170 likes | 381 Vues
SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS. DUTY OF PARENTS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE DANGEROUS PERSON— TARASOFF PROFESSIONAL STANDARD CAN PARTY BE IDENTIFIED: COMPARE THOMPSON NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT. DUTY AND LIQUOR. 1. SELLING LIQUOR: BRIGANCE 2. DUTY TO DRIVER? 3. SOCIAL PROVIDERS OF LIQUOR.
E N D
SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS DUTY OF PARENTS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE DANGEROUS PERSON—TARASOFF PROFESSIONAL STANDARD CAN PARTY BE IDENTIFIED: COMPARE THOMPSON NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT
DUTY AND LIQUOR 1. SELLING LIQUOR: BRIGANCE 2. DUTY TO DRIVER? 3. SOCIAL PROVIDERS OF LIQUOR
DUTY AND PROXIMATE CAUSE LIMITING LIABILITY UNDER PROXIMATE CAUSE: THE RISK PRINCIPLE LIMITING LIABILITY UNDER DUTY: CATEGORIZING CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES 1. LANDOWNERS/ OCCUPIERS 2. NONFEASANCE
DUTY AND PROXIMATE CAUSE(Cont.) 3. CONTRACTS AND PROMISES 4. PURE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 5. ECONOMIC LOSS DUTY SETS LEGAL RULES PROXIMATE CAUSE IS MORE FACT SPECIFIC (NOTE 3. P. 570) DUTY USES GENERIC CLASSES OF CASES
CATEGORIZING THE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS RULES TWO LARGE CATEGORIES: 1. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FROM RISKS OF PHYSICAL HARM TO PERSONS PUT AT RISK WHERE THIRD PARTIES AT RISK 2. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS INDEPENDENT OF PHYSICAL RISK
THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE P WAS AT PHYSICAL RISK 1. IMPACT RULE (MITCHELL) IMPACT --> EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 2. PHYSICAL INJURY OR MANIFESTATION EMOTIONAL DISTRESSINJURY/MANIFESTATION 3. PURE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
MORE LIMITATIONS ON RECOVERY FOR E.D. THE “ZONE OF DANGER” TEST GRUBE FEAR FOR ONE’S OWN SAFETY QUESTIONING THE ZONE OF DANGER TEST: DILLON v. LEGG DILLON TEST:P. 575 note 3 THING TEST
SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS: THE NIED PROGRESSION THING TEST ZONE OF DANGER
DIRECT VICTIMS BURGESS 1. P AND D IN A PREEXISTING RELATIONSHIP OR • CLEAR THAT D’S NEGLIGENCE WILL DIRECTLY INJURE P BYSTANDER RULES DON’T APPLY
PROGRESSION OF NIED • IMPACT RULE • ZONE OF DANGER • THING • DILLON 5. GENERAL FORESEEABILITY ANALYSIS
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM GENERAL RULES: • SPOUSES CAN RECOVER • CHILDREN GENERALLY CANNOT • PARENTS GENERALLY CANNOT THE QUESTION OF UNMARRIED COHABITANTS
DUTIES INDEPENDENT OF PHYSICAL RISKS 2 TRADITIONAL EXCEPTIONS 1. DEATH MESSAGES 2. MISHANDLING OF CORPSES SHOULD “MISINFORMATION” IDEA (DEATH MESSAGES) BE EXPANDED? HEINER (586) GENERAL DUTY RULE: SACCO (588)
FEAR OF FUTURE INJURY POTTER (526) WHY DOESN’T THING APPLY? WHY NOT A DIRECT VICTIM? HOLDING: 1. “MORE LIKELY THAN NOT” TO GET CANCER UNLESS 2. MALICE (WILLFUL/CONSCIOUS DISREGARD)
MORE FUTURE FEARS HARTWIG (529) HOW DIFFERENT FROM POTTER? PARASITIC DAMAGE? NO ACTUAL EXPOSURE REQUIREMENT MINORITY RULE TIME PERIOD COVERED
INTRODUCTION TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY 1. SAME AS “RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR” 2. FORM OF STRICT LIABILITY 3. DISTINGUISH: EMPLOYER’S OWN NEGLIGENCE EXAMPLE: NEGLIGENT HIRING 4. WHAT YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF THIS MATERIAL 5. GOALS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
THE BASICS I HOW DO WE DETERMINE? RIVIELLO (557) – THE LITTLE KNIFE ACCIDENT AND FRUIT (558) 1. THE CONTROL THEORY PUPPET MASTER IDEA 2. “DOING HIS MASTER’S WORK” 3. INCIDENT TO THE ENTERPRISE “EMPLOYMENT”—EVEN IF NOT PAID
THE BASICS II TRAVEL TO AND FROM WORK: HINMAN (560) “GOING AND COMING RULE” EXCEPTIONS: 1. INCIDENTAL BENEFIT COMPARE: FAUL (562) 2. SPECIAL HAZARDS 3. DUAL PURPOSE DOCTRINE RELATED IDEA: “FROLIC AND DETOUR”