LSB 3213 1st Edition Lecture 24 Current Lecture Almost finish chapter 6 torts Complete student surveys evaluations Standard of Judgment Four levels of potential liability o Intentional willful malicious o Reckless conscious disregard of a known risk o Negligence careless not intentional o Strict Liability cause effect not mental state Negligence Standard Must prove all 4 to be negligent Duty do you owe a duty to someone Breach did you breach the duty you had Cause what you did caused the injury Harm Intent or state of mind is not included Duty and Breach Freedom to act without hurting others How would a reasonable person have acted in the particular circumstances Causation Step 1 causation in fact o But for rule But for the act would the injury have occurred o If your action didn t take place would the injury still have occurred Step 2 proximate cause o Was the injury foreseeable or too remote to foresee occurring Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Case In 1928 at the Long Island Railroad station a man was running along the platform trying to catch a train that had already started moving The man was carrying several packages but the platform attendant helped to push the man onto the train while it was moving and another attendant inside the train grabbed his hand to help him on the train As he was getting on the These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute train the platform attendant while trying to help the man fumbled with some of the parcels in his hand dropping one of them onto the train tracks The package had fireworks in it and when it hit the train tracks fireworks exploded everywhere One of the fireworks hit a heavy baggage scale near the station causing it to fall over on to Ms Palsgraf crushing her legs So Ms Palsgraf sued the railroad company for negligence 4 elements o Duty does the railroad owe a duty to Ms Palsgraf to keep her safe yes she is a paid passenger o Breach is there a breach Yes she got hurt and her injuries were caused by the railroad s employees o Harm obviously Ms Palsgraf was harmed o Cause but for and proximate cause Causation o Step one but for rule If it hadn t been for the train attendants and the man would the scale still have fallen on Ms Palsgraf Maybe the scale obviously wasn t well secured and another event such as an earthquake etc could have caused the scale to fall over o Step two proximate cause Was the event a man having fireworks in an unmarked package exploding and causing damages to remote to foresee or was the chain of events leading to the scale falling on Ms Palsgraf foreseeable In court outcomes o Judge not proximate cause too remote so railroad not liable for negligence Alternatives o What if the man himself had hurt himself in the accident proven negligence o What if the man was carrying a heavy suitcase and so he threw the suitcase into the moving train before jumping in and it hit and injured someone inside the train car could prove negligence as leaving the doors open while the train was moving and allowing people to jump on could lead to harm Plumbing Truck Case A plumbing company allows their employees to drive the company vehicles both to work jobs and also to commute home A man applies to work for the company and states on his application that he hasn t had any driving infractions However he lied on the application and the company does not run his application through a background check The man is hired and begins working for the plumbing company One day he is driving the company truck home not to a job and gets into an accident killing a mother and child The family sues the plumbing company for negligent hiring Which element is the problem o The plumbing company s duty to protect all drivers on the road not on the way to a job site In court o Judge no duty to the public while employee is commuting o Different if accident occurs on the job If the accident had occurred while the employee was on the job then the company would have been viable o Unfortunately no remedy for family that was killed Defective Firestone Tires Ford Explorer built to use Firestone Tires which ended up being defective Scenario 1 Driving Ford Explorer tire blows out and the car hits a pole o All four elements duty breach cause harm proven Scenario 2 Tire blows out on Ford Ford veers into the other lane and hits another car Can the other driver sue o Yes all four elements proven Scenario 3 Ford driving over bridge when tire blows out the car then hits the decorative cement on the bridge which falls into the water below hitting children on a ferry that is traveling in the water under the bridge at the time of the accident Can the parents of the children sue o Cause was it foreseeable that the tire blowing would cause cement to injure people on a ferry in the water Kind of Scenario 4 Ford driving through the city the tire blows and the car hits a nearby water hydrant causing a commotion In a nearby bank two people were negotiating and about to sign a multimillion dollar deal After the commotion one of the parties decides to back out of the contract Can the bank sues Firestone for loss of a business deal o Cause was it foreseeable that a blown tire would cause a lost business deal No Scenario 5 Woman is driving in the middle of nowhere when the tire blows She pulls over to the side of the road to fix it and has no cell service and someone sees her in distress and attacks the woman Can the woman sue o Cause it is foreseeable that a blown tire would cause someone to be broke down in the middle of nowhere but the blown tire did not cause the harm the man attacking her did Statutory Negligence Not just common law Legislature decides what causes negligence and who is protected Good Samaritan Statutes Do you have a duty to help someone in need No o State Congress has stepped in and says that if you decide to help someone you can t be sued for negligence Protect everyone or only professionals o In some states this only applies to professionals and in some states everybody is protected Negligence vs reckless intentional acts o Only protects negligence it doesn t protect you if you commit reckless or intentional acts Dram Shop Acts Any bar who serves alcohol which leads to someone drinking driving and then causing an accident the bar is liable for it Some states have also extended this to private parties so if you have a party where you are serving alcohol