8/13/2019 Torts .7

1/55

Torts Cases

1-12-04

Hossenlopp v. Cannon(S.C. 1985)

General Facts:4 year old (H) was bitten by dog (Cs) and sustained 19 un!turewounds w"i!" re#uired stit!"es$ surgery$ and "ositali%ation. H and &riend were at ababysitters wat!"ing sitters dogs inside a &en!e. Cs dog !"arged. 'oys tried to !lib&en!e. og grabbed H$ and "e &ell to ground w"ere "e was in*ured. C said t"at t"e dog"ad been +iolent on!e$ but t"e in*ury to t"e , year old t"en was only a inor s!rat!". Calso said t"at dog !ould not be bound by a &en!e (would !lib o+er it)$ and t"at t"e onlyway to truly !onstrain t"e dog was using a !"ain.

Case History: iability assessed &or H by suary *udgeent (&ederal-liestandard). aages were le&t to t"e *ury.

Cause of Action:/egligen!e (later !on+erted by S.C. S.Ct to stri!t liability)/egligen!e (1) uty o& reasonable !are (2) 'rea!" o& t"at duty () Causation(bot" &a!tual and ro3iate) (4) esulting aages.Stri!t iability (1) 'e"a+ior !o+ered by Stri!t iability (2) Causation ()esulting aages.Law:og-bite law (old and new &or S.C.)ld dog-bite law oesti! anials are not !onsidered in"erently dangerous.uty o& !are ust be establis"ed by t"e dangerousness o& t"e anial t"at wasnown or s"ould "a+e been nown by t"e owner. 67"e negligen!e t"at iosesliability uon t"e owner is t"e eeing o& a dangerous anial wit" nowledge o&its dangerous tenden!ies$ or in t"e &ailure to restrain it &ro in*uring ersons.../ew dog-bite law 7"e owner o& any dog (dangerous or not) t"at bites a ersoneit"er on ubli! roerty or ri+ate roerty t"at t"e +i!ti is law&ully uon(in!luding t"e dog owners own roerty) is liable &or t"ose in*uries. /:SS$

t"e +i!ti nowingly and +oluntarily in+ites atta! uon t"esel+es wit"outreasonable ne!essity$ e3oses "isel& to t"e danger. ;ro C< law.Other Opinions:=usti!e Harwell would re&er t"e old law re#uiring nowledge

o& dogs dangerousness until su!" tie t"at t"e legislature !"anged t"e law. /7: 7"eC< ro+ision !ited by t"e a*ority was deri+ed by statute$ not !oon law.

=usti!e >regory would not use t"is !ase to !"ange t"e law. /7: 7"e S.C. S.Ctis !"anging t"e dog-bite law by a&&iring a *udgent t"at was rea!"ed under t"e old lawsoundly.

Crisi v. Security Insurance Co. of New Haven (C< 19,?)General Facts:@rs. Crisi owned an aartent building in w"i!" @r. and @rs.

i@are li+ed. @rs. i@are &ell t"roug" an outside stair!ase and sustained in*uries andde+eloed a sy!"osis &ro t"e &all. i@ares sued C &or "ysi!al and ental in*uries &or400A. C "ad general liability insuran!e &ro Se!urity &or 10A. 7"e insuran!e oli!yre#uired t"at S de&end C and "andle t"e !lai. awyers &or S and i@ares agreed t"at B;a *ury &ound &or s on sy!"osis$ t"en t"e daages would be at least 100A.sy!"ologists were &ound bot" suorting and not suorting t"e ental !lai as t"eresult o& t"e &all. s roosed to settle &or 10A$ but was re*e!ted. S was willing to ayno ore t"an A &or "ysi!al in*uries and not"ing &or ental. S later re*e!ted a 9Asettleent o&&er &or w"i!" C agreed to ay 2.5A.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

2/55

< *ury awarded s a total o& 101A (@rs. 100 @r. 1). S aid 10A. 7"e reainingwas settled by C by 22A$ a 40D interest in t"e roerty$ and t"e assignent o& Cs !laiagainst S. ater$ C be!ae indigent. C wored as a babysitter and rent was aid bygrand!"ildren. C be!ae deressed and atteted sui!ide. C also su&&ered a generalde!line in "ealt". C is said to be a ?0 year old iigrant widow. C t"en broug"t t"is!lai against S &or insuran!e !o. bad &ait".

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

3/55

eyes$ and rode iggyba!. Cause of Action:'attery 6dressed u as negligen!e.'attery (1) 'odily Conta!t (2) Conta!t was o&&ensi+e () intended to

ae t"e contactan intent to in*ure is not re#uired$ only t"e intent to ae t"e!onta!t.

/egligen!e (1) uty o& due !are (2) 'rea!" o& t"at duty () Causation (bot"&a!tual and ro3iate) (4) esulting in*uries.Law:7"e re#uisite intent &or battery 7"e intent re#uired &or a battery is not t"e

intent to in*ure or !ause in*uries to t"e +i!ti. at"er$ it is t"e intent to !ause t"e !onta!tw"i!" was o&&ensi+e to t"e +i!ti.

Bntent in general ay be s"own by eit"er (1) urose or (2) nowledge wit"substantial !ertainty t"at s !ondu!t will !ause t"e ro"ibited result.

#anson v. $itner(Bll.

liable &or t"eir intentionally !aused results regardless o& w"et"er or not t"ey are istaenabout t"e tortious nature o& t"eir !ondu!t.

B&$ "owe+er$ t"e intent &or t"e result is la!ing$ t"en t"e istae ay eliinateliability. :3ale < erson w"o s"ots at a target$ but "its a erson w"o is unnowinglybe"ind t"e target is not liable &or an intentional tort. 7"e intention was to s"oot at t"etarget and not t"e erson. 7"ere&ore$ t"e s"ooters istae about t"e e3isten!e o& t"e+i!ti will eliinate intentional tort liability.

%cGuire v. Aly(@ass. 19?)General Facts:@ was an insane erson$ and < was t"e nurse w"o !ared &or "er

&or 6nearly 14 ont"s. < new t"at @ was insane$ but "ysi!ally well. +er t"e !ourseo& !are$ @ "ad a &ew odd sells o& +iolen!e$ but not"ing a*or. ne day (4F19F2)$ @be!ae +ery +iolent in a roo by "ersel&.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

4/55

Law:7o w"at e3tent ay t"e insanity or ental !aa!ity o& a erson a&&e!tliability would be traled and "urt$ &ellow o&&i!erFde&endant : !ae tot"e !rowd to res!ue >.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

5/55

8/13/2019 Torts .7

6/55

o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&.Law:E"at !ounts as t"e 6erson o& t"e lainti&& &or batteryK E"ile t"is will

!"ange in e+ery situation$ anyt"ing t"at is 6so !onne!ted wit" t"e body as to be!ustoarily regarded as art o& t"e ot"ers erson is eligible to be battered. :ssentially$t"e e3tent o& t"e erson is regarded by bot" ro3iity and eotional atta!"ent.

%oore v. (l )aso Cha!er of Coerce(7e3.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

7/55

are"ension o& iinent battery.Law:Can an assault tae la!e wit"out tou!"ingK Jes$ an in!ident is a!tionable

&or assault i& t"ere is 6an intentional$ unlaw&ul$ o&&er to tou!" t"e erson o& anot"er in arude or angry anner under su!" !ir!ustan!es as to !reate in t"e ind o& t"e artyalleging t"e assault a well-&ounded &ear o& an iinent battery$ !ouled wit" t"e aarentresent ability to e&&e!tuate t"e attet$ i& not reeted. Here$ t"ere was enoug" a#uestion o& &a!t t"at t"e !ase !ould legally be subitted to t"e *ury.

