Twerski Tort Fall 2014

8/10/2019 Twerski Tort Fall 2014

1/80

TORTS REVIEW F ALL 2009

Chapter 1: Intentional Torts

A. Intent1. Garrat v. Dailey (1955)

Facts: Plaintiff is a woman named Rut !a""att# w o went to sit in a $a"den % ai" in e" &a%'(a"d w en )"ian*aile(# a fi+e (ea" old# mo+ed t e % ai" f"om it,s o"i$inal -osition# %ausin$ to fall to t e $"ound and f"a%tu"ee" i-.

Rule: )atte"( is t e intentional infli%tion of a a"mful &odil( %onta%t u-on anot e". Issue: *oes someone %ommit a &atte"( w en t e( a"e unawa"e of t e &odil( a"m t at %ould &e %aused &(

t ei" a%tions/ Holding: Wit out 'nowled$e of t e w"on$ful a%t# t e"e %an &e no lia&ilit(.

o Intent has 2 possible requirements : desi"e to do a"m# o" 'nowled$e wit su&stantial %e"taint( %ondu%twill %ause a"m

o Trial judge sat as finder of fact in trial court; dismissed t e %ase &ased on )"ian,s 'nowled$e nots own1

o ppealed! 3 4ase "emanded as to dete"mine )"ian,s 'nowled$e5 fo%used too mu% on definition 6 andnot on 2. !et le$al definition "i$ t and "et in' t e fa%ts.

T"ers#i re$ie" 7 We %ame out of !a""at w8 -ossi&le definitions of intent7 6. A%tin$ wit -u"-ose o" moti+e to a"m o" offend -ointed out t at one %an a%t w8 -u"-ose o" moti+e to a"m o" offend and not a%t wit 'nowled$e to su&stantial%e"taint( t at t e a"mful8offensi+e %onta%t would ta'e -la%e $et down on 'nees and -"a( s e falls down &ut not su"e itwould a--en.1 2. A%tin$ wit 'nowled$e to su&stantial %e"taint( t at a"mful o" offensi+e %onta%t will ta'e -la%e. notne%essa"il( a+e t e moti+e o" -u"-ose to u"t5 mo+e % ai" &8% e wanted to sit# 'new s e,d fall &ut it wasn,t w ( e wasa%tin$1 . T e %ou"t ma'es mention in diffe"ent -la%es :im ;ende"son "eads it t is wa(8 Twe"s'i as diffi%ult( wit "definition1 t at 'nowled$e to su&stantial %e"taint( t at %onta%t will ta'e -la%e A


2/80

o T is do%t"ine a--lies to an( of t e fi+e intent to"ts# and will suffi%e to ma'e out t e intent of t e defendant.o If o"i$inall( used and intended to use "easona&le fo"%e# would &e no &atte"( and no t"ansfe"

). )atte"(1. %r&os'a v. lsen 1*

Facts: Plaintiffs a"e e? -atients of C# a de%eased dentist w o was infe%ted wit ;IV5 C -"a%ti%ed wit ;IV fo" 2(ea"s 'nowin$ of is infe%tion# and sto--ed a few wee's &efo"e is os-italiDation and deat 5 *elawa"e*i+ision of ;ealt told is -atients of t e issue afte" e died5 none of t e 0 -atients we"e found -ositi+e5*i+ision deemed is ste"iliDation -"a%ti%es we"e &ette" t an a+e"a$e5 s sued o+e" mental an$uis # not- (si%al ailments.

Rule: )atte"(o Intentional %onta%t u-on t e -e"son of anot e" w i% is a"mful o" offensi+e5o 4onta%t# not a"m5 t e "esult also must offend a reasonable person's inte$"it(5 Law does not -e"mit

"e%o+e"( fo" t e e?t"emel( sensiti+e5 must offend a "easona&le sense of -e"sonal di$nit( Issue 1: 4an t e -e"fo"man%e of dental -"o%edu"es &( an ;IV infe%ted dentist# standin$ alone# %onstitute

offensi+e &odil( %onta%t fo" -u"-oses of &atte"(# i.e.# would su% tou% in$ offend a "easona&le sense of -e"sonal di$nit(/

Issue 2: 4an a -atient "e%o+e" dama$es fo" t"eatment &( a ealt %a"e -"o+ide" affli%ted wit AI*S a&sent as owin$ of a "esultant - (si%al in u"( o" e?-osu"e to disease/

Holding: T e in%idental tou% in$ of a -atient &( an ;IV infe%ted dentist w ile -e"fo"min$ o"dina"(# %onsentedto dental -"o%edu"es is insuffi%ient to sustain a &atte"( %laim in t e a&sen%e of a % annel fo" ;IV infe%tion.Su% %onta%t is offensi+eG onl( if it "esults in a%tual e?-osu"e to t e ;IV +i"us.

(((Footnote((( generall& reasonableness is decided b& a jur&) )ottom -6H Footnote 9 *other case sent dead bod& to embalmer + didn't tell him it "as I,s infected bod&) 1 nli'e assault w e"e (ou need to &e awa"e of t e a--"e ension# &atte"( (ou do not need to &e. $i"l 'issed

w ile slee-in$# w en wa'es u- told s e was 'issed as a %ase= Poisoned % o%olate (-o &ottom of -a$e207 no "easona&le -e"son would su& e%t t emsel+es to t at 'ind of "is'.1

2. +isher v. ,arro sel -otor otel Facts: O%%u"s at a otel "estau"ant in t e 69 0,s5 As was a&out to $et food# C Fl(nn em-lo(ee of otel1

snat% ed is -late and told im a ne$"o wouldn,t &e se"+ed t e"e5 testified t at e was not tou% ed# did nottestif( to suffe"in$ fea"# &ut i$ l( em&a""assed and u"t &( C.

Rule: P (si%al %onta%t is not ne%essa"( to %onstitute a &atte"(# so lon$ as t e"e is %onta%t wit %lot in$ o" ano& e%t %losel( identified wit t e &od(.

Issue 1: W et e" a &atte"( e?ists w en t e - (si%al %onta%t is an a%t su% as $"a&&in$ an item f"om anot e"#su% as a -late in t is %ase.

Holding: T e fo"%eful dis-ossession of -laintiff Fis e",s -late in an offensi+e manne" was suffi%ient to%onstitute a &atte"(.o To"t &e%ause t e -late was snat% ed out of is and# an undesi"a&le tou% in$.

Issue 2: W et e" an em-lo(e" is lia&le fo" t e %ondu%t of is em-lo(ee mana$e". Holding: T e a%t is aut o"iDed &( t e em-lo(e" if t e a$ent was em-lo(ed in a mana$e"ial %a-a%it( and was

in t e s%o-e of is em-lo(ment# t us ma'in$ t e em-lo(e" lia&le. *4lass dis%ussion w8o tou% in$ not a &atte"( @ not su"e %ould ma'e out intentional infli%tion of emotional

dist"ess &8% not su"e e suffe"ed se+e"e emotional dist"ess w8o it don,t a+e %ause of a%tion1 $o afte" &atte"(if (ou a+e a % oi%e &8% (ou"e entitled to an%illa"( dama$es fo" emotional dist"ess w e"eas to ma'e outse+e"e emotional dist"ess unde" intentional infli%tion of emotional dist"ess is diffi%ult1. 4ou"t im-osed -uniti+edama$es on em-lo(e" &ased on t e fa%t t e a$ent was em-lo(ed in mana$e"ial %a-a%it( a%tin$ in s%o-e of em-lo(ment and t e"efo"e -uniti+e dama$es %ould sti%'. ;u$e de&ate -ast 60 (ea"s a&out -uniti+e dama$es@ t ei" siDe= some awa"ds t at a+e &een made a"e u$e. 6> (ea"s a$o Su-"eme 4ou"t $ot into &usiness of

"e+iewin$ -uniti+e dama$es as +iolations of due -"o%ess w en u$e= %ases -endin$5 %ou"t as %ut down-uniti+e dama$es +e"( su&stantiall(. O-en / in man( %ases t e %ou"t as indi%ated t at -uniti+e dama$esa+e to a+e a "atio &etween %om-ensato"( dama$es. Said "atio of an(t in$ o+e" 9 to 6 mi$ t &e

un%onstitutional.4. Assault

6. !ene"al nde"standin$ of t e Law Assault affe%ts t e mind of t e -laintiff to lead t e -laintiff to &elie+e t at s e is in immediate a"m. )atte"( does not "eJui"e an assault

o T in' of t e e?am-le of 'issin$ a $i"l in e" slee- s e does not 'now t at it was a--enin$. Result of assault is someone &ein$ in a--"e ension

2. /estern 0nion Telegra h ,o. v. ill


3/80

Facts: * is an em-lo(e" and em-lo(ee w o +e"&all( a"assed a %ustome"# t e P5 em-lo(ee of defendant,ss o- Sa--1 in+ited -laintiff,s wife &e ind %ounte" in defendant,s offi%e# and said t at if s e would let im -ete"# e would fi? e" %lo%'5 e told e" e would fi? it if s e would let im lo+e and -et e"5 e e?tended isa"m &ut did not tou% e"5 s e um-ed &a%'# t in'in$ s e was in dan$e" of "a-e5

Rule: To %onstitute an assault t e"e must &e an intentional# unlawful# offe" to tou% t e -e"son of anot e" in a"ude o" an$"( manne" unde" su% %i"%umstan%es as to %"eate in t e mind of t e -a"t( alle$in$ t e assault awell founded fea" of an imminent &atte"(# %ou-led wit t e a--a"ent -"esent a&ilit( to ma'e t e attem-t# if not-"e+ented.

Holding: Sin%e t e assault in t is %ase was %lea"l( f"om a moti+e o" -u"-ose solel( and alone to satisf( t e

sensuous desi"es of Sa--# and not in t e fu"t e"an%e of t e &usiness of t e defendant# t e lia&ilit( "ests witt e a$ent Sa--1 and not t e em-lo(e"5 t us# t e em-lo(e" is not lia&le in t is suit5 Sa-- was not sued&e%ause e ad no assets.

%ossible ,efenses: Sin%e assault is an intentional %onta%t of t e mind to"t# e %ould sa( ad no intention of "a-e5 ma(&e t e( %ould sa( t at e was ne$li$ent and t at is %ondu%t was un"easona&le# &ut not t at e wasto"tious fo" wantin$ to "a-e t e woman5 ne$li$ent infli%tion of emotional dist"ess would &e a "easona&le% a"$e# not assault. ad no intentK

W ( tu"n to law to %onsent if I ad no intent of %ausin$ a--"e ension8 a"m I t ou$ t it was o'/ 4ou"t dis%ussion of widt of des' 5 loo' B d"un'# o'in$ o" se"ious# et%. Assault is intentional to"t5 a+e to intend to %ause a--"e ension and as to &e suffe"ed on &e alf of Plaintiff

*. False Im-"isonment6. !ene"al nde"standin$ of t e Law

An a%to" is lia&le fo" t e to"t of false im-"isonment w en e intends to %onfine anot e" wit in fi?ed &ounda"iesand t e ot e" -e"son is %ons%ious of t e %onfinement.o T e most f"eJuent liti$ated %ases a"ise f"om %ustome"s o" em-lo(ees w o a"e detained fo" Juestionin$

&e%ause t e( a"e sus-e%ted of s o-liftin$. False im-"isonment is a lot li'e assault and not li'e &atte"(.

o Assault is an intention of affe%tin$ one,s mind5 %"eates t e a--"e ension of a"m.o Mind to mind to"t# not - (si%al

2. Grant v. Sto Go -ar'et o Te4as 6n". Facts: P was a%%used of s o-liftin$ f"om a $"o%e"( sto"e5 u-on lea+in$ t e sto"e# was $"a&&ed &( t e

mana$e" and a%%used of stealin$ a -a%' of %i$a"ettes5 $"a&&ed is a"m5 -oli%e we"e %alled to t e s%ene anda""i+ed in 6> 20 minutes5 P did not lea+e &e%ause e was s%a"ed t at lea+in$ would indi%ate $uilt# t ou$ edidn,t steal t e %i$a"ettes5 Pa"t of P testimon( is t at * said e %ouldn,t lea+e. To- - 6 * said e didn,t sa( P%ouldn,t lea+e. *is-uted fa%t# $o to u"( don,t $et summa"( ud$ment. T"ial %ou"t $"anted it5 a--eals %ou"t sa(st is is not summa"( ud$ment.

Rule: Elements of false im-"isonment a"e 61 a willful detention# 21 wit out %onsent# and 1 wit out aut o"it(of law. * as to intend to %onfine and P as to in fa%t &e %onfined.

Issue: Is t e false im-"isonment %laim a--li%a&le w en t e -laintiff feels as t ou$ e is not f"ee to lea+e/ Holding: Fo" P5 alt ou$ - (si%al "est"aint is one wa( to esta&lis a willful detention# it ma( also &e

a%%om-lis ed &( +iolen%e# t "eats# o" an( ot e" means t at "est"ains a -e"son f"om mo+in$ f"om one -la%e toanot e" in t is %ase# it is t e $"a&&in$ of P,s a"m and t e fea" of t e %o-s %omin$5 *,s %laims fo" t eS o-'ee-e",s P"i+ile$e a"e not +alid &e%ause t e( do not satisf( t e element of detention in a "easona&letime8manne"7 "elies on Resen#e& fo" t e "easona&le time# &ut %ou"t "ules t at unli'e in Resen#e& in w i% 606> minutes we"e deemed "easona&le# P was detained fo" 6> 20 minutes in t e sto"e# and anot e" ou" in t e-"e%in%t# t us not ma'in$ t is a--li%a&le.

