Torts Rule Statements

Duty of Care- Physical Harm

Whether D owes P a duty of care for D’s act that resulted in physical harm to P

Weak General Rule

D will owe P a duty of care where there is a foreseeable risk of harm to a foreseeable plaintiff

Mussivand

D will owe P a duty of care where there is a foreseeable risk of harm to a foreseeable plaintiff

Palsgraf

D will owe P a duty of care where there is a foreseeable risk of harm to a foreseeable plaintiff

Intermediate General Rule

D will owe P a duty of care where there is a foreseeable risk of harm

Brown

D will owe P a duty of care where there is a foreseeable risk of harm

Strong General Rule

D owes P a duty to take care

Thompsoni

D owes P a duty to take care

Duty of Care for Omissions—Generally

D owes no duty to act absent an exception

Harper

D owes P a duty to act when P & D are in a special relationship

Farewell

D owes no duty to act absent a voluntary undertaking

Mixon

D owes no duty to act absent a voluntary undertaking

Simonson

D owes P a duty when they voluntarily undertake to assist P

Maldonado

D owes P a duty when they create the injury, even non-negligently

Tarasoff

D owes P a duty as a medical professional who learns of a danger to P

Duty of Care for Omissions—Landowners and Occupiers

whether D owes P a duty of care depends on the rule of the jurisdiction and the status of the entrant onto the land

Trespasser

No duty of reasonable care (duty not to act willfully or wantonly minus exception)

Rowland

No duty of reasonable care (duty to not act willfully or wantonly minus exception)

Licensee

Duty of reasonable care to act with respect to known risks

Carter

Duty of reasonable care to act with respect to known risks

Heins

Duty of reasonable care to act with respect to known risks and risks they should have constructive knowledge of

Invitee

Duty of reasonable care to act with respect to known risks and risks they should have constructive knowledge of, BUT harm caused by 3P criminal acts must be foreseeable

Posecai

Duty of reasonable care to act with respect to known risks and risks they should have constructive knowledge of, BUT harm caused by 3P criminal acts must be foreseeable

Duty of Care Not Owed for Public Policy

if negative societal impacts result from a duty being owed in a class of cases, the court can hold no duty as a matter of public policy

Strauss

where a duty would result in “crushing liability” and deprive the public of service, courts may hold no duty on grounds of public policy

Reynolds

duty would result in extended liability to social hosts; courts may hold no duty on grounds of public policy

Vince

courts rejected no duty argument that negligent entrustment does not extend beyond ownership and control

Duty of Care—Emotional Harm

D will owe P a duty of care for emotional harm ONLY WHERE there is physical impact

Metro-North

D will owe P a duty of care for emotional harm ONLY WHERE there is physical impact

Falzone

Near Miss Exception- P must show (1) they were in a zone of physical danger; and (2) they suffered a physical manifestation of emotional distress

Gammon

Unique Relationship Exception- where there is a unique relationship between P & D, D must foresee that conduct will cause emotional distress

Portee

Bystander exception- P must show