7o w"at e3tent ay t"e a!tions o& an eloyee be said to be in t"e s!oe o&"isF"er eloyent @ at a anu&a!turing lant.=ones was one o& Hs suer+isors at t"e lant. uring t"e !ourse o& &i+e ont"s (@ar!"-

8/13/2019 Torts .7

8/55

&ro a e!uliar sus!etibility to su!" distress o& w"i!" t"e a!tor "as nowledge.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

9/55

1-21-04

Taylor v. 1alleluna(Cal. erla!" w"o was battered by

Oallelunga on C"ristas 195,. 7 witnesses t"e atta! "owe+er$ no &a!ts indi!ated t"at Onew t"at 7 was t"ere and witnessing t"e atta!.

Case History:O o+ed to disiss &or &ailure to state a !lai (deurrer) &or 7s!lai o& BB:. 7"e otion was granted and 7 aealed.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

10/55

oss o& !olete &reedo +s. &alse irisonent ;alse irisonent is oret"an t"e ere loss o& &reedo to go to a se!i&i! la!e 6it in!ludes t"e notion o& restraintwit"in soe liits de&ined by a will or ower e3terior to our own.

Other Opinions:ord enan would "a+e a broader de&inition o& t"e 6rison&or t"e !lai. His de&inition would ore e#uate t"e loss o& &reedo to do soet"ingse!i&i! as t"e ossible basis &or a !lai. He said 6 aroa!"ed :$ w"o was in a ared !ar. > deanded :sdri+ers li!ense. S"e ga+e > "er nae and address. > ordered : to rodu!e t"e li!enseor 6go to *ail. : relied by asing$ 6Bsnt t"is ridi!ulousK 7"en > too "er by t"e arand said$ 6ets go. 7"e grabbing "urt : and s"e !olained to no a+ail. S"e t"en "it >in t"e stoa!". > t"en t"rew "er to t"e ground and "and!u&&ed "er and only t"enannoun!ed "er to be under arrest. : was *ailed. ater : was !on+i!ted o& a +iolation o&t"e ordinan!e.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

11/55

Case History: =ury &ound &or : and awarded !oensatory and uniti+e daagesas &ollows &alse irisonent$ 500F1000 intentional in&li!tion o& eotional distress$1500F000 battery$ 500F1000. > and City o& ;t. Collins aealed$ but aellate !ourta&&ired.

Cause of Action:;alse irisonent$ BB:$ and battery.;alse Brisonent (1) Bntentional$ un!onsented !ondu!t by (2) Condu!taounting to &or!e$ t"reat o& &or!e$ or assertion o& legal aut"ority () Causation(4) Con&ineent wit"in &i3ed boundaries &or .BB: (1) Bntentional or re!less !ondu!t by (2) :3tree or outrageous !ondu!tby () Causation (4) Se+ere eotional distress.'attery (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () Har&ul or o&&ensi+etou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e Law:7"e e3tent to w"i!" a oli!e o&&i!er is liable &or &alse irisonent !lai

6< !lai &or &alse arrest will not lie i& an o&&i!er "as a +alid warrant or robable !ause tobelie+e t"at an o&&ense "as been !oitted and t"at t"e erson w"o was arrested!oitted it.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

12/55

:3tent to w"i!" arents ay derogra !"ildren wit"out liability 6E"en arents$or t"eir agents$ a!ting under t"e !on+i!tion t"at t"e *udgental !aa!ity o& t"eir adult!"ild is iaired$ see to e3tri!ate t"at !"ild &ro w"at t"ey reasonably belie+e to be areligious or seudo-religious !ult$ and t"e !"ild at soe *un!ture assents to t"e a!tions in#uestion$ liitations uon t"e !"ilds obility do not !onstitute eaning&ul deri+ationso& ersonal liberty su&&i!ient to suort a *udgent &or &alse irisonent.

CopuServe Inc. v. Cy!er )rootions, Inc.(S.. "io 199?)General Facts:CouSer+e is an BS. Cyber rootions is a saer.

CouSer+e "as ased Cyber to sto and "as designed so&tware to re+ent t"e sa.Cyber sily redesigned t"e sa to a+oid t"is and "as a!tually in!reased t"e aount o&sa. CouSer+e is &or!ed to send u!" tie$ oney$ and "ardwareFso&twareresour!es to re+ent t"e sa &ro rea!"ing !ustoers. 7"is "ars CouSer+e. Cyber!ontends t"at t"ey !an only be liable &or tresass to !"attels i& t"ey disossess orsubstantially inter&ere wit" s owners"iFossession.

Case History: 7"is is t"e trial !ourt. 7"e trial !ourt rules in &a+or o& CouSer+eand orders an in*un!tion be!ause t"e !outation o& daages "ere is nearly iossible.

Cause of Action:7resass to C"attels7resass to C"attels (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () Bnter&ering!onta!t wit" t"e s !"attel.Law: :3tent to w"i!" a erson !an be liable "ere 6ne w"o !oits a tresass

to !"attel is sub*e!t to liability to t"e ossessor o& t"e !"attel i&$ but only i&$(a) "e disossesses t"e ot"er o& t"e !"attel$ or(b) t"e !"attel is iaired as to its !ondition$ #uality$ or +alue$ or(!) t"e ossessor is deri+ed o& t"e use o& t"e !"attel &or a substantial aount o&

tie$ or(d) bodily "ar is !aused to t"e ossessor$ or "ar is !aused to soe erson or

t"ing in w"i!" t"e ossessor "as a legally rote!ted interest.Here t"e !ourt &ound liability under bot" (b) and (d) be!ause o& t"e inter&eren!e

t"e sa !aused to CouSer+es "ardware and t"eir ability to eet t"eir !ustoersdeands and desires.

2*34*56

0aslow v. $roenert(Cal. 194,)General Facts:Q sued A &or !on+ersion. Q and A li+ed in *oint tenan!y o& a

"oe t"at t"ey bot" owned. Eit"in t"e "oe$ Q "ad &urniture t"at "e owned. uring a6roerty disute$ A and C"aan !"anged t"e lo!s on t"e "ouse$ and (a&ter in&oringQ o& t"eir a!tions) reo+ed all o& Qs &urniture to a storage unit. Q was in&ored about

t"e units lo!ation and "ow to get t"e &urniture ba! by !onta!ting As lawyer. Bnstead o&obtaining t"e roerty$ Q sued &or !on+ersion.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

13/55

Con+ersion (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () < wrong&ule3erted doinion (assution o& !ontrol) o+er t"e s roerty t"at substantiallyinter&eres wit" t"e s ossesory interest in t"e roerty.7resass to C"attels (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () Bnter&ering!onta!t wit" t"e s !"attel.Law:7"e e3tent to w"i!" doinion ust be e3er!ised 7"e ust "a+e

e3er!ised su!" a doinion o+er t"e roerty t"at substantially inter&eres or is in!onsistentwit" t"e s owners"i interest in t"e roerty.

7"e 6need &or a deand &or return

8/13/2019 Torts .7

14/55

do!uents !ould not be t"eoreti!ally !on+erted and isaroriationbe!ause only adire!t !oetitor !an be sued &or isaroriation o& !on&idential !ororate in&oration).n aeal$ ?t"Cir. a&&ired t"e disissal o& t"e isaroriation !lai$ but re+ersed t"edisissal o& t"e !on+ersion !lai.

Cause of Action:Con+ersionCon+ersion (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () < wrong&ul e3erteddoinion (assution o& !ontrol) o+er t"e s roerty t"at substantiallyinter&eres wit" t"e s ossesory interest in t"e roerty.Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" !oies ay ser+e as t"e original roerty in a

!on+ersion a!tion /orally$ 6t"e re!eit o& !oies o& do!uents$ rat"er t"an t"edo!uents t"esel+es$ s"ould not ordinarily gi+e rise to a !lai &or !on+ersion.Howe+er$ w"en t"e owner does not "a+e t"e originals anyore$ 6t"e !oies be!oe t"e&un!tional e#ui+alents o& t"e originals. 7"ere&ore$ t"ey !an ser+e as t"e !on+ertedroerty.

