Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

NEGLIGENCE - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Satisfied: at the job site, also, for special errand, OConnor
      - Not satisfied: Coming and going rule
        
        Incidental benefit Halliburton
- - - - close relationship e.g. parent child
        
        emotional injury caused by witnessing the accident or seeing the victim shortly thereafter
        
        Substantial injury, death or serious injury
        
        Emotional injury must be greater than an ordinary person at the scene
    - - Plaintiff must show that they were in danger of being contacted. Contact not necessary. Robb v. Pennsylvania RR
  - - - Trespasser
        
        Duty to not cause willful and wanton harm Miller v. GM
        
        frequent trespassers on limited area--the beaten track
        
        Discovered trespassers
        
        Attractive nuisance, turntable doctrine
        
        a. Knowing or reason to know that children are trespassing or will trespass
        
        Bennet v. Stanley case. The interesting pool next to a family versus a house where a child is visiting.
        
        b. Knowing or having reason to know of an unreasonable risk
        
        c. children cannot appreciate the risk
        
        Merrill v. Central Maine Power. "eel case"--the child admitted that he should not have grilled the eel on the power station.
        
        d. precautions are highly cost justified
        
        e. failure to use reasonable care
        
        Flagrant trespasser. Standard = intentional conduct, U.S. Steel
      - Licensee
        
        Definition: not a trespasser but no official business with the landowner. E.g. a social guest. pg. 899. mateff case
        
        A condition of the premises created an unreasonable risk of harm. 2. That the owner actually knew of the condition. 3. That the licensee did not actually know the condition. 4. The owner failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the licensee from danger. 5. The owner's failure was a proximate cause of injury to the licensee.
      - Invitee
        
        def: someone on the land with official business or a mutual benefit, often involving money or services. Hall v. Cagle
        
        1. The landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises. 2. That the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm. 3. The landowner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk. 4. The land owners failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries.
        
        slip and fall
        
        mode of operation. Jackson v. Kmart
        
        knowledge or constructive knowledge. Anjou v. Boston Elevated (Banana!)
        
        The proprietor put the hazard there.
    - - general standard is that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to land entrants, 3rd restatement 51
        
        flagrant trespassers, e.g. Ryals v. U.S. Steel. Trespassing to commit a further crime
        
        Unless trespasser is helpless or unable to protect.
      - Open and Obvious under 343 or new school
        
        no duty rule
        
        comparative fault rule
        
        Exception
- - - - Against public policy
      - Not worded precislely.
- - - - ii. breach of duty
        
        Hand Negligence or Hand Formula Negligence
        You must take a precaution of burden B, when B < PL (Carroll Towing, Moisan, McCarty, Bodin)
        
        Custom Norton v. Railway Express -- Jury can disbelieve custom evidence. Its not decisive.
        
        Statutory violation -- Martin v. Herzog
        
        Defenses
        
        Violation can be excused or justiified -- Tedla v. Ellman and Bowen v. Baumgardner
        
        Proximate cause or, the statute is the wrong type -- Tingle v. CBQR
        
        Directly argue unreasonability, without custom or anything else , e.g. hitchhiker case , things people should just know.
        
        RIL
        
        elements
        
        event doesn't occur without negligence--event is a good proxy for negligence
        
        Byrne v. boadle, U.S. v. Sapp
        
        The instrumentality of harm must have been under the exclusive control of the defendant
        
        Actual access and use versus rights and legal authority. Trujeque and Birthrong
        
        Injury did not result from any action of the plaintiff
        
        Pannucci -- contribution element helps prevent unfair plaintiff bias
    - - iii. Causation
        
        Proximate cause
        
        Scope of Risk Hale v. Brown
        
        Substantial Factor Sinclair and Chelcher
        
        Intervening vs. superseding causes Sinclair, Chicken Hawk, Daycare, Cowart
        
        but for causation, or cause in fact, or factual causation
        
        Radley v. Knepfly (overwhelming fire)
        
