Flashcards case law

Benetti v. Duffy

Negligence refers to a failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances that directly and proximately causes harm to another. Negligence usually consists of actions but can also involve the failure to act when there is some duty to act.

Lynch v. Miller

The elements of negligence are

i) the existence of a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiffs

ii) the defendant's breach of that duty

iii) harm suffered by the plaintiff

iv) proof that the defendant's breach was the direct and proximate cause of the harm suffered by plaintiff

Savage v. Jones

In a negligence case, most common circumstances in which defendant has duty to care include

i) defendant created the risk which resulted in the plaintiff's harm

ii) defendant volunteered to protect plaintiff from harm

iii) defendant knew or should have known their conduct would cause harm to plaintiff

iv) the business/voluntary relationship between P and D creates duty

Silberman v. Satterfield

Midlands Electric Reliability Code says that the public utility owes a duty to public, but it doesn't relieve the plaintiff of proving that the utility breached that duty and thereby caused the harm. Section 1.4 says services and facilites must be "ADEQUATE" and "REASONABLE" for the standard of reasonable care. Doesn't impose liability without fault.

Terry v. Ko

Proving that the defendant owed a duty is not enough, plaintiff also needs to prove that D breached their duty. D breaches duty by failing to act REASONABLY in fulfilling or ATTEMPTING TO FULFILL duty.

Leander v. Minzer

A defendant "fails to act reasonably" for liability purposes if they depart from the conduct expected of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. Objective test of reasonability - not dependent on intelligence levels.

Faris v. Steinhauer

A defendant who fails to take a given precaution has violated its duty of care if the BURDEN OF TAKING THE PRECAUTION is LESS than the probability that HARM WILL OCCUR ABSENT THE PRECAUTION times the extent of FORESEEABLE DAMAGE or injury if the harm does happen

why tf is there math in my mock trial

Kim v. French

In deciding whether a defendant acted reasonably, the jury may take into consideration whether before the incident, the defendant followed standards that are prevailing in the industry or complied with community customs (relevant, not dispositive).

Iacomini v. Chapman

When considering Kim v. French, jury should consider whether it was clear that the defendant's conduct in situation was not contemplated by those standards or customs. DEFENDANT NOT ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY WHERE STANDARDS OR CUSTOMS DID NOT CONTEMPLATE THE CONDUCT/SITUATION AT ISSUE.

Pandya v. SchuMOCK (hehe)

Defendant's failure to follow its own internal policies and procedures can support claim for negligence, but NOT DISPOSITIVE. Defendant acting in accordance with its own policies and procedures ALSO NOT DISPOSITIVE on reasonable action BANG.

Adediji v. Adeite

Some activities have predictable risks. If the actor is excused from errors of judgment during a sudden emergency, trier must consider whether emergency was PREDICTABLE and could/should've been addressed by APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES OR TRAINING.

Hopson v. Dawson

Under rare circumstances it is reasonable to take actions that involve a high degree of risk of serious harm to others. example example example blah blah blah the fact that an actors conduct was not negligent AFTER the emergency has arisen DOES NOT preclude liability if the actors own tortious (big word- means wrongful act that causes harm to someone) conduct itself PRODUCED THE EMERGENCY

Bomberger v. Kelly

Individuals with superior skill/knowledge are required to conduct themselves with such superior capacity. Standard of care is the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that trade or profession in good standing in similar communities.

Allen v. Neptune Underwater Expedition

Members of certain trades or professions may possess different levels of skill and knowledge. However, in trades and professions containing both professionals and amateurs, professionals shall be held to a higher standard than amateurs.

Yanka v. Edwards Industries

Causation has two components: direct cause and proximate cause. For direct cause, P must establish either that

a) P would not have been harmed "but for" D conduct

b) D conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm

Proximate cause requires showing that the particular harm suffered by P was BOTH a FORESEEABLE RESULT of the D's wrongful or unlawful conduct AND could have been REASONABLY ANTICIPATED.

Fact finder must identify the risks that made the D actions culpable (deserving of punishment) then determine whether the injury was among those risks.

Haug v. Kolb

"Foreseeable" doesn't mean the defendant had to be able to anticipate target of harm or the precise way the harm would occur. Only requires that the D should have foreseen general type of risk that caused the harm

Purdue v. Waldie

The intervening and superseding causation doctrine relieves D from liability when an INDEPENDENT AND UNFORESEEN EVENT occurs between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the plaintiff's harm. APPLIES ONLY WHEN intervening act was

1. Sufficient by itself to produce the plaintiff's harm

2. Not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant

3. Not itself a direct result of the defendant's wrongful conduct

Carter v. Meyer

Unavoidable accident argues that despite any negligence from the defendant, the harm suffered was unavoidable. Must prove BY PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE that the harm suffered by P would have occurred even if there was zero negligence.

Vir v. Londo Manufacturing Co

A corporation is generally charged with knowledge of any facts learned by its agents within the scope of their employment -- ESPECIALLY when the agent would reasonably be expected to act upon those facts or communicate their knowledge of them to others at the corporation

McMahon v. Mohan

Corporation is legally responsible and liable for all acts of its employees and agents that occur within the scope of their employment

Davis v. HappyLand Toy Co

In wrongful death action, the deceased and surviving spouse are considered "parties" and their statements are not considered hearsay. But, whatever emotional distress caused to the surviving spouse does not qualify as injury. May be overly prejudicial (goodbye emotional surviving spouses RIP be nonchalant my angels)