Bntent needed &or !on+ersion 6

8/13/2019 Torts .7

15/55

e3ained$ was told t"at s"e would need to be +a!!inated in order to lea+e t"e #uarantine$and was +a!!inated. S"e later sued &or battery.

Case History:7"e trial !ourt sees to "a+e disissed &or !onsent. 7"e aellate!ourt u"eld t"e *udgent.

Cause of Action:'attery'attery (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () &&ensi+e or "ar&ultou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&.Law::3tent o& aarent !onsent < erson () is only re#uired to be

aroriately guided by t"e outward e3ressions o& t"e ot"ers &eelings. E"en adeno indi!ation to t"e !ontrary &or t"e +a!!ination and it was !lear t"at was w"at t"e do!torwas going to do$ t"en "er silen!e aounted to !onsent.

$oup v. Georetown "niversity(.C. Cir. 1988)General Facts:@att"ew Ao%u was born on 1F10F8 wit" a !ondition nown as

6"yo+oleia w"i!" re#uires blood trans&usions. eorgetown ni+ersity (t"e "osital) and t"e

8/13/2019 Torts .7

16/55

General Facts:Silas and 'rown "ad a relations"i +ia a A &or ' to reair Ss !ar.S was un"ay wit" t"e wor and went to !on&ront ' about t"e roble. S was a largean ' was not. S be!ae abusi+e and t"reatening to '. ' in an attet to s!are S intolea+ing$ s"ot "is s"otgun towards t"e ground$ but "it S in t"e &oot. ' !on!edes t"at aria &a!ie !ase &or assault and battery e3ist$ but is leading t"e ri+ilege o& sel&-de&ense.

Case History:7"is is t"e trial !ourt. Court rules in &a+or o& t"e e&endant and"is !lai o& sel&-de&ense.

Cause of Action:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

17/55

Cause of Action:'attery'attery (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by (2) Causation () &&ensi+e or "ar&ultou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&.Law::3tent to w"i!" a erson ay use &or!e to de&end roerty < erson is

allowed to use &or!e to de&end roerty "owe+er$ deadly &or!e is not allowed unlesst"ere is also a danger to ersons in+ol+ed.

:3tent to w"i!" a erson ay use a sring-gun < erson ay not use e!"ani!altras t"at will !ause serious in*ury to tresassers.

&on+ows+i v. Arlan9s 8epartent Store(@i!".

8/13/2019 Torts .7

18/55

re+ersed saying t"at t"e !ity did tae t"e roerty and ust !oensate.Cause of Action: Con+ersion and 7aingLaw:7"e !ity$ and not t"e indi+idual o&&i!ers$ are liable to !oensate &or

daages !aused to t"e roerty o& an inno!ent rderson in t"e are"ension o& asuse!t. 7"e ubli! ne!essity oli!y is outweig"ed by t"e !oensation oli!y and t"eoli!y o& sreading t"e !osts o& t"e daages.

1incent v. La+e (rie Transp. Co.(@inn. 1910)General Facts:e&endants steas"i do!ed at lainti&&s do! to unload !argo

at t"e ort o& ulut". E"ile do!ed$ a +iolent stor ateriali%ed and grew in intensity.7"e stor !aused t"e tra&&i! on t"e lae to !ease su!" t"at t"e steas"i !ould not betugged out o& t"e "arbor. at"er$ t"e s en !ontinued to tie lines to t"e s"i to ee ita&loat and out o& danger or &ro dri&ting away. +er t"e !ourse o& being atta!"ed to t"edo!$ t"e wind and water &or!ed t"e s"i to !ras" into t"e do! se+eral ties !ausingdaages to t"e do!.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

19/55

li&e and lib are at issue rat"er t"an ere roerty.

&ar+er v. $allash(/.J. 1984)General Facts:lainti&& (14) and two ot"er boys (Aallas" brot"ers) were aing

a ie bob w"en it e3loded "aring t"e lainti&&. 7"e ot"er boys got t"e gunowderused &ro anot"er boy (@elu!!i) w"o "ad gotten t"e gunowder &ro &irewors boug"t&ro (=udge). 7"e arents o& t"e lainti&& sued all o& t"e ot"er boys and t"eir rese!ti+earents.

Case History:7rial !ourt granted suary *udgent &or s.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

20/55

Case History:lainti&& originally o+ed on grounds o& negligen!e and &alseirisonent$ but later only o+ed on t"e &.i.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

21/55

Helfen' v. Southern California #api' Transit 8istrict(Cal. 19?0)General Facts:H was in*ured in a bus-!ar a!!ident !aused by and t"eir agent$

t"e dri+er. Howe+er$ Hs insuran!e !o+erage ro+ided "i wit" !oensation &or nearly80D o& t"e edi!al e3enses and t"e rest ay "a+e been aid by ot"er sour!es.

Case History:e&endants o+ed to introdu!e t"e e+iden!e o& t"e insuran!eayout to lessen t"e daage aount. 7"e trial !ourt denied t"e otion and t"e aellate!ourt u"eld t"e e3!lusion o& t"e e+iden!e based on an a&&iration o& t"e 6!ollateral-sour!e rule.

Cause of Action:robably negligen!e/egligen!e

Law: Collateral-Sour!e ule w"en 6an in*ured arty re!ei+es soe!oensation &or "is in*uries &ro a sour!e w"olly indeendent o& t"e tort&easor$ su!"ayent s"ould not be dedu!ted &ro t"e daages w"i!" t"e lainti&& would ot"erwise!olle!t &ro t"e tort&easor.

oli!y reasons &or t"e rule (1) e&endant s"ould not be rewarded due to t"ediligen!e o& "a+ing &irst-arty insuran!e and aying t"e reius. (2) Bntrodu!tion o&

t"e e+iden!e would unduly redu!e t"e noral *ury +erdi!t w"i!" would lessen t"e tae-"oe &or bot" t"e and t"e s !ounsel. () &ten$ t"e insuran!e !oany will tae ba!t"e already aid ortion &ro t"e *udgent against t"e under t"e do!trine o&subrogation. (4) 7"e duality o& t"e insuran!e and tort *udgents "el to ensure t"at t"e will be &ully !oensated.

/7: Soe *urisdi!tions "a+e !"anged or abolis"ed t"e rule !iting t"eossibility o& double-re!o+ery on t"e art o& t"e w"i!" t"en rewards t"e &or beingin*ured.

0ieran v. Auslan'(re. 19?)General Facts:Q was in*ured in an !ar a!!ident and su&&ered nee in*uries. Qs

do!tor said t"e in*uries were 6eranent and alt"oug" surgery was ossible to reair$ itwas not !ertain$ only 6otiisti! t"at Q would re!o+er ni!ely.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

22/55

t"e daage award.;a!tors to be in!luded in deterination o& t"e 6a+oidable-!onse#uen!es rule (1)

t"e ris in+ol+ed in t"e treatent (2) t"e robability o& su!!ess () e3enditure o&oney or e&&e!t re#uired and (4) in soe *urisdi!tions only$ ain o& t"e ro!edure.

'urden o& roo& &or a+oidable-!onse#uen!es rule 7"e "as t"e burden o& roo&t"at t"e in*uries were eranent$ but t"e de&endant "as t"e burden to s"ow t"at t"e unreasonably &ailed to itigate t"e daages by not subitting to surgery (treatent).

Gonale v. N.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

23/55

Case History:

%icari v. %ann(/.J. Su. Ct. 1984)General Facts:Se+eral a!ting students were de&rauded into er&oring se3ual

a!ts wit" t"e and wit" ea!" ot"er in &ront o& t"e in order to en"an!e t"eir a!tingability and to rid t"e students o& t"eir in"ibitions. 7"e was a reutable trainer in t"ea!ting ro&ession as was e&&e!ti+ely a!ting in lo!o arentis.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

24/55

BB: (1) Bntentional or re!less !ondu!t by (2) :3tree or outrageous !ondu!tby () Causation (4) Se+ere eotional distress &or .Law:E"en !ourts ay in!rease !oensatory daages 6< !ourt ay set aside a

+erdi!t only i& t"e award i& &ound to be Rso grossly inade#uate as to be un!ons!ionable$or ut anot"er way$ to a+oid usuring t"e &un!tion o& t"e *ury$ t"e ower s"ould be usedRonly i& t"e +erdi!t is so disroortionate to t"e in*ury as to not be wit"in reasonablebounds. Here t"e

8/13/2019 Torts .7

25/55

re!ei+e &air noti!e not only o& t"e !ondu!t t"at will sub*e!t "i to unis"ent but also o&t"e se+erity o& t"e enalty t"at a State ay iose.

