A. Duty B for example, a duty of due care to plaintiff[s] to protect from risk of injury that occurred.B. Breach B negligenceC. CausationD. Damagesa. parent/child (See n. 2a, p. 134)b. master/servantc. custodian (See n. 2a, p. 134; Bellah, n. 4, p. 159)d. physician(1) patient – review medical malpractice(2) third parties (See Tarasoff, p. 151; nn. 1–7, 5–8 at pp. 156–160)Note: Duty to TP could be viewed in terms of relationship to injurer (See 2 below) or in terms of creation of risk (See nn. 1b, 1c, pp. 156–157)e. social host/guest(1) alcohol (first party claim) (See 5c below)(2) illnessnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. parent/child (fn. 9, p. 152)oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. master/servant: due care required in hiring, training, supervision, and retention (Compare vicarious liability under respondeat superior)pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp. custodian (Hedlund, n. 4, p. 159)d. physician/patient (See 1-d-(2) above)e. host/guest(1) alcohol (third party claim) (See 5-C below)(1) detrimental reliance as a way to satisfy d below(2) compare c-1 above(1) explicit grant or denial of tort claim(2) implied B see Uhr at p. 162 (For final exam: memorize and be able to apply three-part test)b. “Public duty” rule: Many statutes impose duties on governmental officials to protect the public; this “public duty” does not by itself give rise to a claim in tort. Therefore, must use one of prior four exceptions (B-1, 2, 3, 4) above. (See Riss, p. 228 and notes at 7–8, pp. 242–243)c. Alcohol – Underlying cases is issue of whether serving alcohol is an act (like driving) or omission (with possible exceptions of special relationship (1) to victim, or (2) to injurer, (3) creation of risk, or (4) undertaking). Cases generally treat as omission rather than act of serving. In some ways, it might be best to view as sui generis area based simply on policy. Note that following variables:d. Reporting statutes – compare1) duty of due care to discover licensees and avoid injury2) liability only for willful or wanton conductb. Has jurisdiction abolished common law rule?(ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd) If reliance, contract damages rules or tort law damages rules?3. In many situations, there will be disagreement or inconsistency within a jurisdiction and among jurisdictions resulting from differences in balancing “1” and “2.” Some lines will be somewhat arbitrary.4. Related doctrines(5) serious and verifiable mental distresse. New Jersey: Portee, p. 280(1) proximityf. South Carolina (Kinard)(1) proximity(2) contemporaneity(3) close relation(4) death or serious bodily injury(5) physical manifestationb. contemporaneity (see nn. 2, 4, p. 285, n. 6, p. 287)d. death or serious injury. What is required?(2) reasonable belief that injury or death is threatened (See Barnhill, 3, p. 285)e. serious mental distressg. New York approach? (See 2-b above)(1) Income/earnings of deceased (based on lesser of years of work/life expectancy, less cost of Amaintaining@ decedent). Generally no recovery at all.. Some courts allow extraordinary expenses not recovered by parents(See A-2-c-(2)-(b) above)3. Compare prenatal injury of healthy fetus: But for negligence of D, P would have been born healthy, but because of negligence, fetus/child is not