MGMT 211 Lecture 10 Outline of Current Lecture I. Negligencea. Duty, breach, causation, harmb. You have to owe the other party a dutyi. Usually, duty of reasonable care1. Driving: your big truck doesn’t allow you to run cars off the road2. A guy in the middle of the row finishes his test first; he can’t just hit people with his backpackc. Under tort law, there IS NOT a duty to go to someone’s aidi. If you have special life-saving skills, you are supposed to try to helpii. If you are a doctor…1. If there is a wreck on the side of the road, and you had nothing to can be sued for rendering help under negligence2. If you breach the duty of care, causing harm to that person3. Most states have created statutory laws – Good Samaritan lawsa. If you act reasonably, you are immune from being suedi. Reasonable under the circumstances1. If a building is on fire, a car is on the edge ofa cliffd. If you do breach the duty of care, and cause harm, you will payi. Physical damage; no emotional damage harm caseii. Physical manifestation is a must1. Yourself, property (you will get more for bodily damage)e. Breach of duty has to be there – CAUSATIONi. 2 types of causation: must have both1. Cause in fact if the stage is lined with dominoes, the last one falls because the one before it did, and so on and so fortha. Palsgraff case: bought a ticket for a train, and went and sat at the platform outside; a train is pulling out of a station, and 2 guys are running to catch the train; railroad employee tries to help them onto a moving train; one of the guys dropped a box with fireworks; it explodes and causes the ground to shake; causes the platform to shake; the scales fell on Ms. Palsgraff2. Proximate cause: centers around reasonable foreseeabilitya. Railroad employee defense: no way that helping a guy on atrain would have cause a lady to get hit in the headb. Texas: you knew or should have known the act would have caused harm, you assume riskc. Assumption of the risk: you see/are aware of the risk, but decide to do the act anywayf. Contributory negligencei. You may be extremely negligent, but if you can prove the other party was negligent too, no one recovers from anyoneii. Can be harshiii. Defense: Last clear chance doctrine1. Jury decides which party had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, but didn’t2. Texas: Comparative negligenceg. Comparative negligence (now the majority)i. If both parties are found negligent, ask jury/judge to assign degrees of negligence; percentages1. If you are 99% guilty, you will not cover anything; if you’re 1% guilty, you will get 99% of your damagesh. Superseding causei. Breaks the causal connection1. If you’re told that you can leave when the last domino falls, and someone goes and knocks it over himself2. Palsgraff in modern times: if someone drops a box of firecrackers, there will be no effect; still, the ground shook, causing Ms. Palsgraff to get hurt; scientists discovered it to be an earthquakeII. Strict Liabilitya. Liability without fault: it doesn’t matter if you did it intentionallyi. You are responsible1. If you keep a wild animal, or implode a building2. Fletcher case concerning a dama. Court said he was responsible since building a dam is an extreme activity that caused significant harmb. Limited to abnormally dangerous activitiesIII. Products liabilitiesa. Started to change in food and drug industryi. Spanish American war: more casualties due to food served to army1. If you’re sick, you can’t fightii. The Jungle: by Sinclair1. Expose on the meat-packing industry in Chicagob. Different casesi. McPhearson v. Buick Motor Company1. First time negligence went beyond food2. If a manufacturer negligently puts a product on the market, in adefective condition, knowing it will be used without inspection,and it goes to the consumer, the manufacturer is liable3. You as a consumer have a right to believe it’s going to work4. Still strongly in place5. If a manufacturer negligently (duty to consumer, and breached it,causing harm)a. The manufacturer is held to be an expert at every stage ofproduction6. Wooden spoke wheel fell apart, and caused a crash7. Buick didn’t make the wheel, but they put it on their car, makingthem negligenta. They have a duty as an expertb. They breached their duty for it being in defective conditionc. It caused the McPhearsons injury8. All the defenses of a negligent case apply herea. If UPS tears up a product, it’s UPS’ faultb. If you modify or tamper with the product, and it causes theproblem, it’s your faultc. Assumption of the riski. Buy a new car, it comes with a book/instructionmanual; they call it the “read me first” book; if youdisregard it, that’s assumption of the riskii. When you go to McDonald’s for coffee, you areclearly informed that their coffee is very, very hot1. That is because of the woman who won herlawsuitii. Baxter v. Ford Motor Company1. Expressed warrantya. If a manufacturer makes an expressed warranty, makingpromises about the product, it has to fulfill those promisesb. Windshields: had to make the glass really thick to keep itfrom shatteringi. Overtime, liquid will flow, bubbles will form,yellowingc. Ford advertised triple shatterproof glassd. In this case, you had to prove you relied on the promisei. You bought this car for the triple shatterproof glasse. Glass shattered and cut up the Baxter familyf. Manufacturers now won’t give you an expressed warrantyiii. Hennengenson v. Bloomfield Motor Company1. Mrs. H was driving her car, got in a wreck and became impaled onthe dashboard2. All of the buttons, gearshifts were daggers3. Mrs. H sued on an implied warranty of safetya. For the kind of money spent on the car, it should be safeb. Design defects for safety can come in 4. Now overshadowed by strict liabilities in products5. If you make it, and it hurts someone, you paya. Not rampant; not commonb. Just because you crashed your Ford doesn’t make it Ford’sfaultiv. Shopsmith v. Yuma1. Tool that was the size of a piano; put a piece of wood in and itbecame a beautiful leg2. Defect: piece of wood would fly out and hit someone3. Courts ruled that the company made the product, and made goodmoney off of it, so they should have to payv. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories1. DES was a drug given to women in the 50’s who had a history ofmiscarriages2. Serious side effects3. A better drug came along quicker – only lasted about 3 years4.