7"ree guideosts &or deterining e3!essi+eness o& uniti+e daages (1) egreeo& rere"ensibility (6Soe wrongs are ore blaewort"y t"an ot"ers nly e!onoi!"ar alone usually is not rere"ensible enoug" 6deliberate &alse stateents$ a!ts o&a&&irati+e is!ondu!t$ or !on!ealent o& e+iden!e o& iroer oti+e...LareM ordinarilyasso!iated wit" egregiously iroer !ondu!t Lwort"y o& uniti+e daagesM.) (2) atioo& !oensatory and uniti+e daages awarded (E"ile no brig"t line at"eati!al!al!ulation to deterine !onstitutionality is ossible$ 6a general !on!ern o&reasonableness roerly enters into t"e !onstitutional !al!ulus.) () San!tions &orCoarable @is!ondu!t$ eit"er !i+il or !riinal (t"ere needs to be soe relations"ibetween t"e uniti+e award and !oarable san!tions so as to gi+e t"e tort&easor soenotion o& t"e se+erity o& t"e unis"ent t"at is ossible.)

Other Opinions:S!alia and 7"oas do not see t"e 14t"ary>ardner$ was in*ured. > broug"t a tort suit seeing 100A !oensatory and 25Auniti+e daages. H ro+ided a lawyer to de&end$ but indi!ated t"at any uniti+edaages awarded would not be !o+ered by t"e oli!y. : t"en broug"t t"is suit to &or!e Hto ay any ossible uniti+e daages to t"e oli!y liit.

Case History:7rial !ourt ruled &or H. n aeal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed !iting si3&laws wit" t"e oli!y arguent t"at so!ially irresonsible or rere"ensible !ondu!t t"atin+oes uniti+e daages s"ould not be rewarded by t"e using insuran!e oli!ies. 7"esi3 &laws were as &ollows (1) t"e would not !oletely a+oid enalties$ "ere ossible!riinal enalties (2) H "ad +olunteered to ay uniti+e daages by using t"e ris o&t"at into t"e !al!ulation o& reius () Criinal enalties will "el to deter and unis" (4) uniti+e daages see not only to unis" and deter t"e $ but also to deter t"ew"ole o& so!iety &ro engaging in t"e sae !ondu!t (5) t"e states t"at adot t"e !ontraryrule "a+e not seen a dro in "ig"way a!!idents (,) ubli! oli!y o& en&or!ing t"einsuran!e agreeent to ay is also strong.

Cause of Action:not"ing$ seeing en&or!eent o& oli!yLaw::3tent to w"i!" uniti+e daages !an be !o+ered by insuran!e oli!ies

Soe states allow t"is (

8/13/2019 Torts .7

26/55

based on 6!as &ro legislation. n aeal$ t"e w"ole +erdi!t was a&&ired and t"e!aing legislation was u"eld as !onstitutional.

Cause of Action:@edi!al alra!ti!eLaw:7"ese laws soeties +iolate due ro!ess$ e#ual rote!tion$ or state

!onstitutions

)alsraf v. Lon Islan' #ailroa' Co.(/.J. 1928)General Facts:7wo en were running to !at!" a train t"at "ad *ust started to

o+e. ne o& t"e en ade it wit"out in!ident. 7"e ot"er 6*ued aboard t"e !ar$ butseeed unsteady as i& about to &all. < guard on t"e !ar$ w"o "ad "eld t"e door oen$rea!"ed &orward to "el "i in$ and anot"er guard on t"e lat&or us"ed "i &robe"ind. 'e!ause o& t"is$ a sall$ newsaer !o+ered a!age (15N long) t"at t"e anwas !arrying &ell to t"e rails. 7"is a!age alt"oug" one !ould not tell &ro its outwardaearan!e$ !ontained &irewors t"at e3loded uon ia!t. 7"is ia!t !aused se+erallarge baggage s!ales to wobble. ne su!" s!ale &ell and stru! t"e and !aused in*uries. t"en sued &or t"ose in*uries.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

27/55

ro3iate !ausation$ not negligen!e.;or sold etroleu rodu!ts in!luding gas to be used by &arers.

ne barrel o& gas was sold to Es eloyer to use in re&illing tra!tors. E"en E used itt"e &irst tie$ t"e bung-!a$ w"i!" "ad deteriorated t"reads due to nine years o& noraluse$ !aused a sar w"i!" !aused a &ire w"i!" burned and in*ured E.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

28/55

t"ing is to be &oreseen or anti!iated as one w"i!" will robably "aen$ but w"et"er it isliely to "aen$ e+en t"oug" t"e lieli"ood ay not be su&&i!ient to aount to a!oarati+e robability.

7est &or &oreseeability 67"e test as rese!ts &oreseeability is not t"e balan!e o&robabilities$ but t"e e3isten!e...o& soe real lieli"ood o& soe daage and t"elieli"ood is o& su!" are!iable weig"t and oent as to indu!e$ or w"i!" reasonablys"ould indu!e$ a!tion to a+oid it on t"e art o& a erson o& a reasonably rudent ind.Ee only need 6reasonably &oreseeable "ar.

Sin!e > was engaged in su!" a in"erently dangerous business$ t"e &oreseeabilityo& t"e daage &ro t"is e+ent$ e+en t"oug" su!" e+ents "ad not "aened$ was enoug" to!reate a duty o& !are owed to E to indu!e liability.

".S. v. Carroll Towin Co.(2d Cir 194?)General Facts::loyees o& t"e .S. &ailed to roerly se!ure Cs s"i to t"e

do!. 7"e s"i &loated away$ stru! anot"er s"i and san. C did not "a+e an attendanton board t"e s"i at t"e tie. 7"e attendant "ad been gone &or 21 "ours. 7"e s"i was in/.J. "arbor during a busy =anuary wit" lots o& war a!ti+ity.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

29/55

'alan!ing test &or duty (liability) 67"e deterination o& t"e #uestion o&negligen!e$ regard ust be "ad to t"e !"ara!ter and lo!ation o& t"e reises$ t"e urose&or w"i!" t"ey are used$ t"e robability o& in*ury t"ere&ro$ t"e re!autions ne!essary tore+ent su!" in*ury$ and t"e relations su!" re!autions bear to t"e bene&i!ial use o& t"ereises.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

30/55

Cause of Action:7"e tort o& negligen!e/egligen!e (1) uty o& !are (2) 'rea!" o& duty () Causation (4)

aagesLaw:S!oe t"at a ersons religious belie&s "a+e on reasonable erson standard

< ersons religious belie&s s"ould be taen into a!!ount$ but not so as to ass *udgent(eit"er &a+orable or not) on t"e belie&s or to &ore!lose t"e *urys ability to assess t"ereasonableness o& t"e belie& itsel& in relation to t"e e+ents.

.

Case History:enerally$

insanity will not eliinate liability. Bn soe !ases it !an t"oug" i& it eets t"e &ollowingliited instan!e. 67"e e&&e!t o& t"e ental illness or ental "allu!ination ust be su!"

