If duty owed, how is it breached?

Strict.

Plaintiff does not need to show negligence; liability follows from the act itself. If you engaged in the activity you breached. If the product is defective you breached. On exam this is all you really need to say in breach for strict liability cases as negligence doesn’t matter.

Design defect test (Part 1)

Consumer expectations test: When the products has failed to perform as safely as ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended/reasonably foreseeable way the product is defective.  Part one isn’t enough because the court is concerned that defendants will be incentives to create a low expectation. Whole industries could lag behind.

Design defect test (Part 2)

Risk utility test:  The benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risks of danger inherent in such a design. Look at the cost and benefits of the product after the time the sale has been made, given all future information that we know now. It maybe was made reasonably at the time, but given what we know how, it’s not and its defective. Ex. plaintiff says the defendant should put in seatbelts  after discovering that consumers don’t expect seatbelts, look at the costs and benefits.

Fault based (general)

Needs to show negligence. Different level of duty depending on jurisdiction. Need to show the defendant did not act reasonably (either ordinary or extraordinary depending on relationship)

Ordinary reasonable care (objective standard case)

Vaughn: There is an objective standard of reasonability. The defendant is liable because he acted negligently by a reasonable person’s standard when he stacked hay in a way that would likely catch fire and eventually did, harming the plaintiff.

Ordinary reasonable care (physical disabilities)

Sneller: People with physical disabilities are not subject to a higher standard of duty but rather they must be more vigilant and exercise high caution to meet the ordinary person standard. In this case, the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as he should have use a cane, dog, or companion when walking through the city in order to exercise reasonable care for himself.

Ordinary reasonable care (children)

Dellwo: A 12-year-old boy was driving a boat and caused an accident by driving over the fishing line as the fishing pole broke and hit the plaintiff in the eye. Defendant was liable because he was engaged in adult activities and did not exercise ordinary reasonable care. The standard is not lowered for children engaged in adult activities as the plaintiff has no notice that it’s a child engaging in the conduct and can’t act accordingly.

Ordinary reasonable care (beginners and experts)

Beginners and experts are weighed equally: First time and expert skiers can both injure people. A person’s lack of experience will not take away from a plaintiff’s recovery. We also don’t want to discourage people from becoming experts.

Ordinary reasonable care (mental illness)

Mental illness is also irrelevant. Plaintiff’s recovery shouldn’t be impacted by other’s mental illness.

Ordinary reasonable care (statutes)

Violating a statute is the strongest evidence of negligence per se (automatic breach; defendant can’t argue). Martin: Both parties didn’t comply with the law, and the plaintiff was negligent per se as they didn’t have their lights on as required by statute. However, if we think the legislature CLEARLY got it wrong, then this is an exception to the obligation to follow the statute.

Ordinary reasonable care (statutes safety exception)

Tedla: Plaintiffs were walking on the right-hand side of the highway, which was against the state statute, and were hit by the defendant’s car. This was not negligence per se, as the other side of the highway was very busy, and before the statute, ordinary prudence would not suggest exposing themselves to danger by walking on the other side with all the cars. It wouldn’t make sense to strictly adhere to the statute. If the accident is not a product of the hazard the statute was intended to protect against, then there’s no breach.

Ordinary reasonable care (statute’s application exception)

Gorris: Plaintiff hired the defendant to transport his sheep by boat and the sheep went overboard when being transported. Plaintiff sued the defendant alleging negligence since the defendant didn’t comply with the Contagious Disease Act since the sheep were not penned. However, the damage at issue is entirely different from the purpose of the Act, so it does not apply.

Ordinary reasonable care (Customs general)

Plaintiffs can use customs as a sword by arguing that the a custom exists and the defendant failed to abide by it, breaching their duty. Defendants can use customs as a shield by arguing that there’s a custom and they followed it.

Ordinary reasonable care (Customs radio case)

TJ Hooper: The custom is to not provide radios; however, even though there was no custom, radios are a necessary thing. We normally can trust people to monitor their own conduct, but sometimes a whole industry has fallen behind what would constitute reasonable care, and it’s up to the court to enforce them to get onto that standard. We can’t let whole industries lag behind. Here, the hand formula is a way to attack the customs argument as the B (costs of radios) did not outweigh P*L (the benefits of having them). This entire situation could’ve been avoided if there were radios.

Ordinary reasonable care (Customs safety glass case)

Trimarco: The apartment was built before the era of safety glass but the burden (cost of putting in safety glass) did not outweigh the P*L(safer glass for plaintiff). Others in the industry were using shatterproof glass, so the defendant should be held to the new customs standard. Here, he was negligent by that standard.

Ordinary reasonable care (Customs doctors case)

Brune: Doctors are held to a fiduciary standard. Asks if a general practitioner has exercised the degree of care and skill of the average qualified practitioner, taking into account the advances in the profession. It’s based on what’s standard across the board, not town to town.

Ordinary reasonable care (Calculations)

Does the Burden outweigh the P*L (p= probability of it happening given the burden; L= the injury)? If it does the defendant has to take on said burden in order to not be negligent. If it doesn’t the defendant doesn’t need to take on said burden as it would cost more to take on the precaution than the risk you are trying to protect.

Ordinary reasonable care (Calculations cricket case)

Bolton: The probability and magnitude of the injury were not greater than the burden of taking the precaution, making the failure to take the precaution not a breach of the duty of reasonable care. The cost-benefit analysis is not in relation to the individual, but rather is a social one where all foreseeable plaintiffs must be considered.

Ordinary reasonable care (Calculations electric lines case)

Cooley: Although the precaution would’ve reduced the plaintiff’s risk of harm, the risk to the people on the street must be considered. A defendant cannot have a duty to both, as that would require a shifting of duty. Here, the magnitude and probability of risk is much greater for those on the street than the plaintiff so the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.

Ordinary reasonable care (Robert Addie Jurisdictions) general

Smaller to larger duty. Applies to NC jurisdiction.

Ordinary reasonable care (Robert Addie Jurisdictions) invitees

Invitees – People who enter for a business transaction only (Walmart) or for public purpose on public land (park)  Duty of reasonable care. Highest duty because they cannot easily leave.

Ordinary reasonable care (Robert Addie Jurisdictions) licensee

Licensees – People with an implied license to be there just not for business purposes (social guests) No undisclosed traps and make all hidden dangers known.

Ordinary reasonable care (Robert Addie Jurisdictions) trespassers

Trespasser – People who unlawfully enter the land. No duty is owed; just can intentionally harm them i.e. no hidden traps or use of deadly force to expel them.

Ordinary reasonable care (Robert Addie Jurisdictions) the case + exception

The child in Robert Addie was a trespasser so the defendant only had a duty to not intentionally harm them, so the defendant wasn’t liable. Active Nuisance Doctrine is an exception the court made after Robert Addie to hold people liable for children’s injuries if unnatural, artificial things that would attract children whose risk they couldn’t recognize.

Ordinary Reasonable Care (Rowland Jurisdictions)

Always reasonable care. (NY and Cali)

All levels get ordinary reasonable care, HOWEVER, what that entails varies by classification. You don’t have to treat a trespasser like an invitee. Status still matters it just isn’t the only thing that matters, context matters.

Extraordinary reasonable care

The defendant not exercising extraordinary care is a breach. Even ordinary reasonable care is a breach as that is considered negligence for these types of defendants. Doser: If a bus injures a pedestrian while acting reasonably, not liable. If a bus injures a passenger while acting reasonably, liable because there is the higher standard of extreme reasonable care.