LSB 3213 1st Edition Lecture 24Current Lecture- (Almost) finish chapter 6 (torts)- Complete student surveys/evaluationsStandard of Judgment:- Four levels of potential liabilityo 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 includedDuty and Breach:- Freedom to act…without hurting others- How would a “reasonable person” have acted, in the particular circumstances?Causation:- Step 1: causation in facto “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 causeo Was the injury foreseeable, or too remote to foresee occurring?Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad CaseIn 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 whenit 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 passengero Breach: is there a breach? Yes, she got hurt, and her injuries were caused by the railroad’s employeeso Harm: obviously, Ms. Palsgraf was harmedo 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 eventsuch as an earthquake, etc could have caused the scale to fall overo 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: outcomeso 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 negligenceo 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 harmPlumbing Truck CaseA 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- notto 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 toa 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 viableo 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 poleo 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 decorativecement 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 downin the middle of nowhere, but the blown tire did not cause the harm, the man attacking her didStatutory Negligence:Not just common law, Legislature decides what causes negligence and who is protectedGood 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 isprotected- Negligence vs. reckless/intentional acts?o Only protects negligence, it doesn’t protect you if you commit reckless or intentional actsDram Shop Acts: - Any bar who serves alcohol which