8/13/2019 Torts .7

31/55

as to a&&e!t t"e ersons ability to understand and are!iate t"e duty w"i!" rests uon"i to dri+e "is !ar wit" ordinary !are$ or i& t"e insanity does not a&&e!t su!"understanding and are!iation$ it ust a&&e!t "is ability to !ontrol "is !ar in an ordinaryrudent anner.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

32/55

#usso v. Griffin(Ot. 198,)General Facts:;ran and 7ony usso re!ei+ed a dual interest in t"eir &at"ers

a+ing business. ; later wanted to go into t"e laundroat business$ and wanted to sell "isinterest in t"e a+ing busines to "is brot"er. > wored out t"e details$ but &ailed toention t"e use&ulness or desirability o& a !o+enant-not-to-!oete !lause. 7"reeont"s a&ter t"e sale$ ; started "is own a+ing &ir in dire!t !oetition wit" 7. > wassued &or legal alra!ti!e.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

33/55

alra!ti!e unless it also aears 6t"at t"e !ourse o& treatent &ollowed de+iated &roone o& t"e et"ods o& treatent aro+ed by t"e standard in t"at !ounity.

Scott v. &ra'for'(la. 19?9)General Facts:S was noti&ied by "er noral do!tor t"at s"e "ad se+eral &ibroid

tuors on "er uterus. 7"e do!tor re&erred S to '$ a se!ialist. ' er&ored a"ystere!toy. ater S de+eloed a +esi!o-+aginal &istula w"i!" allowed urine to lea&ro t"e bladder into t"e +agina. S"e went to a urologist w"o was able to reedy t"e!ondition. ' did not in&or S o& t"e ris o& t"is !ondition resulting &ro t"e surgery.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

34/55

Law:easonable standard o& !are is t"is tye o& !ir!ustan!es (glau!oatesting) 6

8/13/2019 Torts .7

35/55

already into3i!ated ersons w"o were still being ser+ed by t"e bar$ started &ig"ting and ageneral elee broe out.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

36/55

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

37/55

"ad "ad t"e inter!o syste on t"ey s"ould "a+e &or!ed to turn o&& "is !ar or !ut t"egas to t"e u. t"en le&t t"e running !ar in ar to ay &or "is gas. did not want tolea+e t"e !ar o&& be!ause o& a !arburetor roble. 7"e aring syste on s !ar &ailedand t"e !ar rolled ba! into i inning "i between "is !ar and s !ar. i su&&ered abroen leg. i sued bot" and C.

Case History: C o+ed &or suary *udgent to disiss t"e !ase againstt"e. 7"e trial *udge denied t"e s.*. and "eld t"at t"e ro3iate !ausation de&ense raisedby t"e otion was an issue &or t"e *ury. n aeal$ t"e aellate !ourt re+ersed. 7"e"ig" !ourt u"eld t"e re+ersal.

Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e/egligen!e (1) uty o& !are (2) 'rea!" o& duty () CausationUbot"

&a!tual and ro3iate and (4) aages.Law: 6Condu!t is !onsidered negligent w"en it tends to sub*e!t anot"er to an

unreasonable ris o& "ar arising &ro one or ore arti!ular &oreseeable "a%ards. E"ent"e erson is "ared by an o!!urren!e resulting &ro one o& t"ose "a%ards$ t"e negligenta!tor ay be "eld liable.

B& C "ad a duty o& !are towards i$ t"e duty to &or!e to turn o&& "is !ar did

not e3tend to t"e arti!ular "ar o& t"e broen leg. 7"e "ar !aused to i was notwit"in t"e ris o& t"e "ar asso!iated wit" not turning o&& a !ar w"ile re&ueling.

%cCahill v. New

8/13/2019 Torts .7

38/55

t"e *ury &inding o& a duty o& !are brea!"ed as to @ was unwarranted and t"e *ury wasunreasonable in &inding t"at i& t"ey were negligent t"at t"e negligen!e was t"e ro3iate!ause o& @s in*uries. 7"e !ourt u"eld t"e +erdi!t.

Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e/egligen!e (1) uty o& !are (2) 'rea!" o& duty () CausationUbot"

&a!tual and ro3iate and (4) aages.Law: 6B& t"e de&endants !ondu!t is a substantial &a!tor in bringing about "ar to

anot"er$ t"e &a!t t"at t"e de&endant neit"er &oresaw nor s"ould "a+e &oreseen t"e e3tent o&t"e "ar or t"e anner in w"i!" it o!!urred does not re+ent "i &ro being liable.

67"e test is w"et"er t"e "ar w"i!" o!!urred was o& t"e sae general nature ast"e &oreseeable ris !reated by t"e de&endants negligen!e.

$insan No. 2(2d Cir. 19,4)General Facts: Bn winter w"en t"e 'u&&alo i+er "ad !"uns o& i!e in it$ 7"e

S"iras$ owned by Ainsan$ was iroerly oored to t"e do!s o& Continental due to a&aulty 6deadan. 7"e s"i$ due to ressure build-u &ro t"e i!e$ broe &ree$ !ollidedwit" anot"er s"i (7"e 7ewsbury) and e+entually !ras"ed into t"e @i!"igan street

bridge artially be!ause t"e bridge oerators (!ity eloyees) were not resent. 7"e!ras" !aused &looding in addition to t"e roerty daage to t"e ot"er s"i and t"e bridge.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

39/55

t"ere&ore t"e H was negligent. Howe+er$ t"e &ire&ig"ters "ad ordered t"at all !i+ilians tobe e+a!uated rior to

8/13/2019 Torts .7

40/55

a!"ie+e t"e status o& a res!uer$ a !laiants urose ust be ore t"an in+estigatory.7"ere ust be asserted soe se!i&i! ission o& assistan!e by w"i!" t"e lig"t o& t"eieriled !ould reasonably be t"oug"t to be aeliorated.

e#uireents o& t"e es!ue o!tine (1) < ris o& iinent eril (ob*e!ti+estandard) to erson or soeties roerty o& anot"er (2) an a!t o& inter+ention inresonse to t"e eril by t"e urorted res!uer and () i& t"e a!tion is against t"e !reatoro& t"e eril$ t"e ust establis" t"at t"e eril resulted &ro t"e !reators tortuous!ondu!t$ rat"er t"an an una+oidable a!!ident.

< res!uer w"o was artially resonsible &or t"e !reation o& t"e eril ay beallowed daages resulting &ro t"e res!ue !onsidering t"e e3tent o& t"e res!uers &aultunder !oarati+e &ault rin!iles.

Fuller v. )reis(/.J. 19?4)General Facts: r. ewis$ de!edent$ !oitted sui!ide se+en ont"s a&ter a !ar

a!!ident.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

41/55

&a!tual and ro3iate and (4) aages.Law: /orally$ t"e do!trine o& s"i&ting resonsibility will not allow t"e

negligent oission to a!t o& a t"ird arty to end t"e liability o& an original tort&easor"owe+er$ t"is was deeed one o& t"e unusual !ases in w"i!" it would. 6E"ere t"ere "asbeen su!" a lase o& tie as we "a+e "ere$ and t"ere is a duty$ !lear and a&&irati+e$ ont"e art o& t"e ur!"aser$ to inse!t an aintain as against t"at sure deterioration w"i!" isbound to &ollow &ro ordinary use$ and a !olete &ailure o& t"e er&oran!e o& duty$ but&or w"i!" t"e a!!ident !ould not "a+e "aened$ su!" &ailure be!oes t"e ro3iate andnot erely a !on!urring !ause.&ali'o v. Iprove' %achinery, Inc.(Cal.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

42/55

ne!essary &or anot"ers aid or rote!tion does not itsel& iose uon t"e a!tor a duty totae su!" a!tion. .2d 14

67"ere is no duty so to !ontrol t"e !ondu!t o& a t"ird erson as to re+ent "i&ro !ausing "ysi!al "ar to anot"er unless (a) a se!ial relation e3ists between t"ea!tor and t"e t"ird erson w"i!" ioses a duty uon t"e a!tor to !ontrol t"e t"irdersons !ondu!t$ or (b) a se!ial relation e3ists between t"e a!tor and t"e ot"er w"i!"gi+es rise to t"e ot"er a rig"t to rote!tion. .2d 15

6Su!" se!ial relations"is e3ist between arents and !"ildren$ asters andser+ants$ ossessors o& land and li!ensees$ !oon !arriers and t"eir !ustoers$ oreole w"o "a+e !ustody o& a erson wit" dangerous roensities.