. S o-'ee-e",s P"i+ile$e 61 A "easona&le &elief a -e"son as stolen o" is attem-tin$ to steal5

21 *etention fo" a "easona&le time to in+esti$ate -ossession of -"o-e"t(15 1 *etention in a "easona&le manne".Twe"s'i sa(s wit out e?-li%itl( tellin$ im (ou"e f"ee to lea+e t e situation is so %oe"%i+e e feels %onfined.1t e law sa(s a lot de-ends on t e fa%ts= did t e -e"son feel f"ee to lea+e/ Fi"st / (ou,ll a+e to deal wit .


4/80

Facts: P is a 2 (ea" old wo"'e" in a fa%to"( w o as a stutte"5 * is is mana$e" w o as made fun of im fo" is s-ee% -"o&lem a&out 0 times5 P was unde" t e %a"e of a - (si%ian fo" (ea"s -"io"# -"es%"i&ed -ills fo" an?iet(5 teasin$ and "ou$ ousin$ we"e %ommon in t ei" -la%e of &usiness5 P was dee-l( affe%ted &( t is# ledto a&usin$ is wife and a 2 wee' se-a"ation.

Issue: 4an a -e"son "e%o+e" fo" a to"t of intentional infli%tion of emotional dist"ess w en e is +e"&all( teasedin is wo"' -la%e &e%ause of a s-ee% im-ediment/

Rule: 61 4ondu%t must &e intentional o" "e%'less5 21 4ondu%t must &e e?t"eme and out"a$eous5 1 T e"emust &e a %ausal %onne%tion &etween t e w"on$ful %ondu%t and t e emotional dist"ess5 1 T e emotionaldist"ess must &e se+e"e. Restatement 1

Holding: T e umiliation was not so intense as to %onstitute se+e"eGo T e %ou"t did not "ule on w et e" t e a&use was e?t"eme and out"a$eous. T is %ase %annot &e %ited now

in a %ase w e"e t e a&use is in Juestion. T is is &e%ause "ulin$ on su% an issue would $i+e a -"ett(&"oad "ulin$ as to w at %onstitutes t is so"t of a&use.

o Lowe" %t said was e?t"eme @ out"a$eous &ut P didn,t suffe" se+e"e emotional dist"esso On A--eal M* Su-"eme 4ou"t t e( do not affi"m t e e?t"eme and out"a$eous# t e( sa( we don,t a+e to

"ea% t at / as a matte" of law &e%ause t at,s a / of fa%t fo" a u"(8sideste--in$ t e /1 we a"e sim-l($oin$ to de%ide t at t e P did not suffe" se+e"e enou$ emotional dist"ess. W en %an de%ide on na""ow$"ounds t at %ant &e "e-eated.

o First time se$erit& becomes an element of the action if (ou don,t a+e se+e"e in u"( no matte" owout"a$eous %ondu%t was (ou don,t a+e %ause of a%tion. 4ou"ts a+e &een +e"( tou$ on w at is e?t"emeand out"a$eous %ondu%t. t e( do not send t em "outinel( to u"ies= t e( ste- in1

o T"ers#i sa&s emot dist"ess is made of 2 -a"ts 6. Pa"t t at isn,t e?t"eme and 2. Pa"t t at is. T e -a"t

t at,s &elow t e t "es old %auses ? amount of emotional dist"ess and if (ou we"e to &e fai" (ou,d almosta+e to dis%ount fo" t e -a"t t at,s o'. Nou stin' dis%ountG

F. T"es-ass to Land6. !ene"al nde"standin$

A -ossesso" of "eal -"o-e"t( as a "i$ t to e?%lusi+e -ossession.o One w o intentionall( ente"s land in t e -ossession of anot e" as %ommitted t e to"t of t"es-ass to land.o One w o mista'enl( ste-s on anot e",s -"o-e"t(# &elie+in$ it to &e is own# %ommits t e to"t too.

T is is &e%ause it is still done intentionall(. Nou intentionall( ste- t e"e t in'in$ it is (ou"s and t e fa%tt at it was a mista'e doesn,t matte". Ranson el-s t is out.

2. Rogers v. Kent %oar# o ,o nty Roa# ,ommissioners Facts: *e%edent was mowin$ is -"o-e"t( w en e "an o+e" a -ole left in t e $"ound &( C5 fo" two winte"

seasons# C o&tained a li%ense to -ut a fen%e and an% o" -osts -a"allel to de%edent,s fa"m# on de%edent,s-"o-e"t(5 in t e t i"d winte"# C ne$le%ted to "emo+e a steel an% o" -ost# w i% was H in% es a&o+e $"ound ina meadow t at ad +e"( tall $"ass# dis$uisin$ it.

%rocedural %osture! lowe" %ou"t found no %ause of a%tion fo" ne$li$en%e &8% of $o+e"nment immunit( &ut nosu% immunit( fo" t"es-ass.

Rule: 6 07 Failu"e to Remo+e a T in$ Pla%ed on t e Land Pu"suant to a Li%ense o" Ot e" P"i+ile$e at"es-ass ma( &e %ommitted &( t e %ontinued -"esen%e on t e land of a st"u%tu"e# % attel o" ot e" t in$ w i%t e a%to" as -la%ed t e"eon.

Issue: Is lea+in$ somet in$ on anot e",s -"o-e"t( a t"es-ass# on%e t e %ont"a%t as e?-i"ed/ Holding: Failu"e to "emo+e t e an% o" sta'e u-on e?-i"ation of t e li%ense to a+e it on defendant,s land was

a %ontinuin$ t"es-ass and is alle$ed &( -laintiff to a+e &een a -"o?imate %ause of t e dama$e# w i% s esee's to "e%o+e". Re+e"sed and "emanded found not immune f"om ne$li$en%e.

T"ers#i questions the restatement) Sees &"ea% of Q &ut not t"es-ass. uestionin$ intent5 ne$li$ent8fo"$ot&ut not intentional a"$ument. Raises t e issue not su"e t at t e("e "i$ t.

!. T"es-ass to 4 attels and 4on+e"sion6. !ene"al Info"mation Twin to"ts of t"es-ass to % attels and %on+e"sion deal wit t e intentional inte"fe"en%es wit t e -e"sonal

-"o-e"t( of ot e"s. T e diffe"en%e de-ends on t e se"iousness of t e inte"fe"en%e.o T"es-ass to 4 attel

Mino" inte"fe"en%e*efendant -a(s onl( t e +alue of t e a"m %aused to t e % attel

o Wit out dama$e to t e % attel t e"e is no %ause of a%tion fo" t"es-ass to % attelsReJui"es -"oof of a"m to % attel in%luded in %ause of a%tion t e se+e"it( of a"m1 simila" tointentional infli%tion of emotional dist"ess. W (/ If it wasn,t it would &e an administ"ati+e ni$ tma"e.

o 4on+e"sionSe"ious inte"fe"en%e


5/80

Law $i+es -laintiff t e o-tion of "etainin$ t e % attel and "e%o+e"in$ t e +alue of t e a"m f"om t edefendant o" "elinJuis in$ t e % attel to t e defendant and "e%o+e"in$ its fai" ma"'et +alueTwe"s'i doesn,t a$"ee w8 Restatement,s dominion of %ont"ol5 Twe"s'i &elie+es intend to steal in &adfait tu"ns into %on+e"te" o" t"es-ass to % attel $one &ad.

6ntel ,or v ami#i PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff company sued defendant, a former employee, claiming that by communicating with itsemployees over its electronic mail (e-mail) system defendant committed the tort of trespass to chattels seeking actual damages and aninjunction against further e-mail messages (later waiving nuisance charge and damage request).

he trial court granted the company!s motion for summary judgment and enjoined defendant from any further mailings. " #ppealed.he $ourt of #ppeal, hird "istrict, $alifornia, affirmed. he instant court granted defendant!s petition for review.Issue: "id %amidi&s use of 'ntel&s electronic mail system constitute trespass to chattels

Facts: %amidi w others formed an organi*ation named former and current employees of intel (+#$ -'ntel). ver a / month period,on si0 occasions over almost two years, defendant sent e-mails critici*ing the company!s employment practices to numerous currentemployees on the company!s e-mail system. "efendant breached no computer security barriers in order to communicate with thecompany!s employees. %e offered to, and did, remove from his mailing list any recipient who so wished. %amidi did admit to evading

blocking efforts on 'ntel&s behalf by using different sending computers. "efendant!s communications caused neither physical damagenor functional disruption to the company!s computers, nor did they deprive the company of the use of its computers. he contents ofthe messages, however, caused discussion among employees and managers.Reasoning 1 he " interference must to be actionable have caused some injury to the chattel or to the plaintiff&s rights in it. he instantcourt concluded that the company did not present undisputed facts demonstrating an injury to its personal property, or to its legalinterest in that property, that supported, under $alifornia tort law, an action for trespass to chattels. he 2estatement also makes clearthat some actual injury must have occurred in order for a trespass to chattels be actionable. 2egarding constitutional considerations,the principal of a right not to listen, founded in personal autonomy, could not justify the sweeping injunction issued against allcommunication to the company!s addresses, for such a right, logically, could be e0ercised only by, or at the behest of, the recipienthimself or herself. $ourt acknowledges the internet is not a public space.Holding: 3o, there was no actual damage. he judgment of the court of appeal was reversed.#. werski believes 45,555 emails seems to be trespass to chattel especially after being told to stop. 6ery unconvinced by analogy to

trespass to chattels (hand on book) $ourt hanging on to an old doctrine to decide internet issue and finds it close to outrageous.his is not a de minimis case. 7' obviously agree with the dissent.8

9. %ypo : on page ;;< werski likens the emails to telephone calls, 45 seconds to write read distribute to that many people.

2. ,om Serve 6n". v. ,y:er =romotions 6n". Facts: P is an inte"net se"+i%e -"o+ide" w o is losin$ %ustome"s due to un' emails sent &( *5 P is %laimin$

t at t e un' emails a"e t"es-assin$ &e%ause t e( a"e affe%tin$ -"o-e"t(5 P as notified * t at t e( a"e-"o i&ited f"om sendin$ t ese emails5 * as ta'en ste-s to a+oid dete%tion &( P5 P,s %lients -a( fo" use of t ese"+i%e# and find t at dealin$ wit *,s emails is a nuisan%e5 email sent to 4om-uSe"+e su&s%"i&e"s is-"o%essed and sto"ed on P,s eJui-ment5 P,s eJui-ment as finite -"o%essin$ and sto"a$e %a-a%it(5 ele%t"oni%si$nals $ene"ated and sent &( %om-ute" a+e &een eld to &e suffi%ientl( - (si%all( tan$i&le to su--o"t at"es-ass %ause of a%tion5

Issue: *oes an ISP a+e t e "i$ t to -"e+ent a %omme"%ial ente"-"ise f"om sendin$ unsoli%ited emailad+e"tisin$ to its su&s%"i&e"s/

Rule: Restatement Se%ond1 To"ts 222A. 4on+e"sion is an intentional e?e"%ise of dominion o" %ont"ol t at sose"iousl( inte"fe"es wit t e "i$ t of anot e" to %ont"ol it t at t e a%to" ma( ustl( &e "eJui"ed to -a( t e ot e" t e full +alue of t e % attel.

Holding: Fo" P &e%ause *s a+e adeJuate alte"nati+e means of %ommuni%ation a+aila&le to t em7 sendemail to non 4om-uSe"+e use"s5 online &ulletin &oa"ds5 we& -a$e ad+e"tisements5 fa%simile t"ansmissions5.S. mail o" telema"'etin$.

o P as demonst"ated t at *,s int"usion into t ei" %om-ute" s(stems a"m *,s &usiness "e-utation and$oodwill. T is is t e so"t of in u"( t at wa""ants t e issuan%e of a -"elimina"( in un%tion &e%ause t e a%tualloss is im-ossi&le to %om-ute.

;. An m&"ella Intentional To"t don,t fall into assault# &atte"(# false im-"ison# intention infli# et%16. Restatement T i"d1 of To"ts7 >. Lia&ilit( fo" Intentional P (si%al ;a"ms

An a%to" w o intentionall( %auses - (si%al a"m is su& e%t to lia&ilit( fo" t at a"m.o In %ases in+ol+in$ - (si%al a"m# -"oof of intent -"o+ides a &asi% %ase fo" lia&ilit(# alt ou$ +a"ious

affi"mati+e defenses ma( &e a+aila&le. ;owe+e"# as t e fo%us s ifts f"om - (si%al a"m to ot e" fo"ms of a"m# t e intent to %ause a"m ma( &e an im-o"tant &ut not a suffi%ient %ondition fo" lia&ilit(.

o 60 -"o& ma'e it unde" um&"ella intentional to"t and s ould# 9 -"o& ma'e it &ut s ouldn,t. ->

Chapter 2: %ri$ileges-,efenses


6/80

A. 4onsent6. !ene"al 4on%e-t

One is -"i+ile$ed to a%t in a %e"tain wa( w en one owes no le$al dut( to "ef"ain f"om so a%tin$.o Te"m "efe"s to %ondu%t t at would no"mall( &e -"o i&ited# &ut# unde" t e %i"%umstan%es# is allowed.

T e defendant &ea"s t e &u"dens of &ot -"odu%in$ -"oof to su--o"t t e -"i+ile$e8defense and -e"suadin$ t et"ie" of fa%t of its +alidit(.

