1 / 20

Chapter 4 Tort Liability

Chapter 4 Tort Liability. Categories Immunity. Tort: Civil wrong, other than breach of contract. Intentional Interference Examples Case Law Examples: Gordon v. Oak Park (1974) Martin v. Kearney (1975). Torts. Negligence Defined:

glenna
Télécharger la présentation

Chapter 4 Tort Liability

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. Chapter 4Tort Liability Categories Immunity

  2. Tort: Civil wrong, other than breach of contract • Intentional Interference • Examples • Case Law Examples: • Gordon v. Oak Park (1974) • Martin v. Kearney (1975) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  3. Torts • Negligence • Defined: • Conduct that falls below an acceptable standard with injury, harm or loss resulting from same • Types of negligent behaviors: • Misfeasance: • Malfeasance: • Nonfeasance: • Gross negligence: CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  4. Torts • Other Terms Relating to Negligence: • Comparative negligence: • Contributory negligence: • Assumption of risk: • Foreseeability: • Attractive nuisance: • Inherent danger CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  5. Torts • Focus Questions: • What are examples of “injury,” “loss,” or “harm?” • How is “acceptable standard” determined? • How does one “assume risk?” • What are some examples of “attractive nuisances?” • Who has the burden of proof in negligence cases? CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  6. Torts • Negligence: • 14th Amendment • Summary: • Applications to negligence suits • 42 USC §1983 • Summary: • Applications to negligence suits CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  7. Torts • Court Standards for Finding Negligence: • Was there a standard of care or duty owed? • Did someone fail to provide the care or duty? • Was there harm, injury or loss? • Was the injury or harm or loss caused by the failure to provide the care or duty? CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  8. Torts:Negligence Case Law • Kane v. North Colonie Central School District (2000) • Summary: • Decision: (illustrates assumption of risk) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  9. Torts • Accountability • Parameters • School performance? • Teacher accountability? • Conduct of employee? CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  10. Torts:Accountability Case Law • Scheelhaase v. Woodbury Community Ctr. Sch. Dist (1973) • Summary: • Decision: (illustrates accountability of teacher for improved student performance) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  11. Torts:Accountability Case Law • Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1973) • Summary: • Decision: (illustrates external factors may limit accountability of school district for student’s lack of learning) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  12. Torts • Civil Rights Torts • Definition • Parameters under 42 USC §1983 CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  13. Torts:Civil Rights Torts Case Law • Johnson v. Branch (1966) • Summary: • Decision: (illustrates protection of rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  14. Torts:Civil Rights Torts Case Law • Carey v. Piphus (1978) • Summary: • Decision: (illustrates extent of student rights and limits of damages that may be awarded) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  15. Torts:Civil Rights Torts Case Law • Maine v. Thiboutot (1980) • Summary: • Decision: (illustrates application of § 1983 to deprivation of rights under statutory law) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  16. Immunity Background Parameters Cases

  17. Background • Historical Precedents • Russell v. Men of Devon (1788) • Mower v. Leicester (1812) • Some states abandoned automatic immunity for government officials and allow suits to be brought forward • What does state law say about immunity for school district employees/officials? • Effect of 42 USC §1983? CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  18. Parameters • A government employee (including school employee or official) may be immune from suit if: • the employee is acting within the scope of his/her job description; • the employee, in carrying out his/her job, is expected to use professional discretion to make a lot of decisions; and • the employee’s conduct it not grossly negligent • The employee’s conduct does not violate 42 USC §1983 CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  19. Immunity: Case Law • Wood v. Strickland (1975) • Summary: • Decision: ( illustrates that having a policy that violates protected right does NOT meet criteria for immunity argument) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

  20. Immunity: Case Law • McCleod v. City of New York (2006) • Summary: • Decision: • Mei Kay Chan v. City of Yonkers (2006) • Summary: • Decision: (both illustrate role of “foreseeability” in immunity defenses) CHAPTER 4: TORT LIABILITY

More Related