8e 1era v. Lon &each )u!lic Transportation Co.(Cal.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

43/55

Lewis v. -estinhouse (lectric Corp.(Bll.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

44/55

B& a erson ay re!o+er &or t"e e!uniary loss !aused by a tortious a!t$ t"ereis no logi!al reason to e3!lude t"e genuine eotional "ar !ased by t"e sae tortious!ondu!t.

/aes v. Lie!(/eb. 1985)General Facts:< garbage tru! owned by !or. and oerated by ba!ed

into an interse!tion and ran o+er eetria$ illing "er. Her brot"er >regory "ellesslywat!"ed t"e e+ent. 'e!ause o& t"is$ > de+eloed "ysi!al illness as well as entalanguis" and eotional distress. Howe+er$ > was not dire!tly t"reatened "ar by t"e!ondu!t o& .

Case History:elying onFournell v. Usher Pest Control$ t"e trial !ourtdisissed t"e !ase bF! > was not in t"e 6%one o& danger o& t"e e+ent t"ere&ore$ "e !ouldnot re!o+er &or t"e eotional distress !aused by witnessing it. Howe+er$ on aeal t"e!ourt o+erruledFournelland adoted a odi&ied &or o& t"eDillon v. Legg$ 441 .2d ?2(Cal. 19,8) &oreseeability aroa!" &or bystander eotional distress !lais.

Cause of Action: /B:/B:

Law:7"ree &a!tors to guide t"e deterination o& bystander liability &roDillon (1) E"et"er t"e was lo!ated near t"e s!ene o& t"e a!!ident as !ontrasted wit"one w"o was a distan!e away &ro it (2) E"et"er t"e s"o! resulted &ro a dire!teotional ia!t uon &ro t"e sensory and !onteoraneous obser+an!e o& t"ea!!ident$ as !ontrasted wit" learning o& t"e a!!ident &ro ot"ers a&ter its o!!urren!e and() E"et"er and t"e +i!ti were !losely related$ as !ontrasted wit" an absen!e o& anyrelations"i or resen!e o& only a distant relations"i.

7"e /eb. !ourt ade t"e &urt"er obser+ations about t"ese &a!tors (1) 7"erelations"i &a!tor is t"e ost iortant. 7"is !ourt re#uires t"at t"ere be a arital orintiate &ailial relations"i. Howe+er$ it would not e3!lude aunts$ un!les andgrandarents$ but would rat"er iose a greater burden on t"ose to deonstratesigni&i!ant atta!"ent. (2) E"ile t"e ro3iity re#uireents o& t"e &irst two o& t"eDillon&a!tors are satis&ied by a!tually seeing t"e a!!ident$ sensory witnessing is notabsolutely re#uired. B& t"e and t"e +i!ti are signi&i!antly related$ t"e ia!t would be*ust as trauati! i& t"e learned o& t"e a!!ident rat"er t"an witnessing it () 7"e +i!tiust "a+e su&&ered eit"er se+ere "ar or deat" &or t"e "ar to be a!tionable and (4) 7"e need not also su&&er !on!urrent "ysi!al in*ury &or t"e eotional "ar to be a!tionable.

/7: :leents o& bystander /:B !lai a!!ording to Sout" Carolina (1)t"e negligen!e o& t"e ust !ause deat" or serious "ysi!al in*ury to anot"er (2) t"e bystander ust be in !lose ro3iity to t"e a!!ident () t"e and t"e +i!ti ust be!losely related (4) t"e ust !onteoraneously er!ei+e t"e a!!ident and (5) t"eeotional distress ust bot" ani&est itsel& by "ysi!al sytos !aable o& diagnosisand be establis"ed be e3ert testiony.

F.G. v. %ac8onell(/.=. 199?)General Facts:;.>. was in need o& !ounseling and soug"t out "er inister

&or su!". @ was t"e re!tor at St. ues :is!oal C"ur!". 7"e se!ond $ Harer wast"e assistant re!tor and later assued t"e re!tor *ob. @ !ounseled ;.>. and sedu!ed "erinto a se3ual relations"i (but no inter!ourse). H aarently ade t"is !ondu!t ubli!a&ter ;.>. !ae to "i to dis!uss @s inaroriate be"a+ior. ;.>. sued @ &or negligentastoral !ounseling$ /B:$ and brea!" o& a &idu!iary duty. ;.>. sued H &or brea!" o&

8/13/2019 Torts .7

45/55

&idu!iary duty.Case History: dro+e =ose" Qa "oe. E"ile t"ere$ t"e two dran

s!ot!". > "ad at least 2-$ but "ad a ' out to "is !ar and > le&t. Q!alled "is "ouse 20 inutes later to see i& > ade it "oe. 7"en Q &ound out t"at > wasin a "ead-on a!!ident in w"i!" > and t"e $ Aelly$ was se+ered in*ured. A sued > and Q.

Case History:

8/13/2019 Torts .7

46/55

t"e !ourt u"eld t"is bF! o& a la! o& de!isions allowing liability &or a so!ial "ost. n&inal aeal$ t"e !ourt iosed a duty on so!ial "osts &or t"e "ars !aused by t"eirinto3i!ated guests. 6< "ost w"o ser+es li#uor to an adult so!ial guest$ nowing bot" t"att"e guest is into3i!ated and will t"erea&ter be oerating a otor +e"i!le$ is liable &orin*uries in&li!ted on a t"ird arty as a result o& t"e negligent oeration o& a otor +e"i!leby t"e adult guest w"en su!" negligen!e is !aused by into3i!ation.

Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e/egligen!e (1) uty o& !are (2) 'rea!" o& duty () Causation (4) aagesLaw:uty &or so!ial "osts to re+ent in*uries !aused by t"e drun dri+ing o&

t"eir guests.

Otis (nineerin Corp. v. Clar+(7e3. 198)General Facts: @at"eson was an eloyee o& w"o "ad a "istory o&

al!o"ol robles and being drun at wor. ne nig"t "e was se+erely into3i!ated ('

8/13/2019 Torts .7

47/55

its de!ision riarily uon a re*e!tion o& t"e inority +iew t"at allowed t"ese daages(6bene&its rule) as well as a roble wit" t"e a!!ura!y o& assessent o& t"ese daages.

Cause of Action:/egligent !on!etionLaw:@ost !ourts deny t"is tye o& re!o+ery &or a +ariety o& reasons. (1)

Soe "old t"at t"e intangible bene&its o& arent"ood always outweig" t"e !osts. (2)Soe reason t"at to allow t"is would erit a wind&all &or t"e arents. () Soe denyre!o+ery out o& !on!ern &or t"e sy!"e o& t"e !"ild. (4) t"ers deny re!o+ery &or beingtoo se!ulati+e and rone to &raud.

7"e inority o& !ourts allow t"is re!o+ery eit"er in &ull or redu!ed by t"ebene&its o& arent"ood gained by t"e s.

7"is !ourt denied re!o+ery bF! o& t"e se!ulati+e nature o& t"e award and t"e6bene&its rule analysis$ t"e roble t"at arents would be &or!ed to deonstrate t"at t"e!"ild is ore trouble t"an its wort"$ and a !on!ern &or t"e ental and eotional "ealt"o& t"e !"ild w"o was not only unwanted but w"ose arents got soeone else to ay &ort"e !"ilds e3isten!e.

