1 / 17

MID-YEAR EXAM

MID-YEAR EXAM. 25% OF FINAL GRADE FOR COURSE 75% ESSAY 25% MULTIPLE CHOICE TIME: PROBABLY 3 HOURS. ESSAY FIRST, THEN MULTIPLE CHOICE. MID-YEAR EXAM (CONT.). TEST: WEDNESDAY 10/20 REVIEW: MERRIFIELD HALL OFFICE HOURS: MONDAY DEC. 18: 4 TO 8. TUESDAY DEC. 19: 4 TO 7

bonita
Télécharger la présentation

MID-YEAR EXAM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MID-YEAR EXAM 25% OF FINAL GRADE FOR COURSE 75% ESSAY 25% MULTIPLE CHOICE TIME: PROBABLY 3 HOURS. ESSAY FIRST, THEN MULTIPLE CHOICE

  2. MID-YEAR EXAM (CONT.) TEST: WEDNESDAY 10/20 REVIEW: MERRIFIELD HALL OFFICE HOURS: MONDAY DEC. 18: 4 TO 8. TUESDAY DEC. 19: 4 TO 7 (213) 736-1098 DAN.SELMI@LLS.EDU

  3. REVIEW THE MARKET SHARE THEORY THE THEORY THE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS THE “LOST CHANCE” DOCTRINE THE THEORY POSSIBLE RAMIFICATIONS ALTERNATIVES

  4. THE FOURTH ELEMENT: INTRO TO PROXIMATE CAUSE 1. REASON FOR PROXIMATE CAUSE: HYPO: THE NEGLIGENT SURGEON HYPO: MRS. OLEARY’S COW 2. PROXIMATE CAUSE IS A POLICY QUESTION

  5. INTRO TO PROXIMATE CAUSE (CONT.) “PROXIMATE CAUSE DETERMINATIONS INVOLVE CASE-SPECIFIC INQUIRIES INTO WHETHER THE D SHOULD BE HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE P. EVEN WHEN THE D WAS NEGLIGENT AND IN FACT CAUSED THE HARM, COURTS MAY REFUSE TO IMPOSE LIABILITY FOR REASONS OF POLICY OR JUSTICE.”

  6. INTRO TO PROXIMATE CAUSE (CONT.) 3. TERMINOLOGY 4. WHEN PROXIMATE CAUSE ISSUES ARISE: (1) BIZARRE SITUATIONS (2) UNFORESEEABLE OR UNLIKELY HARM (3) THE “D1-D2 SCENARIO”

  7. END OF INTRO TO PROXIMATE CAUSE TWO QUESTIONS: • WHAT IF P FAILS TO GUARD AGAINST A HARM THAT CANNOT BE FORESEEN? • WHAT IF D FAILS TO GUARD AGAINST RISK THAT SHOULD BE FORESEEN, BUT HARM OCCURS IN UNANTICIPATED WAY?

  8. THE RISK RULE MEDCALF (235) THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE TEST FOR PROXIMATE CAUSE: THE RISK RULE APPLYING THE RULE: WHAT WERE THE RISKS THAT MADE D NEGLIGENT? ABRAMS (237) APPLYING THE RISK RULE DID COURT HAVE THE CORRECT RISK?

  9. PRACTICING THE RISK RULE PAGE 238 NOTE 3: • THE WAGON MOUND • THE BLOOD TRANSFUSION • THE FIRE ENGINE • THE OFF-DUTY POLICEPERSON

  10. PALSGRAF THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENT ACT RISKS OF HARM— PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY HARM OUTCOME: BODILY HARM WHY NO RECOVERY?

  11. MORE PALSGRAF WHAT DOES PALSGRAF DO TO THE RISK RULE? THE “ZONE OF DANGER” QUOTE #1: PAGE 240 The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed, and risk imports relation; it is risk to another or to others within the range of apprehension.

  12. PALSGRAF III QUOTE #1 PAGE 239: The conduct of the D’s guard, if a wrong in relation to the holder of package, was not a wrong in relation to the plaintiff, standing so far away. Relatively to her, it was not negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed.

  13. STILL PALSGRAFING ANDREWS DISSENT: THE QUESTION QUOTE 241#1: Is it [negligence] a relative concept—the breach of some duty owing to a particular person or to particular persons? Or where there is an act which unreasonably threatens the safety of others, is the doer liable for all its proximate consequences, even where they result in injury to one who generally would be though tto be outside the radius of danger?

  14. PALSGRAF FOREVER COMPARE: ANDREWS DISSENT NEGLIGENCE TO THE “PUBLIC AT LARGE” QUOTE 241#2: The act itself is wrongful. It is a wrong not only to those who happen to be within the radius of danger but to all who might have been there—a wrong to the public at large… BUT: THERE ARE LIMITS

  15. POST-PALSGRAF POINTS P. 245 NOTE 4: FORESEEING NO HARM P. 245 NOTE 5: CARDOZO LOCUTION P. 245 NOTE 9: WHAT COURTS HAVE DONE SITUATION: R/R IS NEGLIGENT TOWARDS A BUT ENDS UP HURTING B. SOUND FAMILIAR?

  16. THE RESCUE DOCTRINE WAGNER (226) APPLYING THE RISK RULE CARDOZO’S PRINCIPLE LIMITS OF THE RESCUE DOCTRINE • INSTINCTIVE RESCUE NOT NEEDED • UNBROKEN CONTINUITY • RESCUER’S CONTRIBUTORY NEG. COMPARE: VIOLATION OF STATUTE TO RISK RULE

  17. RISK RULE: ASSESSING THE SCOPE OF THE RISK HUGHES (247) APPLYING THE RULE CHARACTERIZING THE “MECHANISM” OR MANNER OF OCCURRENCE COMPARE: DOUGHTY (248) CAN YOU RECONCILE THE CASES?

More Related