One %onsents to t e a%ts of anot e" if one is su& e%ti+el( willin$ fo" t at %ondu%t to o%%u".o 4onsent %an &e %ommuni%ated# &ut it %an also &e -"o+ed t at t e willin$ state of mind e?ists# and t en

%ondu%t ma( &e le$all( -"i+ile$ed. H92. Meanin$ of 4onsent

o 4onsent is willin$ness in fa%t fo" %ondu%t to o%%u". It ma( &e manifested &( a%tion o" ina%tion and neednot &e %ommuni%ated to t e a%to".

o If wo"ds o" %ondu%t a"e "easona&l( unde"stood &( anot e" to &e intended as %onsent# t e( %onstitutea--a"ent %onsent and a"e as effe%ti+e as %onsent in fa%t.

2. >%rien v. , nar# Steamshi ,o. Facts: Steams i- on its wa( f"om I"eland to )oston ad si$ns indi%atin$ t at +a%%inations would &e $i+en as

a %on+enien%e to its -assen$e"s to asten t ei" %ustoms -"o%eedin$s5 P sues * &e%ause a su"$eonadministe"s +a%%ination w ile s e is waitin$ on line wit ot e" women w o a"e $ettin$ +a%%inated5 w en it&e%ame P,s tu"n on line# s e did not %ommuni%ate %lea"l( wit t e do%to" t at s e ad al"ead( ad a +a%%ine#and ust needed t e %a"d indi%atin$ t at s e was +a%%inated5 t e do%to" $a+e e" t e s ot &e%ause of t is#and as a "esult s e suffe"ed s'in e"u-tions5 P %laims * is lia&le fo" &atte"(.

Issue: W et e" %onsent e?ists w en t e -laintiff does not +e"&all( %ommuni%ate t at s e would li'e to &eadministe"ed a s ot5 *id t e do%to" use fo"%e u-on t e -laintiff a$ainst e" will/

Holding: :ud$ment fo" t e *5 T ose in line wit t e P indi%ated &( t ei" %ondu%t t at t e( desi"ed to a+ailt emsel+es to t e -"o+isions made fo" t ei" &enefit. T e"e was not in$ in t e %ondu%t of P to indi%ate to t esu"$eon t at s e did not wis to o&tain a %a"d t at would sa+e e" f"om detention at Jua"antine# and to &e+a%%inated# if ne%essa"(# fo" t at -u"-ose. %ou"t sa(s o+e"t a%ts1 Su"$eon,s %ondu%t in li$ t of t e su""oundin$%i"%umstan%es was lawful5 if e" &e a+io" indi%ated t at s e was %onsentin$ to t e a%t# t en is &e a+io" is$uided.

T"ers#i questions "hether she has a cause of action for batter&) Peo-le t"eated as stee"a$e# %ase is asi$n of ow mu% info is a "easona&le amount of info &efo"e (ou a+e info"med %onsent (ou a+e to loo' atsu""oundin$ %i"%umstan%es and so%ial attitudes towa"ds t at a%ti+it(.

Ho" free and eas& do "e "ant underl&ing conduct to be. Set le+el of %ommuni%ation a%%o"din$l(uestion e"e is ow mu% %ommuni%ation is "easona&le/ 4ou"t in 6HH0 +iewed t ese -eo-le as stee"a$e.Twe"s'i -oses / of w et e" t is was a fan%( lad(G would t e attitude a+e &een t e same/ Twe"s'i t in's 6(" old $i"l in line immi$"ant s-ea'in$ u- is a &i$ %ommuni%ation. S e $ot +e"( si%' &liste"s# et%1

T"ers#i "ants to see that "hether or not consent is communicated/ did the person ha$e reasonablegrounds to belie$e it "as o# to gi$e the shot) *e-ends on so%ial milieu of w ats $oin$ on.

0ottom H3%4)


7/80

se%onds afte"# t at it sim-l( would a+e &een a -enalt( wit in t e $ame5 a %ou"t s ould not a+e to distin$uis&etween t ese fine -oints of t e $ame it s ould &e esta&lis ed wit in t e "ules of t e $ame of foot&all&efo"e and.

T"ers#i sa&s let them contract to ho" to handle these issues or ha$e the 5F6 sanction) *oesn,tunde"stand w ( t is is a %ou"t &usiness. T ese a"e t in$s t at ta'e -la%e in $ames all t e time. T is %ase"aises fo" im w ( t e %ou"t s(stem s ould &e made to de%ide t is "otten /. if it ad &een &efo"e t e w istle itisn,t a %ase.. dan$e"ous s-o"t. A"e t e emotions t at we"e o' se%onds &efo"e not o' se%onds afte"//*oesn,t t in' we s ould &e fi$u"in$ t is out= t in' a&out Alte"nati+e *is-ute Resolution.

If one belie$es the coach "ould testif& to degree of anger the&re put to before the game7 seems to

Twe"s'i if it o%%u""ed 2 se%onds ea"lie" would,+e &een a foul# and / is now is t e fa%t t at it ta'es -la%e 2se%onds late" si$nifi%ant enou$ . ;e as a -"o&lem wit t at and tends to a$"ee w8 lowe" %ou"t. Mo"e of a-"o%ess / t ou$ = w ( t e e%' is t is in %ou"t/ ;i$ -"i%e f &all -la(e"s wit +e"( so- isti%ated unions not%ont"a%tin$ on t is issue.

. Im-lied in Fa%t 4onsent T e %onsent ta%itl( $i+en &( one indi+idual to anot e"# &ased on t ei" s a"ed isto"(# is im-lied in fa%t

%onsent.o E?am-le7 If f"iends en$a$e in -atte"ns of "ou$ ousin$ o" -"a%ti%al o'es# a %ou"t mi$ t find t at t e(

a+e esta&lis ed a fa%tuall( &ased im-li%ation of %onsent to su% &e a+io".o Im-lied in law %onsent as an off t e "a%'G Jualit( t in' of a Tos i&a %om-ute"# w e"eas im-lied in fa%t

%onsent is tailo" madeG t in' of a *ell to ea% uniJue set of fa%tual %i"%umstan%es.oChristman v Davis ::= #. d >?@ (6t 55;) p@@PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff patient sued defendant dentist for dental malpractice, lack of informed consent, and battery.he patient dismissed all but the batte ! claim b c never consented to flap procedure. he dentist filed a motion for summary

judgment. he $hittenden Auperior $ourt (6ermont) granted the dentist!s motion. he patient appealed.

O"ER"IE#: he patient consented to have the dentist perform a tissue graft to obtain root coverage. #fter beginning the procedure,the dentist determined that he would perform a flap procedure instead. he patient was surprised that he did not receive a full graft andlater learned that he would need to undergo a tissue graft because the flap procedure did not achieve full results. n appeal, the patientargued that he did not give consent to perform the flap procedure and therefore the dentist committed a battery. he dentist indicatedthat the flap procedure was a less invasive procedure done to determine whether there was sufficient tissue of adequate quality to

perform the graft.

he supreme court concluded that the procedure done was consented to and thus, did not support the battery claim because battery isonly when you e0ceed the consent. o the e0tent that the patient had an actionable claim, it fell within the lack-of-informed-consentline of cases. 9ecause the patient conceded that the flap procedure was necessary to the tissue graft, there was no material issue of factas to whether the consent covered the flap procedure.

OUTCO$E: he judgment of the trial court was affirmed. Aay battery is only if you e0ceed consent, if you haven&t and other thingsgo wrong (malpractice informed consent) it is not battery. $ourt sees informed consent as different than battery.werski says if it was very clear that she agreed only to graft procedure< the dentist made the choice and if he believes her testimonyhe thinks that theres a strong case for battery. 3o one is saying you&re negligent you e0ceeded your consent and therefore that&s a

battery argued by werski.

P 6 )und"i%' + Stewa"t= %onsent fo"ms too &"oad1 e"e w e"e someone sa(s to do%to" I don,t want a "esident to tou%me t e do%to" a$"ees o" doesn,t.

5. Kenne#y v. =arrott Facts: $oes in fo" su"$e"(# do%to" dia$noses a--endi%itis5 C o-ens e" u- and sees a la"$e %(st on e"

o+a"( t at "eJui"es o-e"ation5 w ile -un%tu"in$ %(st# e %ut a &lood +essel and in u"ed e" le$ &( %ausin$- le&itis5 sues fo" &atte"(# %laimin$ s e did not %onsent to o-e"ation of t e %(st on o+a"(.

Issue: W et e" a do%to" %an -e"fo"m an o-e"ation t at as not &een %onsented to w en it a"ises out of aneme"$en%( "ende"in$ t e -atient in%a-a&le of %onsentin$.

Holding: 4ou"t olds t at it is un"easona&le fo" C to finis o-e"ation and info"m t e of t e %(sts# and t enafte" "e%ei+in$ %onsent# o-en e" &a%' u- and o-e"ate5 w e"e an inte"nal o-e"ation is indi%ated# a su"$eonma( lawfull( -e"fo"m# and it is is dut( to -e"fo"m# su% o-e"ation as $ood su"$e"( demands# e+en w en itmeans an e?tension of t e o-e"ation fu"t e" t an was o"i$inall( %ontem-lated# and fo" so doin$ e is not to &eeld in dama$es fo" an unaut o"iDed o-e"ation.


8/80

. De-ay v. Ro:erts (here ?e>re tal'ing a:o t D has to tell =! o:ligation to #isgorge himsel to the =@ ntil no? ?e>ve #is" sse# = tell D) Facts: * is a do%to" ma'in$ a ouse %all to P in 6HH65 t e weat e" was &ad out# so * &"ou$ t alon$ an

assistant w o ad no medi%al 'nowled$e to el- im %a""( is su--lies5 P allowed &ot men into t e ome#&ut t e"e was no mention &( * of w o t e assistant was5 du"in$ la&o"# wife 'i%'s e" maid# w o was oldin$e" and# in t e stoma% 5 * tells assistant# w o was not wat% in$ o" nea" t e -"o%ess# to ste- in and old e" and w ile maid is "e%o+e"in$5 e does t is fo" a few se%onds# and t en is "elie+ed &( t e maid.

Issue: W et e" t e"e was im-lied in fa%t %onsent w en P allowed &ot men to ente"# unde" t e -"esum-tiont at t e( we"e &ot - (si%ians.

Holding: * was $uilt( of de%eit &e%ause at t e time# s e %onsented to t e -"esen%e of S%atte"$oodsu--osin$ im to &e a - (si%ian does not -"e%lude P f"om maintainin$ an a%tion and "e%o+e"in$ su&stantialdama$es u-on afte"wa"ds as%e"tainin$ is t"ue % a"a%te"5 * as t e o&li$ation to -"esent t e -"o-e" info"mation to P5

T"ers#i . s w ( isn,t t e o&li$ation on P to as' w o e is. S e isn,t in la&o" (et. Assumin$ t is is a fi"st (ea" med student and t is is is fi"st %ase# is t at o'/ Assumin$ e ne+e" tou% ed e"# w at to"t would we a+e/T"es-ass to land. )atte"( will not wo"' &8% ad a non%onsensual -"i+ile$e to a%t sin%e s e was in dan$e".

. Info"med 4onsent Info"med %onsent is t e unde"standin$ of a de%ision &ased on adeJuate info"mation a&out t e t"eatment# t e

a+aila&le alte"nati+es# and t e %ollate"al "is's. As essential as a - (si%ian,s %a"e and s'ill in t e -e"fo"man%e of t e t e"a-(. If a - (si%ian &"ea% es t is dut(# -atient,s %onsent is defe%ti+e# and - (si%ian is "es-onsi&le fo" t e

%onseJuen%es.o )atte"( e?ists w en t"eatment is unaut o"iDed and -e"fo"med wit out an( %onsent at all.o If t e - (si%ian o&tains a -atient,s %onsent &ut as &"ea% ed is dut( to info"m# t e -atient as a %ause of

a%tion soundin$ in ne$li$en%e fo" failu"e to info"m t e -atient of is o-tions# "e$a"dless of t e due %a"ee?e"%ised at t"eatment# assumin$ t e"e is in u"(.

T e s%o-e of a - (si%ian,s %ommuni%ations must &e measu"ed &( is -atient,s need to 'now enou$ toena&le im to ma'e an intelli$ent % oi%e.o Full dis%losu"e of all mate"ial "is's in%ident to t"eatment must &e made mate"ial meanin$ it would li'el(

affe%t -atient,s de%ision. E?%e-tions to Info"min$

o t in orm her o the ris' o in"ontinen"e that "omes along ?ithhystere"tomy so even non negligently er orme# s rgery may :e a ris' or in"ontinen"e. S :se ent s rgeries to i4 this an# s es or his la"' o in ormation. 7 ry in#s or D an# arg ment is j ry instr "tions ?eren>t a#e ate. ,o rt in#s j ry instr "tions ?ere retty o' : t this o ens the "o rt to #is" ssion to ?hat ma'es o t a "a se o a"tion or in orme# "onsent or ail re to give atient a#e ate in ormation. The elements o this tort.

Facts: C -e"fo"med su"$e"( on # w i% was %onsented5 -ost o-# e?-e"ien%ed -"o&lems wit in%ontinen%e una&le to %ont"ol t e &ladde"5 %onsult wit anot e" - (si%ian w o dis%o+e"ed s e ad a %ondition t at-e"mitted u"ine to lea' f"om t e &ladde" to t e +a$ina5 s e was t en "efe""ed to a u"olo$ist w o "eJui"ed t "eesu"$e"ies to "emed( t e -"o&lem5 %laims t at C failed to ad+ise e" of t e "is's in+ol+ed o" of a+aila&lealte"nati+es to su"$e"( and if s e ad &een -"o-e"l( info"med# s e would a+e "efused t e su"$e"(.

