BCOR 3000 1nd Edition Lecture 8 Outline of Last Lecture I What is tort II Damages III General Types of Tort Outline of Current Lecture I Unintentional Tort II Negligence III Defenses Current Lecture Chapter 4 Torts Unintentional 2 Sub types Negligence fault involved were not careful enough not doing what you are supposed to be doing o Unintentional torts o Unlimited circumstances o Very general requirements o Usually involves accidental carelessness that injures another o Can recover only if all 5 requirements are met o 5 Requirements 1 Duty have a duty to not pose risk of injury to others 2 Breach of that Duty the physical act of posing risk of injury to someone 3 Injury injury occurs victim claims injury due to breach of duty 4 Actual Causation who was the cause of the accident what this defendant a cause for the lawsuit but for test if you remove the breach the conduct of the defendant would the accident happen anyways Would it have happened anyway 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 5 Proximate Causation foreseeability can you predict the consequences of actions You are not responsible for the unforeseeable consequences of your actions Tortfeasor this is the one being sued if the tortfeasor could not see the outcome not liable and not responsible for actions consequences Example Palsgraff Case p 115 Railroad conductor helped passenger onto departing train Violated a work rule in doing so Caused passenger to drop package wrapped in newspaper Fireworks in package exploded Scales in a distant part of the stations fell onto Ms Palsgraff Ms Palsgraff files a lawsuit against the railroad the passenger carrying fireworks the conductor the person who sold the fireworks the manufacturer of the fireworks Who would Ms Palsgraff sue Conductor railroad passenger seller manufacturer Who engaged in bad conduct Railroad Conductor Seller Manufacturer Why did RR have rule against helping passengers onto trains once they started moving In the case of something going wrong which could affect the railroad What should conductor consider before doing so Examine the 5 requirements Requirements Example with Case 1 Duty Follow all the work rules Railroad had a duty that all the employees follow work rules 2 Breach of Duty The conductor who works for the railroad breached the duty by breaking the rules of the railroad 3 Injury Ms Palsgraff was injured by scales set off by the explosion of fireworks 4 Actual Causation Yes w o conductor there would have been no accident there for the defendant is a cause the passenger is also a cause b c if they had properly gotten on the train on time and wrapped the fireworks correctly then the accident would not have happened 5 Proximate Causation conductor could not foresee his consequences of his actions he is not held liable for what happened at the railroad and to Ms Palsgraff Defenses Defendant wins avoids liability if can prove the existence of a defense even if plaintiff has proven the 5 elements Assumption of risk if the plaintiff knowingly understand AND voluntarily can assume the risk then there is no recovery even if the plaintiff can prove it Ex car with bad breaks keeps driving with bad breaks knowing that they are faulty gets in accident and admits he knew about the bad breaks no case and no recovery Superseding cause or event the chain of causation at some point should be cut off Ex come to college and got into 2 schools CU and Harvard must go to CU walking around the Hill and get attacked saw who attacked you but sue parents for making you attend CU even if you could link this to the parents it would til be cut off Contributory negligence where plaintiff is partly at fault too All of nothing all the railroad had to prove was that you were 1 responsible for your injury then you could not recovery Any plaintiff negligence eliminated ability to recover very harsh rule TODAY we use comparative negligence Comparative compared between plaintiff and defendant based most states now use this Plaintiff s recovery reduced in proportion to plaintiff s relative fault 50 50 60 40 90 10 If you are more than at fault you cannot recover Defense between plaintiff and defendant Strict Liability fault is not an issue o Applies in only a few circumstances o Even if you didn t do anything wrong but if you engaged in it you are responsible for everything that flows from it