Sith v. Cote(/.H. 198,)

General Facts:inda Sit" was regnant and was under t"e !are o& C.:arly in "er regnan!y$ !ontra!ted rubella. Howe+er$ C did not dis!o+er t"e rubellanor did C alert to t"e ossible robles wit" t"e !"ilds de+eloent t"at t"e diseasewould "a+e "ad or t"e ossible otions (naely abortion). s !"ild (Heat"er) was bornwit" !ongenital rubella syndroe w"i!" "as !aused blindness$ a "eart !ondition re#uiringnuerous oerations$ otor retardation$ and "earing iairent. sued C &or wrong&ulbirt" (6a !lai broug"t by t"e arents o& a !"ild born wit" se+ere de&e!ts against a"ysi!ian w"o negligently &ails to in&or t"e$ in a tiely &as"ion$ o& an in!reasedossibility t"at t"e ot"er will gi+e birt" to su!" a !"ild$ t"ereby re!luding an in&oredde!ision as to w"et"er to "a+e t"e !"ild). @eanw"ile$ H sued C &or wrong&ul li&e (a!lai broug"t by a !"ild 6!ontendLingM t"at "e de&endant "ysi!ian negligently &ailed toin&or t"e !"ilds arents o& t"e ris o& bearing a de&e!ti+e in&ant$ and "en!e re+entedt"e arents &ro !"oosing to a+oid t"e !"ilds birt").

Case History:n!lear as to t"e trial !ourt$ but t"at !ourt robably did notre!ogni%e t"e two torts. 7"e /.H. S.Ct. did re!ogni%e t"e tort o& wrong&ul birt"$ but notwrong&ul li&e.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

48/55

assution t"at t"e s in a wrong&ul birt" !ase were already lanning to "a+e and ay &oran ordinary !"ild. 7"ere&ore$ t"e only !oensation needed to restore t"e is to allow&or t"e oney needed &or t"e e3tra !osts o& raising a disabled !"ild.

:otional daages :otional daages are not allowed. 7"is is not &or anylogi!al reason ot"er t"an to se+er liability at soe oint. 7"e liability &or t"e do!tor isalready "ig"$ so t"e liability needs to be !ut o&& soew"ere. 7"e !ourts "a+e !"osen t"isas t"at !ut-o&&.

Erong&ul li&e 6Bn order to re!ogni%e Hs wrong&ul li&e a!tion$ t"en$ we ustdeterine t"at t"e &etal H "ad an interest in a+oiding "er own li&e$ t"at it would "a+e beenbestor $i& s"e "ad not been born. 7"is resents a #uestion t"at t"e !ourts !annotde!ide. /ot only is it iossible to a!tually ae a de!ision about t"is$ a de!ision wouldne!essarily in+ol+e ad*udi!ating t"e relati+e +alue o& soeones li&e. 7"is is a bad ideaso t"e !ourts "a+e not !"osen to re!ogni%e t"is tort.

Farley v. Sartin(E. Oa. 1995)General Facts:Cynt"ia ;arley was regnant wit" 'aby ;arley$ w"o was 22

wees (5 V ont"s) o& gestation and not +iable at t"e tie. C was illed in a !ar a!!ident

wit" t"e (S)$ w"o was dri+ing a tru! owned by ee Sartin 7ru!ing Co. HF; ;arley&iled t"is a!tion &or wrong&ul deat" &or "is unborn !"ild. 7"e #uestion is w"et"er t"enon-+iable &etus #uali&ies as a erson under t"e E. Oa. wrong&ul deat" statute.

Case History:s s.*. was granted and a&&ired. n &inal aeal$ t"e !ourtre+erses and re!ogni%es a &etus$ w"et"er +iable or not$ as a erson under t"e wrong&uldeat" statute &or w"o an a!tion ay be broug"t by "is sur+i+ors.

Cause of Action:Erong&ul deat"Law:Sin!e !ourts allow &or a renatal in*ury to a &etus w"o is born ali+e !an

be a!tionable by t"e in&ant$ t"e !ourt "ad no roble e3tending t"e 6erson !ategory toany &etus w"et"er +iable or not. 7"e wrong&ul deat" statute allows &or re!o+ery &or aerson w"o !ould "a+e broug"t an a!tion i& "eFs"e "ad not died. Sin!e a li+e-born in&ant!ould$ t"en t"at in&ant is !o+ered by t"e statute.

7"e !ourt also relied on ubli! oli!y o& not allowing a wrongdoer to es!aeliability &or a tort erely bF! t"e +i!ti was a non-+iable &etus w"o died as a result o& t"etort.

/7: 7"is !ourt is in t"e inority o& *urisdi!tions.

&urr v. &'. of County Cors. of Star+ City("io 198,)General Facts:'s adoted a !"ild &ro t"e s. 7"e eloyee o& t"e s

reresented t"at t"e !"ild (atri!) was t"e son o& a 18 year old ot"er w"ose arentswere treating t"e !"ild badly. 7"ey also said t"at t"e ot"er was o+ing to &ind a better*ob and !ould no longer !are &or t"e !"ild and t"at s"e t"en ga+e u t"e !"ild &oradotion. 7"e erson also said t"at t"e !"ild 6was a ni!e big$ "ealt"$ baby boy.

Howe+er$ t"e !"ild de+eloed se+ere ental retardation robles and Huntingtonsdisease. Bn &a!t$ t"e ot"er o& t"e !"ild was 1 and a ental atient.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

49/55

note t"at t"e de!ision did not iose an absolute !ontra!t o& insuran!e on adotionagen!ies to ro+ide "ealt"y and "ay !"ildren. at"er$ t"is was an intentional tortiousa!t t"at t"e e+iden!e suorted.

Cause of Action:;raud;raud (1) a reresentation or$ w"ere t"ere is a duty to dis!lose$ !on!ealento& a &a!t (2) w"i!" is aterial to t"e transa!tion at "and () ade &alsely$wit" nowledge o& its &alsity$ or wit" su!" utter disregard and re!lessness asto w"et"er it is true or &alse t"at nowledge ay be in&erred (4) wit" t"eintent o& isleading anot"er into relying uon it (5) *usti&iable relian!e uont"e reresentation or !on!ealent and (,) a resulting in*ury ro3iately!aused by t"e relian!e.Law:6Bn no way do we ily t"at adotion agen!ies are guarantors o& t"eir

la!eents. 1. ;7C< does not aly to any intentional torts !oitted by itseloyees.

2. 6is!retionary ;un!tion :3!etion >o+t is not liable &or a!tions t"atdone in due !are in &urt"eran!e o& oli!y or t"ose &un!tions w"i!" are dis!retionary innature$ e+en i& t"e a!t or oission t"at is in abuse o& t"at dis!retion.

. /o stri!t liability !ases against t"e &ederal go+t.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

50/55

;ailial BunityHusbandFEi&eused to be iune &ro torts !oitted against ea!" ot"er

based on t"e notion t"at "Fw were one erson. @ore t"an "al& "a+e abolis"ed. 7"eot"ers "a+e at least odi&ied t"e iunity to allow &or intentional torts or t"ose!oitted outside t"e arriage.

arentFC"ildused to be iune &ro all torts. /ow a good nuber "a+e!oletely abolis"ed$ ot"ers "a+e se+erely liited to allow soe su!" as intentionaltorts.

(BaSi3 #uestions$ 115 inutes$ 20 inutes$ 15 in$ 40 in$ 5,0 in$ ,,0

in. :a!" answer in weig"ted a!!ording to t"e tie needed to answer. ead ea!"#uestion twi!e to &igure out w"at K or Ks are really being ased. /egligen!e will be ostiortant.

8/13/2019 Torts .7

51/55

Torts Glossary

A

8/13/2019 Torts .7

52/55

and !ontributes to t"e in*ury$ re!o+ery is not barred under su!" do!trine$ but lainti&&sdaages are diinis"ed roortionately$ ro+ided "is &ault is less t"an de&endants$ andt"at$ by e3er!ise o& ordinary !are$ "e !ould not "a+e a+oided !onse#uen!es o& de&endantsnegligen!e a&er it was or s"ould "a+e been aarent.