Rule: La%' of info"med %onsent is di+ided into t "ee elements7o T e dut( to info"m

*efendant - (si%ian failed to info"m adeJuatel( of a mate"ial "is' and alte"nati+es &efo"e se%u"in$is %onsent to t e -"o-osed t"eatment5

Amount t at this "easona&le -atient would want to a+e. Two tests fo" mate"ialit(5 ow mu% info"mation "eJui"ed to $i+e= s opposed to the reasonable doctor test Amount of info"mation do%to" must dis$o"$e imself of is twofold7

4ou"t a%'nowled$es t e"e a"e two tests to dete"mine w et e" o" not do%to" $a+e adeJuateinfo"mation7 6. ,anter: ry "e e%ted &ut test was reasonable doctor test that applies to malpracticecases = / -la%ed to u"( would &e did t e do%to" $i+e t e info t at a "easona&le do%to" would $i+e/ 2.


9/80

W at would a reasonable patient want to 'now/ In t e latte"# do not need a medi%al e?-e"t to testif(t at someone +iolated medi%al %ustom. Nou mi$ t still need a do%to" to $et on t e stand to tell (oua&out w at t e "is's a"e. uestion of w at a "easona&le -atient wants to 'now t "own to u"(. T is iso-elessl( o-en ended a%%o"din$ to Twe"s'i.

ssuming &ou got past either of these tests7 had the patient been gi$en the information/ "hat "ouldthe& ha$e done "ith it)) is there a causal relationship bet" failure to communicate and the choice that"as made.o 4ausation

ReJui"es would a+e % osen no t"eatment o" a diffe"ent %ou"se of t"eatment ad t e alte"nati+es

and mate"ial "is's of ea% &een made 'nown to im5If t e -atient would a+e ele%ted to -"o%eed wit t"eatment ad e &een dul( info"med of its "is's#t en t e element of %ausation is missin$5Test for causation Would a "easona&le -e"son a+e % osen a$ainst t e su"$e"(/ use 4ante"&u"( reasonable

patient test8 %roblem wit t is is t at its not w at I would,+e done= and wo"se t an t at#Twe"s'i sa(s t in' a&out t is t e do%to" is not $uilt( of mal-"a%ti%e and not ne$li$ent fo" "e%ommendin$ (ste"e%tom(# not ne$li$ent in -e"fo"min$ it# w ( did t e do%to" "e%ommend t e(ste"e%tom( %ause s e needed it= now t at (ou as'# t e "is's -ale in %om-a"ison to w atwould,+e &een ad s e not ad it. W at would a "easona&le -atient a+e done/ Listen to a"easona&le do%to" &e%ause &( definition t e do%to" is not ne$li$ent. )( definition an info"med%onsent %ase# not ne$li$ent made "i$ t de%ision and now $oin$ to as' "easona&le -atient testwould,+e made. *est"o(s t e "i$ t of self dete"mination. I don,t a+e to &e "easona&le its m( &od(

and I 'now t e answe" to t e / if not ne$li$ent in "e%ommendin$ t e "easona&le -atient will listento "easona&le do%to" %ause if not (ou,d &e suin$ fo" mal-"a%ti%e. 4ante"&u"( test &asi%all( undoesw at t e( intended to do# it -uts &a%' "easona&le do%to" test. T e"efo"e doesn,t ma'e an(diffe"en%e.

A %a"eful -etitione" %an alwa(s -"ote%t imself &( insu"in$ t at e as adeJuatel( info"med ea%-atient e t"eats. If e does not &"ea% t is dut(# a %ausation -"o&lem will not a"ise.

Court sa&s the true test should be "hat this patient "ould ha$e done) 4"eates t eautonom(. Would t is -atient a+e de%ided t e( wouldn,t unde"$o t e su"$e"( o" ta'en analte"nati+e. Patients $oin$ to sa( I would not a+e done it. 4ou"t "e%o$niDes t at. If t e( sa( t at#t e defense law(e" will %"oss e?amine t em to deat = &leed to deat out of > times instead of in%ontinen%e. T e"e a"e %ases w e"e -laintiff %an "ealisti%all( sa( ad I &een $i+en t e alte"nati+eI wouldn,t a+e done t is &8% t is was a "is' I was not willin$ to ta'e.

o In u"(

T e ad+e"se %onseJuen%es t at we"e not made 'nown did in fa%t o%%u" and e was in u"ed as a"esult of su&mittin$ to t e t"eatment. Holding: A new dut( of info"med %onsent is &ein$ im-osed on - (si%ians5 t e inst"u%tions o& e%ted to &(

did inst"u%t t at C s ould a+e dis%losed mate"ial "is's of t e (ste"e%tom( and feasi&ilit( of alte"nati+es.Inst"u%tions a"e suffi%ient w en %onside"ed as a w ole t e( -"esent t e law a--li%a&le to t e issues5 t is is nota medi%al de%ision5 it is a uman de%ision.

Is something called therapeutic pri$ilege. *on,t a+e to tell -atient t in$s t at will so u-set t e -atient atwill ad+e"sel( affe%t t ei" ealt 8state of mind. P"o&lem wit it is if (ou "ead it &"oadl( (ou,"e $oin$ to dest"o(info"med %onsent. Twe"s'i as (et to see a t e"a-euti% -"i+ile$e %ase. T eo"eti%all( out t e"e# &ut e asn,tseen it -"a%ti%all(.

,iscussion of Causation: would not a+e a"isen wit out a &atte"(.o 4ausation test

Would t e -atient a+e % osen a diffe"ent alte"nati+e/)i$ deal &e%ause t e &all s ould &e in t e -atient,s %ou"t# not t e do%to" e s ould not a+e t e"i$ t to de%ide w at is &est fo" t e -atient if t e -atient is a+aila&le to ma'e t e de%ision.W at would a reasona:le -atient a+e de%ided/ ,anter: ry used t is# &ut it is w"on$ &e%ause it s ould &e a--lied to t e -a"ti%ula" %ase

o ;ow do (ou 'now if t e %u""ent -atient is "easona&le/ T e -atient %ould a+e some &iDa""edefe%t t at it un"easona&le# and t e"efo"e "eJui"es (ou to de%ide on T;IS -atient.

o It %an &e a"$ued t at a "easona&le -atient would listen to a "easona&le do%to"# so t is&e%omes %i"%ula".

o W at would this -atient a+e de%ided/Ma o" oldin$ of S"ott as a de+iation f"om ,anter: ry .

A"$ument7 unfai" to do%to" &e%ause e would a+e no idea w at t is -atient would a+e done.


10/80

Res-onse7 if t e do%to" ad -e"fo"med is dut( and info"med t e -atient# t en t is would not &ean issue

o Reasonable ,octor Test: %ou"t does not li'e t is &e%ause it unde"mines -atient autonom( Ad+anta$es E?-e"t needed to testif( diffi%ult15 Su&stanti+el( diffi%ult diffe"ent do%to"s wei$ t su&stanti+e "is's diffe"entl(5 Easie" fo" do%to"s &e%ause it deals wit t e do%to",s -oint of +iew ow %an (ou 'now w at a

"easona&le -atient would need/1*isad+anta$es *o%to" as no wa( of measu"in$ w at a -atient would deem "easona&le.

4ou"ts don,t want to %all t is &atte"( &8% don,t want to t"eat do%to"s t at wa(5 -ut t em in ne$li$en%e "u&"i% and a+e tos ow %ausation to a"m t at too' -la%e.;ow do (ou assess dama$es in t is %ase/ uestion missin$ f"om t is %ase= Twe"s'i sa(s ad (ou not ad t is(ste"e%tom(# (ou mi$ t,+e &led to deat . T e fun%tion of dama$es in to"t law is to -ut (ou &a%' in status Juo. Nes (oua+e suffe"ed dama$es of su"$e"(# &ut (ou didn,t %ome into t e offi%e +e"( si%'. 4onseJuen%es w8o t e (ste"e%tom(.W ( don,t we %om-a"e t e "is's wit ea% / A"e (ou entitled to full s%o-e of dama$es fo" w at as now a--ened to (ou/W ats $oin$ on e"e is &asi%all( it,s a di$nita"( to"t= we a"e offended t at s e did not $et t e "i$ t to ma'e e" de%ision.We t"anslate t e +alue of t e di$nita"( to"t in te"ms of +alue of a"d dama$es w i% a%tuall( suffe"ed w i% diffe" f"om+alue of di$nita"( to"t. / e"e to &e $"a--led wit .T"ers#i re$ie" up until here 7 in a %ase &ased on info"med %onsent# we,"e not dealin$ wit a %laim of ne$li$en%e india$nosis &( do%to"=.


11/80

-H medi%al -"o+ide" statisti%s=. / is if do%to" as t at info does t e os-ital a+e o&li$ation to $i+e (ou t at info/Twe"s'i a"$ues in fa%t med -"o+ide" statisti%s a"e in one sense an easie" %ase t an t e %lassi% issue of w et e" o" not Is ould+e told (ou alte"nati+e "is' asso%iated w8 su"$e"(. E?7 s%ot + )"adfo"d# do%to" didn,t tell (ou 6 in >00 "is' of in%ontinen%e= said d" wasn,t ne$li$ent &8% $a+e $ood ad+i%e a&out (ste"e%tom(# / is t en w at would t is woman a+edone ad s e ad t is info/ In medi%al -"o+ide" statisti%s t e / isn,t w et e" s e would,+e ad t e su"$e"(# &ut w et e" s e,d a+e it wit a do%to" wit i$ o" low -e"fo"man%e "ate/ T at,s a lot easie" if dis-a"it( is si$nifi%ant.

). Self *efense1. ,o rvoisier v. Raymon#

Facts: C ea"d -eo-le t"(in$ to &"ea' into is ewel"( sto"e# w i% was on t e fi"st floo" &elow is a-a"tmentw e"e e was slee-in$5 e used is $un to e?-el t e int"ude"s f"om t e &uildin$5 e fi"ed t "ee s ots into t eai" until t e( fled5 s ots att"a%ted -oli%e offi%e"8* to t e s%ene wit two ot e" offi%e"s5 * a--"oa% ed# and t eot e" two sta(ed &a%'5 P fi"ed and it *# t in'in$ e was one of t e $an$ mem&e"s w o e ad % ased awa(.

Issue: *id P a%t out of ne%essa"( self defense to "easona&le fea"s unde" t e %i"%umstan%e t at e t ou$ t islife was in dan$e"/

Reasoning: t is is Talmage (right to get o his ro erty an# se reasona:le or"e@ 'i#s on the she#) t e%ou"t sa(s t at if C ad t e "i$ t to s oot to defend# and it was an inad+e"tent ittin$# t en e wit in reason 5 (ou a%t in a wa( t at (ou a+e t e "i$ t to a%t# t en it is self defense5 diffe"s f"om Ranson &e%ause in t at%ase e did not a+e to s oot t e do$5 in t is %ase# e ad to defend imself due to an in+asion.

9hat "as "rong "- trial judge instruction / *idn,t "eall( e?-lain self defense well= said if e

assaulted8&atte"ed t e $u( and $ot t e w"on$ $u( e was lia&le= %ou"t said not in$ a&out fa%t of ustifi%ation.W ( is t is not Ranson/ ;e was defendin$ imself f"om in+asion w e"eas Ranson didn,t a+e to s oot t edo$. 4ou"+oisie" is REA4TI

o An a%to" is -"i+ile$ed to use "easona&le fo"%e# not intended to o" li'el( to %ause deat o" se"ious &odil(a"m# to defend imself a$ainst un-"i+ile$ed a"mful o" offensi+e %onta%t t at e "easona&l( &elie+es t atanot e" is a&out to infli%t intentionall( u-on im.

>. Self *efense &( Fo"%e T "eatenin$ *eat o" Se"ious )odil( ;a"mo An a%to" is -"i+ile$ed to defend imself a$ainst anot e" &( fo"%e intended o" li'el( to %ause deat o"

se"ious &odil( a"m# w en e "easona&l( &elie+es t at t e ot e" is a&out to infli%t u-on im an intentional

%onta%t o" ot e" &odil( a"m# o" t at e it t e"e&( -ut in -e"il of deat # w i% %an &e -"e+ented onl( &( t eimmediate use of su% fo"%e. 0 and 6

o Add"ess t e issue of e?%essi+e fo"%e# limitin$ t e self defense -"i+ile$e to t at amount of fo"%e t at t ea%to" %o""e%tl( o" "easona&l( &elie+es to &e ne%essa"( to -"ote%t imself# and oldin$ t e a%to" w o usese?%essi+e fo"%e lia&le onl( fo" so mu% of t e fo"%e as is e?%essi+e.

4. *efense of Ot e"s6. !ene"al 4on%e-t

Ame"i%an %ou"ts a+e e?tended a -"i+ile$e to a%to"s w o inte"+ene and use fo"%e to -"ote%t and defendot e"s f"om t "eats &( t i"d -e"sons.

P"i+ile$e is same as self defense.*. *efense of P"o-e"t(

1. Kat'o v. %riney Facts: * ad ouse t e( in e"ited wit +alua&le a"s. ;ad no t"es-ass si$ns. * set u- a s ot$un t"a- -ointed

at t e would &e int"ude",s le$# t"i$$e"ed &( t e o-enin$ of a &ed"oom doo"5 no wa"nin$ of t e $un,s -"esen%ewas -osted5 P t ou$ t t e &uildin$ to &e a&andoned5 P,s ti&ia was &lown awa( as a "esult of t e s ot.