        Special rules or exceptions
        
        double fire cases, multiple sufficient causes
        
        Lost chance or probabilistic harm, Mohr v. Grantham
        
        Evidentiary rule about multiple tortfeasors--Summers v. Tice
    - - iv. injury / damages
        
        Rule: injury must be to person or property. Madison Ave v. Finlandia
        
        Quasi-property or determinate class of people. Special relationship to the economic damage. Alaimo v. City of Fort Ann
        
        collateral source rule: payments to the plaintiff from sources other than the defendatn dont'count. Helfend
        
        Making whole or rightful position principle. Usually hte plaintiff's position before the breach of duty. GMM v. Kimpson, Mahoney
        
        Exception: punitive damages send a message to the defendant Mahoney
    - - i. duty to meet the standard of reasonable care
        
        standard
        
        benchmark or metric for evaluating something
        
        standard of reasonable care / standard of the reasonable person
        
        Flexible: care must increase as risk increases. Care must be proportional to the risk. Stewart v. Motts
        
        It can be reasonable to make what in hindsight is a mistake, if there is an emergency. Myhaver v. Knutson
        
        elements
        
        i. party seeking the instruction should not be negligent prior to the emergency
        
        ii. emergency came without warning and so without time to reflect
        
        iii. Reaction was spontaneous
        
        Jury decides what is reasonable, with help from judges
        
        Flexible: the standard can be particularized depending on various characteristics
        
        Children
        
        reasonable child standard: "like age, intelligence, and experience under the circumstances"
        
        Exceptions, different versions
        
        3 more items...
        
        kids that are too young can't be negligent, 4, 5, and 7 are some cutoffs
        
        profession or trade
        
        physical disability (Roberts v, State)
        
        Specialized knowledge
        
        does not apply to mental disabilities!
        
        assumption of the risk by the caretaker in caretaker cases
        
        the reasonable person is idealized and is the same for everyone--never varies by the person. Vaughan v. Menlove
        
        when you HAVE a duty
        
        Misfeasance v. Nonfeasance: acting to create a risk automatically creates a duty, whereas failing to act requires a special relationship (if you didn't cause the risk in the first place) Price v. Dupont (asbestos)
        
        if non-feasance, then special relationship needed
        
        Classic special relationships: children, innkeeper, common carrier, proprietor, teacher-student, tamiami trails + Maneth v, tucker
        
        Analogize: argue a similar relationship of dependency or authoirty, open ended reasoning
        
        passenger and driver? (wslasiuk and lauritzen)
        
        duty to protect against criminal attacks
        
        affirmative act that creates a temptation or opportunity to crime / foreseeable attack or crime, wsaliuk v. mcelwee
        
        Police don't usually have a duty, public duty rule
        
        unless there is a special relationship: (i) undertaking to protect a specific individual and (ii) justified reliance on that unddertakingg by plaintiff
        
        Generally no duty to control a third person, unless restatement 315 a or b applies, a SR with attacker or victim. (Cuppy v. Bunch)
        
        duty to protect against negligence of another
        
        Cuppy v. Bunch
        
        Maneth v. Tucker (kids at house party)
        
        If you are a rescuer confronting someone else's danger Govich v. North American Systems
        
        Undertaking that increases the risk Zelenko v. Gimbel Bros.
        
        When you DONT HAVE a duty
        
        Primary assumption of the risk=you owe no duty to a co participant Knight v. Jewett
        
        Firefighter's rule Farnam v. State (police dog)
        
        No foreseeability (Noebel wire case, Hegyes v. Unjian - unborn plaintiff, Palsgraf, Hurricane Katrina)
        
        Public Policy
        
        bad policy to recgonize any texts to drivers as incurring a duty Kubert v. Best
        
        Don't encourage criminal demands--no duty to give in to criminal demands (Boyd v. Racine Currency)