Contributory /egligen!e7"e a!t or oission aounting to want o& ordinary !are on arto& !olaining arty$ to w"i!"$ !on!urring wit" de&endants negligen!e$ is ro3iate!ause o& in*ury. Condu!t by lainti&& w"i!" is below t"e standard t w"i!" "e is legallyre#uired to !on&or &or "is own rote!tion and w"i!" is a !ontributing !ause w"i!"!ooerates wit" t"e negligen!e o& t"e de&endant in !ausing t"e lainti&&s "ar.

Culability'laewort"iness. :3!et in !ases o& absolute liability$ t"e ersons!ulability ust be s"own.

8

uty to e&end7"e obligation o& an insurer to de&end t"e insured in a liability !ase &or

w"i!" t"e insuran!e oli!y in #uestion is in *eoardy. 7"is duty atta!"es w"en t"einsured is sued$ and will re+ail as long as t"e situation is !learly one in w"i!" t"e oli!ydoes !o+er t"e insured otential liability.

uty to ay7"e obligation o& an insured to ay t"e ad+erse *udgeent o& t"e insured tot"e e3tent o& t"e oli!y liits as long as t"e oli!y a!tually !o+ers t"e in!ident. 7"islatter #uestion ay be de!ided in a searate suit.

(

F

;ault/egligen!e an error or de&e!t o& *udgent or o& !ondu!t any de+iation &roruden!e$ duty$ or re!titude any s"ort!oing$ or negle!t o& !are or er&oran!e resulting&ro t"e inattention$ in!aa!ity$ or er+ersity a wrong tenden!y$ !ourse$ or a!t bad &ait"or isanageent negle!t o& duty. nder general liability rin!iles$ 6&ault is a brea!"o& a duty iosed by law or !ontra!t. 7"e ter !onnotes an a!t to w"i!" blae$ !ensure$iroriety$ s"ort!oing or !ulability atta!"es.

;oreseeability7"e ability to see or now in ad+an!e e.g.t"e reasonable anti!iation t"at"ar or in*ury is a liely result &ro !ertain a!ts or oissions. Bn tort law$ t"e6&oreseeability eleent o& ro3iate !ause is establis"ed by roo& t"at a!tor$ as ersono& ordinary intelligen!e and ruden!e$ s"ould reasonably "a+e anti!iated danger to

ot"ers !reated by "is negligent a!ts. 7"at w"i!" is ob*e!ti+ely reasonable to e3e!t$ noterely w"at ig"t !on!ei+ably o!!ur.

G

HI

8/13/2019 Torts .7

53/55

Bnsuran!e Coany 'ad ;ait"

Bntentesign$ resol+e$ or deterination wit" w"i!" erson a!t. < state o& ind in w"i!"a erson sees to a!!olis" a gi+en result t"roug" a !ourse o& a!tion.

%

N

/egligen!e7"e oission to do soet"ing w"i!" a reasonable an$ guided by t"oseordinary !onsiderations w"i!" ordinarily regulate "uan a&&airs$ would do$ or t"e doingo& soet"ing w"i!" a reasonable and rudent an would not do. Condu!t w"i!" &allsbelow t"e standard establis"ed by law &or t"e rote!tion o& ot"ers against unreasonableris o& "ar it is a dearture &ro t"e !ondu!t e3e!table o& a reasonably rudent ersonunder t"e !ir!ustan!es. Bt is !"ara!teri%ed !"ie&ly by inad+erten!e$ t"oug"tlessness$

inattention and t"e lie$ w"ile 6wantonness or 6re!lessness is !"ara!teri%ed bywill&ulness. 7"e law o& negligen!e is &ounded on reasonable !ondu!t or reasonable !areunder all !ir!ustan!es o& arti!ular !ase. o!trine o& negligen!e rests on duty o& e+eryerson to e3er!ise due !are in "is !ondu!t toward ot"ers &ro w"i!" in*ury ay result.O

utrage (7ort o&)

8/13/2019 Torts .7

54/55

)

er Contra

uniti+e aagesesigned to unis" t"e de&endant &or "is e+il be"a+ior or to ae ane3ale o& "i. nlie !oensatory or a!tual daages$ uniti+e daages are baseduon an entirely di&&erent ubli! oli!y !onsiderationt"at o& unis"ing t"e de&endant oro& setting an e3ale &or siilar wrongdoers. Bn !ases in w"i!" it is ro+ed t"at ade&endant "as a!ted will&ully$ ali!iously$ or &raudulently$ a lainti&& ay be awardeduniti+e daages in addition to !oensatory or a!tual daages.

urose7"at w"i!" one sets be&ore "i to a!!olis" or attain an end$ intention$ orai$ ob*e!t$ lan ro*e!t. 7er is synonyous wit" ends soug"t$ an ob*e!t to be attained$an intention$ et!.

#

e!lessnessas"ness "eedlessness wanton !ondu!t. 7"e state o& ind a!!oanyingan a!t$ w"i!" eit"er ays no regard to its robably or ossibly in*urious !onse#uen!es$ orw"i!"$ t"oug" &oreseeing su!" !onse#uen!es$ ersists in site o& su!" nowledge.e!lessness is a stronger ter t"an ere or ordinary negligen!e$ and to be re!less$ t"e!ondu!t ust be su!" as to e+in!e disregard o& or indi&&eren!e to !onse#uen!es$ under!ir!ustan!es in+ol+ing danger to li&e or sa&ety o& ot"ers$ alt"oug" no "ar wasintended.

esondeat Suerioret t"e aster answer. 7"is do!trine or a3i eans t"at a asteris liable in !ertain !ases &or t"e wrong&ul a!ts o& "is ser+ant$ and a rin!ial &or t"ose o&"is agent. nder t"is do!trine aster is resonsible &or want &o !are on ser+ants arttoward t"ose to w"o t"e aster owes duty to use !are$ ro+ided &ailure o& ser+ant to use!are$ ro+ided &ailure o& ser+ant to use su!" !are o!!urred in !ourse o& "is eloyent.nder do!trine an eloyer is liable &or in*ury to erson or roerty o& anot"erro3iately resulting &ro a!ts o& eloyee done wit"in s!oe o& "is eloyent in t"eeloyers ser+i!e. o!trine only alies w"en relation o& ster and ser+ant e3istedbetween de&endant and wrongdoer at t"e tie o& in*ury sued &or$ in rese!t to +erytransa!tion &ro w"i!" it arose. Hen!e$ do!trine is inali!able w"ere in*ury o!!ursw"ile eloyee is a!ting outside legitiate s!oe o& aut"ority.

S

Stri!t iabilityiability wit"out &ault. < !on!et alied by !ourts in rodu!t liability!ases in w"i!" seller is liable &or any and all de&e!ti+e or "a%ardous rodu!ts w"i!"unduly t"reaten a !onsuers ersonal sa&ety. Con!et o& stri!t liability in tort is &oundedon t"e reise t"at w"en anu&a!turer resents "is goods to t"e ubli! &or sale$ "ereresents t"ey are suitabel &or t"eir intended use$ and to in+oe su!" do!trine it isessential to ro+e t"at t"e rodu!t was de&e!ti+e w"en la!ed in t"e strea o& !oer!e.

(1) ne w"o sells any rodu!t in a de&e!ti+e !ondition unreasonably dangerous to

8/13/2019 Torts .7

55/55

t"e user or !onsuer or to "is roerty is sub*e!t to liability &or "ysi!al "ar t"ereby!aused to t"e ultiate user or !onsue$ or to "is roerty$ i& (a) t"e seller is engaged int"e business o& selling su!" a rodu!t$ and (b) it is e3e!ted to and does rea!" t"e user or!onsuer wit"out substantial !"ange in t"e !ondition in w"i!" it is sold. (2) 7"e rulestate in Sub (1) alies alt"oug" (a) t"e seller"as e3er!ised all ossible !are in t"erearation and sale o& "is rodu!t$ and (b) t"e user or !onsuer "as not boug"t t"erodu!t &or or entered into any !ontra!tual relation wit" t"e seller. L.2d o& 7orts402