Issue: Is usin$ a s-"in$ $un wit in "easona&le fo"%e in t e -"ote%tion of one,s -"o-e"t( w en t e int"ude" -oses no t "eat to t e owne",s -e"sonal safet(/

Rule: T e"e is no -"i+ile$e to use an( fo"%e %al%ulated to %ause deat o" se"ious &odil( in u"( to "e-el t et "eat to land o" % attels# unless t e"e is also su% a t "eat to t e defendant,s -e"sonal safet( as to ustif( aself defense.

Holding: :ud$ment fo" P fo" 20#000 and 60#000 w o was s ot u-on t"es-assin$ &e%ause a -e"son ownin$-"o-e"t( is -"o i&ited f"om settin$ out s-"in$ $uns and li'e dan$e"ous de+i%es t at will li'el( ta'e life of infli%t$"eat &odil( in u"(# fo" t e -u"-ose of a"min$ t"es-asse"s5 t e fa%t t at t e t"es-asse" ma( &e a%tin$ in+iolation of t e law does not % an$e t e "ule5 +alue life o+e" -"o-e"t(.


12/80

Court mentions no "arning "as gi$en) Twe"s'i dou&ts if (ou a+e si$ns sa(in$ t is ouse is la%ed wits ot$uns would,+e $otten t em off t e oo' ma( &e w"on$1 &ut would,+e &een a $ood ste-. A&solute +alue of -"o-e"t( was midemeano"# used s-"in$ $un to do w at t e( would,+e ad a "i$ t to do if t e"e &ut we"en,tt e"e# un'em-t lawn loo'ed a&andoned= Twe"s'i wonde"s if it would,+e &een diff if it was %omme"%ial -"o- ina i$ %"ime a"ea w8 -osted si$ns a&out s-"in$ $uns.

E. Re%o+e"( of P"o-e"t(6. !ene"al 4on%e-t

4ou"ts "e%o$niDe a -"i+ile$e to use "easona&le fo"%e to "e$ain a % attel to"tiousl( ta'en &( anot e" so lon$ ast e "i$ tful -ossesso" a%ted -"om-tl( in ot -u"suitG afte" dis-ossession o" afte" timel( dis%o+e"( of it.o

On%e t e sense of immedia%( is lost# t e self el- -"i+ile$e is $one.o Fo"%e li'el( to %ause deat o" se"ious &odil( a"m is ne+e" -e"mitted to "e%a-tu"e -"o-e"t(.F.


13/80

Reasoning: :ud$ment fo" C &e%ause alt ou$ %onfinement "easona&l( -e"%ei+ed to &e unlawful mi$ t in+itees%a-e# t e -e"son falsel( im-"isoned is not "elie+ed of t e dut( of "easona&le %a"e fo" is own safet( ine?t"i%atin$ imself f"om t e unlawful detention. In ot e" wo"ds# if (ou,"e $oin$ to es%a-e f"om w at (ou t in' isfalse im-"isonment# (ou still must use %a"e# o" it,s on (ou.o Rest"aint and detention# "easona&le unde" t e %i"%umstan%es and in time and manne"# im-osed fo" t e

-u"-ose of -"e+entin$ anot e" f"om infli%tin$ -e"sonal in u"ies o" inte"fe"in$ wit o" dama$in$ "eal o" -e"sonal -"o-e"t( in one,s lawful -ossession o" %ustod( is not unlawful. Was e a%tin$ in t ei" defenseand in defense of is own -"o-e"t(/

o T e"es a diff &etween "ea%tin$ w en &ein$ t "eatened and ma'e "easona&le mista'es t an a%tin$ and

ma'in$ "easona&le mista'es.o E?am / last semeste" w i% ad some&od( lo%'in$ students in li&"a"( w o t ou$ t someone dan$e"ouswas a"ound= would t in' same lo$i% would a--l(.

P"o&lem Twe"s'i sees wit um&"ella ustifi%ation defense is t at it %ould "un %ounte" to w at we a+e &een tal'in$ a&out allalon$ in Ransen# (ou s oot# &elie+e (ou"e s ootin$ at wolf and tu"ns out to &e do$ is t at now a ustifi%ation defense&e%ause (ou,+e a%ted "easona&l( unde" t e %i"%umstan%es=1 4ould unde"%ut t e +iews we,+e ad w8 "e$a"d tointentional to"ts u- until now.

Chapter : 5egligence

A. Int"odu%tion6. !ene"al 4on%e-t

A t eo"( of law t at ud$es almost all %ondu%t as to w et e" it meets t e standa"d of w at a "easona&le

-e"sonG would do unde" simila" %i"%umstan%es -"o+ides eno"mous latitude to in u"ed -e"sons see'in$ "ed"essfo" a"m done to t em. Swee-in$ in its s%o-e t e"e is a one line test w i% is su--osed to wo"' fo" most5 did(ou a%t as a "easona&le -e"son unde" t e %i"%umstan%es. To"t law is dominated &( ne$li$en%e5 -o%'ets of st"i%t lia&ilit( and -"odu%ts lia&ilit(.

2. Elements of


14/80

,iscussion: *ismissed on demu""e" &e%ause t e"es no %ause of a%tion. Reasona&le -eo-le diffe" in owt e( would ud$e somet in$ to &e int"insi%all( dan$e"ous.o


15/80

o T at %ontinued to &e awa"e of t e dan$e" and ta'e e?em-la"( -"e%autions to a+oid it until is fatala%%ident was illust"ated &( t e %a"e t at e and is f"iend too' w en t e( lowe"ed and laid t e antennane?t to t e fen%e se+e"al da(s &efo"e t e a%%ident.

,iscussion: ur& finds liable/ ppeal re$erses/


16/80

we"e wo"n t "ou$ to t e t "ead5 t e "e-ai"man w o "e-la%ed t e wo"n ti"e said t at e %ould see t e&"ea'e" st"i- on t e ti"e# ust unde" t e fa&"i%.

o Rule: A--l( t e "easona&le -e"son test# &alan%in$ a+aila&le data a$ainst if a%to" s ould a+e 'nown "is'.o Issue: Is an o"dina"( man deemed to a+e t e 'nowled$e of w at %onstitutes a dan$e"ous ti"e/o Holding: An( o"dina"( indi+idual# w et e" a %a" owne" o" not# 'nows t at w en a ti"e is wo"n t "ou$ to

t e fa&"i%# its fu"t e" use is dan$e"ous and it s ould &e "emo+ed. An owne" o" o-e"ato" %annot es%a-e &e%ause e sa(s e does not 'now. ;e must 'now. T e aDa"dis too $"eat to -e"mit %a"s in t is %ondition to &e on t e i$ wa(.T e law "eJui"es d"i+e"s to 'now t e %ondition of t ose -a"ts t at a"e li'el( to &e%ome dan$e"ous

w e"e t e flaws o" faults would &e dis%losed &( a "easona&le ins-e%tion.. ;ow t e Reasona&le Pe"son Res-onds to Eme"$en%ies ,or#as v. =eerless Trans ortation ,o.

o Facts: A mu$$in$ o%%u""ed on t e st"eets of 0,s5 &ulletins of national safet( and %onsume" "e-o"ts we"e issued a&out t is.

o Issue: Is a landlo"d "eJui"ed to install safe" $lass doo"s as -e" t e %ommon -"a%ti%e in simila" situations/W at is t e "easona&leness of t e %ustom of landlo"ds installin$ t ese doo"s/


17/80

o Holding: :ud$ment fo" P &e%ause w en -"oof of a %ustoma"( -"a%ti%e is %ou-led wit a s owin$ t at itwas i$no"ed and t at t is de-a"tu"e was a -"o?imate %ause of t e a%%ident# it ma( se"+e to esta&lislia&ilit(. T e u"( %an de%ide w et e"# at t e -oint in time w en t e a%%ident o%%u""ed# t e modest %ost and"ead( a+aila&ilit( of safet( $lass ad t"ansfo"med w at on%e ma( a+e &een %onside"ed a "easona&l(safe -a"t of t e a-a"tment into one w i% # in t e li$ t of late" de+elo-ments# no lon$e" %ould &e so"e$a"ded.

o ,iscussion: T is %ase deals wit %ustom -"a%ti%e in simila" situations. C a"$ues t at %ustom was t att e( would "e-la%e e+e"(t in$ w en somet in$ was &"o'en# not &efo"e somet in$ &"ea's. )ut# t isdoesn,t a--l( to t is %ase &e%ause t is %ase "e$a"ds somet in$ t at s ould a+e &een "e-la%ed &efo"et e a%%ident# not afte". If it ad &een done &efo"e# t e "esultin$ in u"( would a+e &een -"e+ented.

>. P (si%al and Mental Att"i&utes of t e Reasona&le Pe"son su& e%ti+e Ro:erts v. State o Bo isiana

o Facts: C was on is wa( to t e &at "oom# wit out usin$ is %ane5 e &um-ed into %ausin$ im to falland in u"e is i-5 alle$es "es-ondeat su-e"io"5 &lind $u( was t e o-e"ato" of t e %on%ession standlo%ated in t e &uildin$.

Res-ondeat su-e"io"7 states t at an em-lo(e" is "es-onsi&le fo" em-lo(ee a%tions -e"fo"med wit int e %ou"se of t e em-lo(ment.

o Issue: Is a &lind -e"son eld to t e same le+el of -e"fo"man%e t at a - (si%all( %a-a&le -e"son would &eeld to in a simila" %i"%umstan%e/

o Rule: A &lind -e"son %annot &e "eJui"ed to do t e im-ossi&le &( %onfo"min$ to - (si%al standa"ds t at e%annot meet. T e %ondu%t of t e andi%a--ed indi+idual must &e "easona&le in t e li$ t of is 'nowled$eof is infi"mit(. ;e must ta'e t e -"e%autions t at t e o"dina"( "easona&le man would ta'e if e we"e

&lind.o Holding: :ud$ment fo" C &e%ause it is not un%ommon fo" &lind -eo-le to "el( on ot e" te% niJues w enmo+in$ a"ound in a familia" settin$. Also# if t e o-e"ato" is in a "elati+el( &us( a"ea# t e %ane %an &e mo"eof a aDa"d t an an asset. C admitted t at e was not usin$ %ane# e?-lainin$ t at e "elies on is fa%ialsense# w i% e feels is an adeJuate te% niJue fo" s o"t t"i-s inside t e familia" &uildin$.

o ,iscussion: )u"den is to use t e %ane. )lind -eo-le mi$ t a+e to &e mo"e %a"eful# &ut not mo"e"easona&le. E+e"(t in$ is su& e%ti+e e?%e-t ud$ment did (ou ma'e a $ood so%ietal ud$ment1/ *id ea%t "easona&l( unde" t e %i"%umstan%es one of t e %i"%umstan%es is t at e %annot see1/ 4ou"t did notwant to "ule a$ainst C# w i% would %ause t e -"e%edent t at &lind -eo-le a+e t e &u"den of a+in$ touse a %ane w ene+e" t e( wal'.

P (si%al *isa&ilitieso A -e"son ma( a+e to &e mo"e %a"eful due to is disa&ilit(# &ut e is not eld to a i$ e" standa"d of %a"e.o


18/80

Stevens v. Aeenstrao Facts: C was a 6 (ea" old $enius w o was en"olled in a d"i+e",s edu%ation %ou"se so e %ould d"i+e to

%olle$e5 on is fi"st da( e+e" d"i+in$ in t e %ou"se# e made a s a"- "i$ t and tu"n# and afte" e and isinst"u%to" we"e una&le to stee" %lea" of t e # e st"u%' im as e e?ited is %a".

o Issue: Is a d"i+e",s edu%ation -"o$"am an adult a%ti+it(# w i% would wa""ant a mino" to &e t"eated witt e same standa"d of %a"e as an adult/

In ot e" wo"ds if *"i+e",s Ed. is adult same standa"d of %a"eo Rule: A mino" w o en$a$es in an adult a%ti+it( t at is dan$e"ous# li'e d"i+in$ a %a"e# is % a"$ed wit t e

same standa"d of %ondu%t as an adult.o Holding: :ud$ment fo" &e%ause some a%ti+ities a"e so dan$e"ous t at t e "is' must &e &o"ne &( t e&e$inne" "at e" t an t e inno%ent +i%tims# and la%' of %om-eten%e is no e?%use. We &elie+e t at d"i+in$

an automo&ile is su% an a%ti+it(# and t at an(one d"i+in$ an automo&ile# "e$a"dless of a$e# must &e eldto t e same standa"d of %om-eten%e and %ondu%t. )e%ause of t e f"eJuen%( and sometimes %atast"o- i%"esults of automo&ile a%%idents# it would &e unfai" to t e -u&li% to -e"mit a mino" o-e"atin$ an automo&ileto o&se"+e an( standa"d of %a"e ot e" t an t at e?-e%ted of all ot e"s o-e"atin$ automo&iles.

. Standa"d of 4a"e fo" P"ofessionals Restatement Se%ond1 299A. nde"ta'in$ in P"ofession of T"ade

o nless e "e-"esents t at e as a $"eate" o" less s'ill o" 'nowled$e# one w o unde"ta'es to "ende" se"+i%es in t e -"a%ti%e of a -"ofession o" t"ade is "eJui"ed to e?e"%ise t e s'ill and 'nowled$e no"mall(-ossessed &( mem&e"s of t at -"ofession o" t"ade in $ood standin$ in simila" %ommunities.

T e s ould a+e 'nownG is ta'en fo" $"anted. ;a+in$ eld e"self out as a -"ofessional# s e as a %lea" o&li$ation to a%Jui"e t e "eJuisite 'nowled$e.

