims by π Issue:  Can child sue for injuries suffered as result of preconception tort committed against mom? (NO) Logic:  There is no reason to treat this case any differently just because it involves DES.  The rippling effects of DES exposure may extend for generations; thus, liability has to be confined within manageable limits.  D is liable to all those injured by exposure, a class whose size is commensurate with the risk created.  The FDA is the watchdog over this area; thus, there is less of a need for the courts to promote prescription drug safety.  Concepts of reasonable care and foreseeability are still necessary even under strict products liability cases.  Public policy favors the availability of prescription drugs even though most carry some risks. There are dangers of over-deterrence here....