Torts - Negligence (Injury and Duty)

Negligence Definition

failure to heed a duty of care owed to another that causes injury to that other

Negligence Elements

1. P suffered injury

2. D owed a duty to class of persons including P to not cause injury of the kind suffered by P

3. D breached duty

4. D’s breach was actual and proximate cause

MacPherson v. Buick

Rule of Law: A manufacturer of articles that are not inherently dangerous but that may become dangerous if improperly constructed owes a duty of care to anyone beyond the purchaser who might foreseeably use the articles, if it is reasonable to expect no further tests will be performed
Facts. D manufactured car and sold to dealer who sold to P. Car broke due to defect, P sued D. 
Dissent: Would have followed older rule limiting negligence liability to immediate purchaser (no liability to third parties absent privity)

Privity Rule

The privity rule in tort law is the historical principle that a person could not sue for harm caused by the negligent performance of a contract unless they were a party to that contract. Overruled most notably in cases involving products liability and professional negligence

Mussivand v. David

Rule of Law: A person with a sexually transmitted disease owes a duty of care toward his or her lover's foreseeable sexual partner.
Facts: D had affair with P’s wife while knowing he had STD. P received STD from wife, sued for negligence.

Affirmative Duty Definition

D is alleged to have unreasonably failed to provide assistance or protection to P

Types of Affirmative Duty

Nonfeasance - defendant failed to render assistance to P in a situation in which assistance could have prevented the injury

Misfeasance - actor’s careless conduct causes physical harm to another in a relatively direct manner

Special Relations that Giving Rise to Duty

-              Common carrier and passenger

-              Innkeeper and guests

-              Possessor of land who holds it open to public

• Businesss-invitee

-              Required by law or voluntarily takes custody of another

Osterlind v. Hill

Rule of Law: A lessor of a boat has no legal duty to refrain from rent to, and consequently to rescuing, an intoxicated person who is not clearly helpless
Facts: D rented boat to P, allegedly knowing intoxication, P capsiezed and drowned

Baker v. Fenneman & Brown

Rule of Law: A possessor of land who holds the land open to the public has a duty to members of the public who enter the land to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm, to give them first aid when they are ill or injured.

Facts: P entered Taco Bell, collapsed but no employee helped. P stood up and fell again. 

“Good Samaritan” Statute

Immunizes certain persons who undertake rescues from liabliity for negligence

Tarasoff v. Regents

Rule of Law: If therapist learns from his patient about intent to do harm to a third party, the therapist has a duty to take reasonable precautions given the circumstances to warn the potential victim of danger
Facts: Actor told therapist he intended to kill P. Therapist diagnosed P with mental disorder, ordered police watch. Police released actor, department had letter and notes by therapist destroyed, actor killed P.

Dissent: Duty to warn will deter patients, policy issues. 
Concurring: Only in these narrow circumstances, not in cases where “should have” predicted

Premises Liability Definition

A property owner has a legal duty to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition

Premises Liability 3-step analysis

o   Classify plaintiff as invitee, licensee, or trespasser.

o   Determine duty owed based on classification.

o   Decide if duty was breached.

Invitee

Someone who enter property at invitation of the possessor
- possessors owe to invitees a duty of reasonable care

Licensee

Someone who enters the land of another with express or implied permission of possessor

• owed duty only to warn concealed dangers that are known, does not have duty to inspect

Trespassers

No duty of care, only duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring

Leffler v. Sharp

Rule of Law: A person is a trespasser where he or she enters the premises of another without express or implied invitation or permission.
Facts: P drinking at bar, sees open window that read “not an exit”, P saw people and climbed

Demag v. Better Power Equipment

Rule of Law: The possessor of land owes a duty of reasonable care for the safety of all persons who lawfully enter the premises.
Facts: P worked for dealership, performed service for GM of D. When taking step from usual parking spot, fell into uncovered storm drain

Doctrinal Shift: Modern and Restatement Approach regarding Invitees and Licensees

one-half of all jurisdictions and the Third Restatement now require the land possessor to exercise reasonable care under all circumstances to all land entrants except trespassers

Pure Economic Loss

• Persons who lose existing wealth or even expected income, may stand to recover from another who has carelessly caused loss

  • Proof of injury not enough, Plaintiff must establish that injury came about as result of breach of duty to take care not to cause such loss

Economic Loss Doctrine

prevents parties who suffer only economic damages from recovering in tort, as it holds that contract law, not tort, is the appropriate avenue for such claims absent harm to person or property or special relationship (Attorneys, Accountants)

Aikens v. Debow

Rule of Law: Purely economic injury occasioned by interruption of commerce is not recoverable in a negligence action absent damage to person or property or a special relationship between the parties

Facts: P owned motel near highway, D damaged bridge that blocked entrance to P. 

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

• NIED asserts that D committed the wrong of causing distress by failing to be sufficiently vigilgent of P’s emotional well-being

  • Must have experienced distress as a result of being imminently endangered

Wyman v. Leavitt

Rule of Law: Damages are not recoverable in a negligence action where the victim's harm is constituted solely by mental suffering.
Facts: D blasting operation caused rocks to be thrown, P’s wife claimed suffered anxiety and mental suffering

Zone of Danger

A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from a defendant whose tortious conduct placed the plaintiff in harm’s way if the plaintiff demonstrates that:

i) He was within the “zone of danger” of the threatened physical impact— that he feared for his own safety because of the defendant’s negligence; and

ii) The threat of physical impact caused emotional distress.

Robb v. Penns RR

Rule of Law: A defendant is liable for damages if his negligent conduct proximately causes fright to a plaintiff in the immediate area of physical danger created by the negligence and results in the plaintiff sustaining physical injuries
Facts: P’s car stalled at crossing due to negligent rut. Train crashed into car. P never physically struck, but suffered fright and shock which led to physical injuries.

Consolidated Rail Corp v. Gottshall

Rule of Law: To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress under the Federal Employer's Liability Act, plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of the "zone of danger" test. Not enough that an injury be genuine and foreseeable because those limitations do not adequately respond to the policy considerations of zone-of-danger test.
Facts: D replacing track in extreme heat. Friend collapsed and died. D attempted CPR and witnessed died. Able to recover

Trainmaster forced to work long hours. Developed insomnia, headaches, had breakdown. Unable to recover.
Dissent: Argued FELA should be broader, not limited by zone of danger