*id (ou e?e"%ise "easona&le ud$ment# $i+en t e "is' data t at (ou 'now w at "easona&le do%to"s 'now/ P"o&lems wit -"ofessional mal-"a%ti%e %ases7

o :u"ies %annot "el( on %ommon e?-e"ien%e to $uide t em as to w at is "easona&le %ondu%t5o T e ud$e will not $i+e t e u"( a sim-le "easona&le -e"sonG inst"u%tion &ut will instead as' t e u"(

w et e" t e defendant a%ted wit t e s'ill and 'nowled$e no"mal to t e -"ofessiono Medi%al -"ofession a+e de+elo-ed some +e"( s-e%ial "ules=

%oy"e v. %ro?no Facts: C -e"fo"med an o-e"ation to "edu%e a f"a%tu"e in t e an'le of 5 C -e"manentl( fi?ed t e &one into

-la%e &( means of a metal s%"ew5 (ea"s late" %onsulted C "e$a"din$ se"ious -ain to t e an'le a$ain#w i% e t"eated wit a w"a- and filed t e ed$e of e" a"% su--o"t# w i% e ad made fo" e" (ea"sa$o5 2 (ea"s late" s e "etu"ned a$ain wit -ain5 afte" t is +isit s e %onsulted anot e" - (si%ian# *". Qent.

*". Qent -e"fo"med an ? "a(# w i% s owed t e"e ad &een ne%"osis of t e &one deat to %ells1a"ound t e s%"ew5 e "emo+ed t e s%"ew# and s e ad a no"mal "e%o+e"( and as full use of an'lenow.

o Issue: Was t e C ne$li$ent fo" not ta'in$ an ? "a( in 69 / 4an a -e"son &e %on+i%ted of medi%almal-"a%ti%e wit out %om-etent e?-e"t testimon( a$ainst is a%tions/

o Rule: !ene"al "ules of law $o+e"nin$ a%tions of mal-"a%ti%e7One w o -"a%ti%es is -"esumed to a+e t e s'ill and lea"nin$ t at is -ossessed &( t e a+e"a$emem&e" of t e -"ofession5;e must a+e done somet in$ in t e %ou"se of is t"eatment t at t e "e%o$niDed standa"d of $oodmedi%al -"a%ti%e in t e %ount"( would fo"&id5T e standa"d of medi%al -"a%ti%e must &e s own &( affi"mati+e e+iden%e# o" a u"( ma( not &e-e"mitted to s-e%ulate as to w at t e "eJui"ed standa"d is5


19/80

"emo+ed unless it ma'es t"ou&le e ne+e" said t at t e met ods de+iated f"om t e no"mal %ou"se of t"eatment.

4ou"ts uni+e"sall( don,t "e%o$niDe %le"$( mal-"a%ti%e in ad+i%e= don,t e+en 'now w at standa"d to $o wit .


20/80

o 4ou"ts a+e a +ital "ole to -la( in de%idin$ w en it is a--"o-"iate to utiliDe t e statuto"( standa"d as t eto"t standa"d of "easona&le %a"e.

Restatement T i"d1 of To"tso 6 . Statuto"( Violations as


21/80


22/80

-"a%ti%in$ as a do%to" in


23/80

o T e"e a"e %e"tain %ases of w i% it ma( &e said "es i-sa loJuitu" and t is seems one of t em. In some%ases t e %ou"t as eld t at t e me"e fa%t of t e a%%ident a+in$ o%%u""ed is e+iden%e of ne$li$en%e.

ReJui"ementso T e"e must &e "easona&le e+iden%e of ne$li$en%e. )ut w e"e t e t in$ is s own to &e unde" t e

mana$ement of t e defendant o" is se"+ants# and t e a%%ident is su% as in t e o"dina"( %ou"se of t in$sdoes not a--en if t ose w o a+e t e mana$ement use -"o-e" %a"e# it affo"ds "easona&le e+iden%e# int e a&sen%e of e?-lanation &( t e defendants# t at t e a%%ident a"ose f"om want of %a"e.

In "es i-sa %ases we a+e not in$ mo"e t an a $ene"aliDation. We admit we don,t 'now w at went w"on$# &uta"e willin$ to %on%lude t at w ate+e" went w"on$ was mo"e li'el( t an not t e "esult of ne$li$ent %ondu%t.

Plane %"as es don,t 'now w at went w"on$# &ut mo"e of e?-lanations a"e ne$li$ent "elated. 4ou"ts a"eun%omfo"ta&le and "i$ tfull( so wit t ese %ases. Tal'in$ a&out $ene"aliDation. Issue

o W et e" t e"e is suffi%ient e+iden%e to su--o"t t e -"o-osition t at t e ne$li$en%e t at %aused t e a"m-oints to t e defendant. W e"e t e defendant %an -oint to an alte"nati+e %ause t at is eJuall( -"o&a&le toa+e &een t e %ause of t e a"m# t e ud$e %annot su&mit t e "es i-sa %ase to t e u"(.

5)9)2d 2?2 2

%R4C@,AR 6 %4


24/80

Holding: :ud$ment fo" -laintiff. Fa%to" one is satisfied &e%ause t e une?-lained de-a"tu"e of a %a" f"om t e"oadwa( o"dina"il( &es-ea's ne$li$en%e5 Fa%to" two is satisfied &e%ause on%e t e u"( found t at C ad &eent e d"i+e"# it %ould lo$i%all( a+e found t at s e ad &een in e?%lusi+e %ont"ol of t e %a"5 Fa%to" t "ee issatisfied &e%ause it is deemed i""ele+ant &e%ause of fa%to" two.

,efense from Res Ipsa: We issue "es i-sa w en t e"e is no e+iden%e# and 9860 times (ou,"e $oin$ to win.T e 'e( is -"e+entin$ t e %ase f"om $oin$ to t e u"( &ased on t e fa%t t at no&od( -"o+ed an(t in$. As adefendant in %ases li'e t is# ow do (ou &eat it/o Int"odu%e anot e" idea t at %ould &e a -"o&a&le e?-lanation.

An alte"nati+e %ause fo" w i% t e"e is some e+iden%e.o Nou don,t a+e to -"o+e (ou" %ase# &ut mudd( t e -laintiff,s %ase &( %"eatin$ dou&t t at a $ene"aliDationwas at wo"'.o )eatin$ it "eJui"es $ettin$ t e ud$e to not $i+e t e %ase to t e u"( (ou want im to dismiss t e matte"

&e%ause of la%' of e+iden%e.3. C:arra v. S angar#

Facts: is suin$ multi-le C# w o a"e all do%to"s and nu"ses t at we"e -"esent du"in$ an a--ende%tom( onim5 w en e awa'e t e followin$ mo"nin$ e ad -ain &etween is ne%' and "i$ t s oulde" t at was se+e"e5t e -ain -e"sisted fo" > mont s &efo"e s-"eadin$ down to is lowe" a"m5 e finall( "etu"ned to wo"'# &ut wo"ea s-lint5 an ? "a( was ta'en &( anot e" - (si%ian and it was dete"mined t at t e in u"( was a -a"al(sis of t"aumati% o"i$in# not a"isin$ f"om -at olo$i%al %auses# and t at t e in u"( "esulted in at"o- (# loss of use and"est"i%tion of motion of t e "i$ t a"m and s oulde".o ,efendants argue t at w e"e t e"e a"e se+e"al defendants# and t e"e is di+ision of "es-onsi&ilit( in t e

use of an inst"umentalit( %ausin$ t e in u"(# and t e in u"( mi$ t a+e "esulted f"om t e se-a"ate a%t of

eit e" one of two o" mo"e -e"sons# t e "ule of "es i-sa %annot &e in+o'ed5 and t at w e"e t e"e a"ese+e"al inst"umentalities# and no s owin$ is made as to w i% %aused t e in u"( o" as to t e -a"ti%ula" defendant in %ont"ol of it# t e do%t"ine %annot a--l(.

Issue: W et e" "es i-sa %an &e a--lied w en t e"e is no one -a"ti%ula" defendant t at %an &e a%%used wit%e"taint( &e%ause t e in u"ed was suffe"ed w en t e -laintiff was un%ons%ious.

Holding: :ud$ment fo" -laintiff. W e"e a -laintiff "e%ei+ed unusual in u"ies w ile un%ons%ious and in t e%ou"se of medi%al t"eatment# all t ose defendants w o ad an( %ont"ol o+e" is &od( o" t e inst"umentalitiest at mi$ t a+e %aused t e in u"ies ma( -"o-e"l( &e %alled u-on to meet t e infe"en%e of ne$li$en%e &( $i+in$an e?-lanation of t ei" %ondu%t. It s ould &e enou$ t at t e -laintiff %an s ow an in u"( "esultin$ f"om ane?te"nal fo"%e a--lied w ile e la( un%ons%ious in t e os-ital5 t is is a %lea" %ase of identifi%ation of t einst"umentalit( as t e -laintiff ma( e+e" &e a&le to ma'e.

5ote: T is %ase $oes a$ainst t e no"m# and most %ou"ts -la%e t e &u"den of -"o+in$ lia&ilit( a$ainst ea%defendant sJua"el( on t e -laintiff. 4ou"t said t at in t is so"t of %ase w e"e t e -laintiff is un%ons%ious# we

would % an$e t e &u"den of initial e?-lanation t e &u"den of %omin$ fo"wa"d wit t e e+iden%e.$. S llivan v. ,ra:tree

Facts: is a -assen$e" in a moto" t"u%' o-e"ated &( C5 w en t e t"u%' was a--"oa% in$ a %u"+e# anot e" t"u%' -assed it# and ust afte"# C,s t"u%' suddenl( swe"+ed and "an off t e left s oulde"# o+e"tu"ned down astee- em&an'ment# 'illin$ 5 C was una&le to dete"mine w at %aused t e swe"+e# %laimin$ it %ould &e loose$"a+el# -oo" -a+ement# o" &"a'e malfun%tion. !oes to u"( T"ial %ou"t "uled fo" t e defendant.

Issue: W et e" "es i-sa s ould &e a--lied w en no e?-lanation &( t e defendant fo" t e %ause of t ea%%ident is $i+en.

Holding: :ud$ment affi"med fo" defendant. T e %ou"t found t at t e a--li%ation of "es i-sa loJuitu" onl(allowed t e u"( to infe" t e ne$li$en%e of t e a--ellee defendant in -"efe"en%e to ot e" -e"missi&le o" "easona&le infe"en%es. T e %ou"t fu"t e" found it was u- to t e u"( to % oose t e infe"en%e t e( t ou$ t most-"o&a&le and t at t e"e was suffi%ient e+iden%e fo" t e u"( to find in fa+o" of defendant. T e %ou"t also foundno ot e" assi$nments of e""o" -"esented &( -laintiffs t at %ould &e %onside"ed and affi"med t e ud$ment fo" defendant.o C won a t"ial &( u"( &efo"e t e a--eal# -"o&a&l( &e%ause e &"ou$ t u- all 'inds of -ossi&ilities w ( it

%ould a+e a--ened to dis-el t e %laims. Also# e is a t"u%'e" and 'nows t e -"o-e" wa( to d"i+e#meanin$ t at t e u"( -"o&a&l( too' into a%%ount is s'ill and a&ilit( to %ont"ol a t"u%'.

Inferences:


25/80

a toe in %o%a %ola# if im t"ial ud$e toes do not &elon$ in %o%a %ola &ottles# and unless * s ows wit -"oof t at elf -ut it into t e &ottle# $oin$ to di"e%t a +e"di%t. Some "es i-sa %ases (ou %ant use infe"en%e.

Chapter Four: ctual Causation

A. )ut fo" 4ausation7 *id t e *efendant,s m- would t e -laintiff &e dead/1. If P %ant s ow t at B 2>m- same t in$ wouldn,t a+ea--ened# s-eedin$ is not t e %ause.

Rule: It must a--ea" t at it is mo"e li'el( t an not t at t e a"m would a+e &een a+e"ted &ut fo" t ene$li$en%e of t e defendant. 0urden of pro$ing the lin# is upon D) It is "eJui"ed &( law fo" t e e+iden%e tos ow t at it is mo"e -"o&a&le t an not t at t e a"m was %aused &( t e to"tious %ondu%t of C.o


26/80

o )ut fo" %ausation is a s%"een t at lets t "ou$ %ases t at we mi$ t want to 'ill &ut need anot e" %onst"u%tto 'ill= isn,t $oin$ to &e &ut fo" %ausation.

. +or# v. Tri#ent +isheries ,o. Facts: ,s us&and wo"'ed on a fis in$ &oat# C5 as went on de%' fo" is s ift# t e s i- "olled and e was

t "own o+e"&oa"d5 due to a &"eeDe and wind# no&od( ea"d t e (ell and no %lot in$ was seen floatin$ in t ewate"5 %laims t at t e manne" in w i% C o-e"ated t e &oat intended to "es%ue e" us&and was in e""o"#and -"e+ented a "es%ue.

Issue: W et e" t e -laintiff# a man o+e"&oa"d# would a+e &een "es%ued &ut fo" t e ne$li$ent o-e"ation of t e

defendant,s "es%ue &oat. Holding: :ud$ment fo" defendant. E+en if C is ne$li$ent# t e"e is not in$ to s ow t e( in an( wa( %ont"i&utedto Fo"d,s deat . ;e disa--ea"ed w en e fell f"om t e t"awle" and it does not a--ea" t at if t e "es%ue &oatad &een o-e"ated -"o-e"l( and a diffe"ent met od of -"o-ellin$ it ad &een used e %ould a+e &een"es%ued.

,oors: C was ne$li$ent &e%ause t e &oat s ould a+e &een on a sus-ende"# and t e"e s ould a+e &een twooa"s instead of one. ;owe+e"# e does not $et -ast *oo" 2 &ut fo" %ausation. T e"e is no int in t is %aset at if t e eJui-ment ad &een -ut to use -"o-e"l(# not in$ would a+e % an$ed.

H&pothetical: W at if someone said t at t e"e was a lon$ s ot % an%e 68201 t at e would a+e made it/Still %an,t -"o+e mu% # &ut it seems -ossi&le t at it would &e sent to t e u"(.T e fun%tion of life sa+in$ eJui-ment is to $i+e it a s ot fo" t at 6820 % an%e.


27/80

rticle cited on p2 on cause in fact! %ause in fa%t is onl( -a"tiall( a (-o &ut fo" s%ientifi% Juestion.4lea"l( w en it %an &e dete"mined t at *s ne$li$en%e is not t e %ause in fa%t. Its t"ue in $ene"al we -ut&u"den of -"oof on t e -laintiff mo"e -"o&a&l( t an not1 &ut sa(s t is is not mat # t e"e is -oli%( e"e too=we a"e t"(in$ to fi$u"e out w et e" I a+e enou$ %ausation to im-ose lia&ilit(. T"(in$ to fi$u"e out w et e" t e"e is enou$ %ausation to im-ose lia&ilit(. In Re(nolds# ne$li$ent towa"ds +e"( t(-e of -eo-le w o li$ t isintended fo".

. Failu"e to Wa"n and A%tual 4ausation If t e "is's of a"m a"e $ene"all( o&+ious to "easona&le -eo-le# no dut( to wa"n a"ises.

W en t e "is's of a"m a"e not $ene"all( o&+ious# &ut t e defendant -"o+es t at t e -a"ti%ula" -laintiff 'new of t e dan$e" f"om ot e" sou"%es# %ou"ts a+e "uled t at defendant,s failu"e to wa"n did not %ause t e a%%ident.o In ot e" wo"ds# if t e"e a"en,t o&+ious "is's# &ut t e defendant %an -"o+e t e in u"ed found out f"om

someone else a&out t em# t e defendant won,t &e eld lia&le.o *efendant %an also a"$ue t at t e in u"ed would not a+e "ead t e "is's if t e( ad &een a+aila&le.

Manufa%tu"e of -"odu%ts and failu"e to wa"no Some %ou"ts a+e eld t at w en a manufa%tu"e" dist"i&utes a -"odu%t wit out adeJuate wa"nin$# t e

manufa%tu"e" %an "e&ut t at t e -u"% ase" would not a+e "ead t e wa"nin$.Reasons su$$ested7 &lind# illite"ate# into?i%ated# i""es-onsi&le o" la? in ud$ment.

;eedin$ -"esum-tion# w i% is "e&utta&le &( t e * P %an sa( if t e"e was a wa"nin$ would,+e eeded it. * %an sa( t at,snot t"ue.). S-e%ial P"o&lems of P"oof

6. !ene"al T is se%tion deals wit t e Jualit( of te% ni%al -"oof t at t e defendant,s %ondu%t a%tuall( %aused t e a"m in

Juestion. T e issue fo" t e se%tion will &e=o W et e" t e defendant,s %ondu%t itself ad an(t in$ to do wit %ausin$ t e a"m.o *efendants will %laim t at t ei" %ondu%t ad not in$ to do wit t e %ase. Plaintiff mi$ t a+e suffe"ed an

in u"(. I ad not in$ to do wit t isK2. Kramer Servi"e 6n". v. /il'ins

Facts: is t e a--ellee in t is %ase and C is a--ellant# as -e" t"ial %ou"t,s +e"di%t fo" 5 w en was lea+in$a otel "oom in C,s otel# a &"o'en -ie%e of $lass o+e" t e doo" fell on is ead5 two (ea"s afte" t e in u"(# as'in %an%e" de+elo-ed in t e e?a%t lo%ation of t e wound# w i% ad not full( ealed5 a %u"e still ad not &eeneffe%ted fo" su% %an%e" at t e time of t"ial# t "ee (ea"s afte" t e in u"(. Two e?-e"ts testified as witnesses5&ot -"ett( mu% %on%luded t at t e"e was no %ausal %onne%tion &etween t e t"auma and t e %an%e"# and if t e"e we"e a %ausal %onne%tion t en t at would &e su% a "a"it(# and would not &e a&le to &e -"o+en.o T e u"( $"anted a la"$e "ewa"d fo" &e%ause t e su&seJuent %an%e" was found to &e -a"t of t e in u"(

t at C was lia&le fo"5 C "eJuested a u"( % a"$e t at it s ould not &e ta'en into %onside"ation# and it wasdenied5 t at is t e &asis of t is a--eal t e fa%t t at t e "ewa"d s ould not a+e in%luded t e %an%e".

Issue: W et e" C,s ne$li$en%e fo" t e in u"( is %ausall( "elated to t e su&seJuent %an%e" of . Rule: W e"e t e issue is one w i% lies w oll( &e(ond t e "an$e of t e e?-e"ien%e of la(men# %ou"ts and

u"ies must of ne%essit( de-end u-on and a%%e-t t e undis-uted testimon( of "e-uta&le s-e%ialists# else t e"ewould &e no su&stantial foundation u-on w i% to "est a %on%lusion.o It is not enou$ t at ne$li$en%e of t e em-lo(e" and in u"( to t e em-lo(ee e?ists# &ut t e in u"( must

a+e &een %aused &( t e ne$li$en%e. Holding: :ud$ment affi"med fo" on lia&ilit(5 ud$ment "e+e"sed and "emanded fo" C on amount of dama$es

as a "esult of t e %an%e". E?-e"ts, testimon( is t at as a -ossi&ilit( a s'in %an%e" %ould &e %aused &( an in u"(su% as e"e a--ened# &ut as a -"o&a&ilit( t e - (si%ians we"e in a$"eement t at t e"e was o" is no su% a-"o&a&ilit(.o C is sa(in$ t at not in$ -"o+es t at t e %an%e" was %aused &( t e in u"( to t e s'in in t at a"ea# w i%

was a "esult of t e ne$li$en%e. Nou,"e essentiall( as'in$ t e %ou"t to -ut all %an%e" %laims on fault( doo" windows. S ow u- wit "eal e+iden%e if t is is w at (ou,"e loo'in$ to -"o+e as a -laintiff. If (ou %an,t dot is# t en (ou,"e not $oin$ to win t e %ase. T e fa%t t at t e e?-e"ts we"e un%on+in%in$ does not satisf(t is -"oof. T is is t e eJui+alent of sa(in$ t at if (ou d"an' a %an of 4o'e t e da( t e %an%e" %ame out#(ou %an sue 4o'e fo" t e %an%e".

. Im-"o&a&le 4onseJuen%es A %laimant,s disa&ilit( is -"esumed to a+e "esulted f"om an a%%ident# if &efo"e t e a%%ident t e in u"ed -e"son

was in $ood ealt # &ut %ommen%in$ wit t e a%%ident t e s(m-toms of t e disa&lin$ %ondition a--ea" and%ontinuousl( manifest t emsel+es afte"wa"d# -"o+idin$ t at t e medi%al e+iden%e s ows t e"e to &e a"easona&le -ossi&ilit( of %ausal %onne%tion &etween t e a%%ident and t e disa&lin$ %ondition.

. P"o&lem Wit P"o&a&ilities


28/80

Smith v. Ra i# Transit 6n".o It is not enou$ t at mat emati%all( t e % an%es somew at fa+o" a -"o-osition to &e -"o+ed.o Fo" e?am-le# t e fa%t t at %olo"ed automo&iles made in t e %u""ent (ea" outnum&e" &la%' ones would not

wa""ant a findin$ t at an un des%"i&ed automo&ile of t e %u""ent (ea" is %olo"ed and not &la%'.5. Da :ert v. -errell Do? =harma"e ti"als 6n".

Facts: s a"e mino" % ild"en w o we"e &o"n wit &i"t defe%ts &e%ause t ei" mot e" in$ested )ende%tindu"in$ -"e$nan%(5 C ma"'ets t e d"u$5 &ot sides ad e?-e"ts testif(# &ut summa"( ud$ment was $"anted fo" C &e%ause t e %ou"t found t at ,s e?-e"t,s testimon( was not +alid.

%212! w et e" t e t eo"( o" te% niJue in / %an &e tested# w et e" its &een su& e%ted to -ee" "e+iew and

-u&li%ation# its 'nown o" -otential e""o" "ate# t e e?isten%e and maintenan%e of standa"ds %ont"ollin$ itso-e"ation# and w et e" it as att"a%ted wides-"ead a%%e-tan%e wit in a "ele+ant s%ientifi% %ommunit(. It is role of trial judge to be gate#eeper' to #eep out jun# science "- ? abo$e criteria) Twe"s'i sa(s

an(time (ou $i+e a ud$e %"ite"ia (ou,"e $i+in$ t em u$e dis%"etion.o @Eperts: C,s E?-e"t Re+iewed lite"atu"e and %ase studies of t e d"u$ and found t at it was not a 'nown

te"ato$en a su&stan%e %a-a&le of %ausin$ malfo"mations in fetuses1. ,s E?-e"ts H in total1 4on%ludedt at t e d"u$ %an %ause &i"t defe%ts. T ei" %on%lusions we"e &ased u-on in +it"oG test tu&e1 and in+i+oG li+e1 animal studies t at found a lin' &etween )ende%tin and malfo"mations.

General cceptance Test: *ist"i%t %ou"t $"anted summa"( ud$ment &e%ause t e s%ientifi% e+iden%e isadmissi&le onl( if t e -"in%i-le u-on w i% it is &ased is suffi%ientl( esta&lis ed to a+e $ene"al a%%e-tan%ein t e field to w i% it &elon$s.Go ,s e?-e"t testimon( did not meet t is $ene"al a%%e-tan%e standa"d. Ruled to inadmissi&le &e%ause t ei"

"esults ad not &een -u&lis ed o" su& e%ted to -ee" "e+iew.o 9 t 4i"%uit affi"med dist"i%t %ou"t,s "ulin$. Stated t at e?-e"t o-inion &ased on a s%ientifi% te% niJue is

inadmissi&le unless t e te% niJue is $ene"all( a%%e-tedG as "elia&le in t e "ele+ant s%ientifi% %ommunit(#a%%o"din$ to+rye .

Issue: W et e" t e $ene"al a%%e-tan%e test is a +alid wa( to measu"e lia&ilit( &ased on e?-e"t testimon(#w en t e testimon( "e+eals t at t e -laintiff,s in u"ies we"e t e "esult of t e defendant,s ne$li$entadminist"ation of -"es%"i-tion d"u$s. W et e" t e $ene"al a%%e-tan%e t eo"( is +alid in not a%%e-tin$ -laintiff,se?-e"t,s testimon(.

Holding: :ud$ment is fo" -laintiff t e %ase is to &e "emanded to t e 4ou"t of A--eals w e"e t e two -"on$test will &e a--lied to dete"mine if ,s e?-e"t testimon( is admissi&le e+iden%e instead of +rye ,s $ene"ala%%e-tan%e test.o 5e" Test: Fo" e?-e"t testimon(# w et e" t e e?-e"t is -"o-osin$ to testif( to 61 s%ientifi% 'nowled$e t at

21 will assist t e t"ie" of fa%t to unde"stand o" dete"mine a fa%t in issue. Fa%to"s to %onside" in dete"minin$if in fa%t it is s%ientifi% 'nowled$e t e fi"st -"on$1=

W et e" t e info"mation as &een o" %an &e tested5 W et e" t e t eo"( o" te% niJue as &een su& e%ted to -ee" "e+iew and -u&li%ation5 A %ou"t s ould %onside" t e 'nown o" -otential "ate of e""o"5Wides-"ead a%%e-tan%e %an &e an im-o"tant fa%to" in "ulin$ -a"ti%ula" e+iden%e admissi&le# and a'nown te% niJue w i% as &een a&le to att"a%t onl( minimal su--o"t wit in t e %ommunit( ma(-"o-e"l( &e +iewed wit s'e-ti%ism.G

5otes: T is is a to?i% to"t %ase# and is almost alwa(s %ited in simila" %ases in%ludes an( 'ind of d"u$s. Noua+e to -"o+e t at A %auses )# &ut ultimatel( it is diffi%ult to do t at &e%ause t e"e %ould &e so man( "easonsfo" t e in u"(.o T is "ulin$ -"o+ided a +e"( fle?i&le tool to $i+e t"ial ud$es a means fo" dismissin$ t e %ase5 t e"e a"e

fa%to"s to loo' at# and if t e ud$e doesn,t feel t at it fits an( of t em# it $ets t "own out &efo"e t e u"(.Man( %u""ent %ases a+e to a+e Da :ert ea"in$s in o"de" to dete"mine if t e fa%to"s offe"ed &( t e

-laintiffs a"e "ele+ant.o Nou %an,t ma'e a (-ot eti%al fo" t ese tests %an,t sa(# Let,s -"etend (ou didn,t ta'e t e )ende%tin fo" (ou" nausea.G T is fits in to w at we,+e lea"ned &e%ause of info"med %onsent. T e -laintiff s ould a+et e % oi%e to dete"mine if s e wants to ta'e t e d"u$.

o T is is diffe"ent t an info"med %onsent t ou$ # &e%ause in t ose %ases it is an issue fo" t e u"(. )ut#w et e" t e su"$e"( %aused t e a"m is not an issue it is %lea". In t is %ase# t e de%ision of w at (ouwould a+e done is +e"( %lea" t e( would,+e ta'en t e d"u$15 w at is not %lea" is if t e d"u$ %aused t ea"m. T us# t e"e is no -"ote%tion of (ou" "i$ t to info"med %onsent fo" ta'in$ t e d"u$5 (ou,"e dealin$ wita se-a"ate issue. *id it a%tuall( %ause it/ *on,t 'now not enou$ e+iden%e to su--o"t.

. Da :ert v. -errell Do? =harma"e ti"als 6n". on a--eal1 First %rong


29/80

o Pu"-ose7 To dete"mine w et e" t ose e?-e"ts, -"o-osed testimon( amounts to s%ientifi% 'nowled$e#%onstitutes $ood s%ien%e# and was de"i+ed &( t e s%ientifi% met od.

o Findin$s7 T at an e?-e"t testifies &ased on "esea"% e as %ondu%ted inde-endent of t e liti$ation-"o+ides im-o"tant# o& e%ti+e -"oof t at t e "esea"% %om-o"ts wit t e di%tates of $ood s%ien%e.

Means t at e?-e"t testimon( was o& e%ti+e and wit in t e standa"d of &ein$ de"i+ed &( t es%ientifi% met od.G

o Holding: Fi"st -"on$ as &een satisfied. (ea"

su"+i+al was 9 -e"%ent5 at t e time of t e dia$nosis mont s late"# t e -ossi&ilit( of > (ea" su"+i+al was"edu%ed to 2> -e"%ent. T us# t e dela( in dia$nosis ma( a+e "edu%ed t e % an%e of a > (ea" su"+i+al &(6 -e"%ent5 t is is a -e"%ent "edu%tionK

Issue: W et e" a -e"%ent "edu%tion in % an%e of su"+i+al is suffi%ient e+iden%e of %ausation to allow t e u"( to %onside" t e -ossi&ilit( t at C,s failu"e to timel( dia$nose t e illness was t e -"o?imate %ause of de%edent,s deat .

Rule: 4ase Law Hamil v. Bashline 69 H1o 4ou"t dete"mined t at t e o"i$inal su"+i+al % an%e of >0 -e"%ent was suffi%ient to send t e %ase to t e

u"(.o On%e as demonst"ated t at C,s a%ts o" omissions a+e in%"eased t e "is' of a"m to anot e"# su%

e+iden%e fu"nis es a &asis fo" t e u"( to ma'e a dete"mination as to w et e" su% in%"eased "is' was intu"n a su&stantial fa%to" in &"in$in$ a&out t e "esultant a"m.

o W e"e -e"%enta$e -"o&a&ilities and de%"eased -"o&a&ilities a"e su&mitted into e+iden%e# t e"e is sim-l(no dan$e" of s-e%ulation on t e -a"t of t e u"(.

Holding: :ud$ment fo" -laintiff dama$es s ould &e awa"ded to t e in u"ed -a"t( o" is famil( &ased onl( ondama$es %aused di"e%tl( &( -"ematu"e deat not t e w ole deat # &e%ause e would a+e died soonan(wa(1. Plaintiff did not need to s ow t at de%edentYs -"o&a&ilit( of su"+i+al was >6 -e"%ent# and -laintiffYse+iden%e of a "edu%ed % an%e of su"+i+al was suffi%ient fo" u"( dete"mination of -"o?imate %ause.

Concurring: 4ausation s ouldn,t &e all o" not in$ -"o-osition. If (ou %an identif( w at lost % an%e is and %anfi$u"e out w at total dama$es would,+e &een if ad li+ed# (ou $i+e 6 Z... t e idea is to sa( t at %ausation will&e -"o-o"tioned &ased on t e lost % an%e. ;e was 6 -e"%ent dead# and (ou "edu%ed it# so $i+e im eit e" t e -e"%ent "edu%tion in % an%es# o" 6 -e"%ent diffe"en%e. W at is 6 -e"%ent wo"t / Nou,"e 600 -e"%entali+e w en (ou a+e t ose % an%es# and (ou,"e 0 -e"%ent ali+e w en (ou don,t. ;ow %an (ou +alue t at/W at if e ad a &ad ea"t as well/ ;ow do we in%o"-o"ate t at into t e %an%e" "is'/ Would we "edu%e t e"e%o+e"( e+en mo"e &e%ause of ot e" ealt -"o&lems/

H. T e Afte"mat of ers'ovits T e mino"it( of %ou"ts "efuses to allow "e%o+e"( fo" loss of % an%e unless t e -laintiff %an esta&lis %ausation

unde" t e t"aditional ne$li$en%e standa"d. In t ese %ases# t e -laintiff must s ow t at t e defendant,s failu"eto dia$nose o" t"eat t e -laintiff did# mo"e li'el( t an not# %ause t e -laintiff,s a"m.

A ma o"it( of u"isdi%tions allow loss of % an%e %laims to "ea% t e u"( e+en w en t e -laintiff %annot -"o+et at t e defendant was# mo"e li'el( t an not# t e %ause of t e -laintiff,s a"m.o 4ou"ts old t at it would &e fo" a u"( to de%ide w et e" t e in%"ease in "is' due to t e defendant,s

ne$li$ent failu"e to -"o+ide "easona&le %a"e was a su&stantial fa%to"G in %ausin$ t e a"m. Anot e" diffe"en%e amon$ t e %ou"ts is t e wa( t e( %on%e-tualiDe t e a"m fo" w i% t e -laintiffs see' to

"e%o+e". Some +iew t e a"m as t e "esultin$ disa&ilit( o" deat # w ile ot e"s +iew t e % an%e itself as a+alua&le inte"est and allow "e%o+e"( fo" its loss.


30/80

o If %ausation is -"o+en# %ou"ts t at follow t e t"aditional %on%e-tion of t e deat o" in u"( as t e a"mt(-i%all( lea+e t e u"( f"ee to dete"mine t e "e%o+e"( amount# allowin$ eit e" full %om-ensation o" alesse" amount to &e awa"ded at t ei" dis%"etion.

o Ot e" %ou"ts t at "e%o$niDe t e % an%e# itself# as t e loss -"o+ide a -e"%enta$e &ased fo"mula fo" t e u"(to use in %al%ulatin$ dama$es.

4. W en Two o" Mo"e1


31/80

t e -a"t of t e o"i$inato" of t e fi"e. It is im-ossi&le to a--o"tion t e dama$es o" to sa( t at eit e" -e"-et"atedan( distin%t in u"( t at %an &e se-a"ated f"om t e w ole.o If t e defendant %laims t at t e unitin$ fi"e was made &( natu"e o" was of a la"$e" -"o-o"tion# t e &u"den

is on im to -"o+e t at &( "eason of su% union# t e fi"e set &( im was not t e -"o?imate %ause of t edama$e. C does not do t is in t is %ase# and it a--ea"s t at t e no"t east fi"e# fo" t e o"i$in of w i% C is"es-onsi&le# was a -"o?imate %ause of ,s loss C is "es-onsi&le fo" t e enti"e amount of t at loss.

>. Restatements 6 An a%to",s ne$li$ent %ondu%t is a le$al %ause of a"m to anot e" if is %ondu%t is a su&stantial fa%to" in

&"in$in$ a&out t e a"m.

2 21 If two fo"%es a"e a%ti+el( o-e"atin$# one &e%ause of t e a%to",s ne$li$en%e# t e ot e" not &e%ause of an( mis%ondu%t on is -a"t# and ea% of itself is suffi%ient to &"in$ a&out a"m to anot e"# t e a%to",sne$li$en%e ma( &e found to &e a su&stantial fa%to" in &"in$in$ it a&out.

Restatement 2 nd of Torts used su&stantial fa%to" in &"in$in$ a&out t e a"mGRestatement rd used t e &ut fo" test# &ut added 2 multi-le suffi%ient %ases7 if multi-le a%ts e?ist# ea% of w i% alonewould a+e &een a fa%tual %ause unde" 2 of t e - (si%al a"m at t e same time# each act is regarded as a factualcause of the harm) %2 2 don't get off the hoo#t e "estatement as wisel( "id itself of t e su&stantial fa%to" test= e?%e-t fo" t e %ase w e"e t e two to"tfeaso"s we"einde-endentl( %a-a&le of %ausin$ t e P,s a"m# t e su&stantial fa%to" test %aused %onfusion.G P2 2

*. W en One of Se+e"al


32/80

o In summe"s one $u( it one missed# in t is %ase# e+e"(&od( it. If (ou sold *ES (ou %aused%an%e". I ust don,t 'now w ose %an%e" (ou %aused Twe"s'i1 -"o&lem wit usin$ t esumme"s "ationale e"e %ou"t "efused to do summe"s1 if (ou t"eat t em all as ointto"tfeaso"s# t en an( * is lia&le fo" 600Z of dama$es and didn,t want t is to a--en. T iss ift &u"den of -"oof to * would mean if t e( %ouldn,t -"o+e it wasn,t t em we"e 600Z lia&le.

*efendant,s Res-onse [67 Im-o"tant to unde"stand t at t e"e a"e a--"o?imatel( 200 d"u$ %om-aniesin t is %ase t at made *ES# &ut onl( 2 -ossi&le s oote"s in S mmers . T e"e was a >0 -e"%ent% an%e t e"e# w ile e"e one of 200 %om-anies ma( a+e made t e -"odu%t t at a"med t e -laintiff.T e"e is no "ational &asis u-on w i% to infe" t an an( defendant in t is a%tion %aused -laintiff,sin u"ies# no" e+en a "easona&le -ossi&ilit( t at t e( we"e "es-onsi&le.

o [27 4on%e"t of A%tions Cs failed to adeJuatel( test t e d"u$ o" to $i+e suffi%ient wa"nin$ of its dan$e"sand t at t e( "elied u-on t e tests -e"fo"med &( one anot e" and too' ad+anta$e of ea% ot e",s-"omotional and ma"'etin$ te% niJues.

4ou"t,s Res-onse [27 T ese alle$ations do not amount to a % a"$e t at t e"e was a ta%itunde"standin$ o" a %ommon -lan amon$ defendants to fail to %ondu%t adeJuate tests o" $i+esuffi%ient wa"nin$s# and t at t e( su&stantiall( aided and en%ou"a$ed one anot e" in t ese omissions.T e"e is no alle$ation e"e t at ea% defendant 'new t e ot e" defendants, %ondu%t was to"tioustowa"d -laintiff# and t at t e( assisted and en%ou"a$ed one anot e" to inadeJuatel( test *ES and to-"o+ide adeJuate wa"nin$s.

o [ 7 Ente"-"ise Lia&ilit( t e -"a%ti%e of t e indust"( of omittin$ a wa"nin$ on indi+idual &lastin$ %a-s andof failin$ to ta'e ot e" safet( measu"es %"eated an un"easona&le "is' of a"m# "esultin$ in t e -laintiffs,in u"ies. T e %om-laint did not identif( a -a"ti%ula" manufa%tu"e" of a %a- t at %aused a -a"ti%ula" in u"(.T is t eo"( "elies on all # in w i% t e( will t"( to s ow t at if t e %a-s we"e manufa%tu"ed &( one of t edefendants# t e &u"den will s ift to t e defendants to -"o+e w i% one is "es-onsi&le.

4ou"t,s Res-onse [ 7 4an,t a--l( t e "ationale to t is %ase &e%ause t e"e a"e 200 manufa%tu"e"s. Also# t e F*A does e?ist and sets standa"ds fo" t ese %i"%umstan%es. T us# t e manufa%tu"e"s mustad e"e to t ese standa"ds# and %annot &e eld at fault fo" %om-l(in$ wit t e F*A.

Holding-5e" Rule: :ud$ment fo" -laintiff# wit t e %"eation of a new standa"d7o Measu"e t e li'eli ood t at an( of t e defendants su--lied t e -"odu%t t at alle$edl( in u"ed -laintiff &(

t e -e"%enta$e t at t e *ES sold &( ea% of t em fo" t e -u"-ose of -"e+entin$ mis%a""ia$e &ea"s to t eenti"e -"odu%tion of t e d"u$ sold &( all fo" t at -u"-ose. Ma"'et s a"e t eo"( T e > defendants a%%ountfo" 90 -e"%ent of t e manufa%tu"e"s. U(ou %an -"o+e (ou"self out of t e %ase if didn,t sell to t at "e$ion of t e %ount"( o" t at - a"ma%( in 4alifo"nia5 0Z of t e ma"'et# s ould we a+e oint o" se+e"al lia&ilit(/ S ould >Z * &et"eated as oint to"tfeaso" and &e lia&le fo" 600Z &8% P as 600Z loss and *s %aused a"m and %antfi$u"e out w o did w at. In Restatement# sa( no $"ounds fo" dou&lin$ -e"%enta$e oint8se+e"al lia&ilit(1 int is %ase# don,t 'now t at an(&od( is t e &ut fo" %ause= all we 'now is t e( %aused >Z %an%e" in t e S.If >0Z of ma"'et isn,t t e"e t en P tou$ lu%'.


33/80

o *ES was eas( fo" t is &e%ause it was a standa"d d"u$# $i+en fo" one -u"-ose# o+e" a s o"t -e"iod of time.It made -in-ointin$ t e &ounda"ies of t e ma"'et s a"e eas( to dete"mine.

E?am-le7 as&estos in %a" &"a'es $i+es auto me% ani%s +a"ious t(-es of %an%e"s. *iffi%ult todete"mine &e%ause (ou a"e n

Twerski Tort Fall 2014

Documents

Transcript of Twerski Tort Fall 2014