Heise Torts Loose Ends

Horton

- If a 3rd party intervenes between the defendant's negligence and plaintiff's harm, the defendant is no longer liable unless the 3rd party intervention is foreseeable - defendant company discarded a dynamite cap near a public school, which was picked up by a kid (whose parents knew somewhat what the object was) who then traded it with plaintiff, resulting in his injury ● Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff; Since the cap went through the first kid whose parents were negligent, the defendant isn't held for the original liable ○ Their conduct broke the causal connection between the original negligent act of appellant and the subsequent injury of the plaintiff

Eckert

- If defendant BPL calculation wasn't rash or reckless then he can't be deemed negligent plaintiff was killed when he jumped on tracks to save a child; burden and probability of harm to plaintiff was high but loss of child was higher ○ Court determined it was possible the plaintiff wasn't unreasonable because of this

White v. University of Idaho

- defendant piano teacher touched back of the plaintiff like he was playing a piano; plaintiff suffered extensive injuries ● Court found defendant liable for injuries even though he had the intent to touch but not the intent to harm

Walston and Newing

- defendant's boat disappeared at sea while crab fishing ● Court refused to submit res ipsa loquitur to the jury, noting that the sea itself contains many hazards that could have led to the boat disappearing - Newing v. Cheatham: plaintiff was killed when defendant crashed plane; plaintiff's evidence indicated that only possible cause of the crash was negligence of defendant in running out of fuel ● Defendant had been drinking, visibility was clear, weather was calm, etc.; also no evidence that the plaintiff's voluntary conduct could have contributed to the crash ○ No clear alternative explanation and planes don't just disappear ● Court took the case from the jury and gave direct a verdict for the plaintiff; successful res ipsa loquitur for the plaintiff - Why did res ipsa loquitur apply in the Newing case but not in Walston? ● Accidents in areas with the most safety equipment/advanced technology are the strongest res ipsa cases ○ Better technology reduces the number of accidents, but in the accidents that do occur, it makes it easier to rule out natural events or plaintiff's error

RST § 339

1. A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if a. (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and b. (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and c. (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and d. (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and e. (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.

§ 41.

1. parent 2. custodian 3. employer 4. mental-health professional with patients

Prosser Test

1.) does not generally happen without negligence 2.) Exclusive control of D 3.) P did not contribute

2nd vs 3rd RST prox cause

2RST: Actor neg conduct is legal cause of harm if his conduct is a substantial factor in brining art harm and no rule of law relieving liability 3rd RST: harm within risk

UHA 2nd vs 3rd RST

2nd: activity has some community value 3rd: scope is physical harm, harm within risk, foreseeability (BPL)

RST 1

A person actos w/ producing that consequence B.) that person acts knowing the consequence is substantially certain to result

RST§443A

Damages for harm are to be apportioned among two or more causes where 1. (a) there are distinct harms, or 2. (b) there is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm.

RTT §14

a. An actor is neg. if, w/o excuse, he violates a statute that is designed to protect against the type of accident the actor's conduct causes and if the accident victim is w/i the class of persons the statute is designed to protect.

Brune

doctors in two different areas had two different treatments for the same issue ● Court found defendant liable for using a different treatment because the locality rule doesn't apply when not dealing with small country doctors ○ Agreed with the traditional locality rule from Small case but it didn't apply in this case; there should be a national standard

6 factors UHA

high degree of risk to others or property, likelihood of harm, inability to eliminate harm through reasonable care, common usage, inappropriateness of activity to place its done, value of community

LPEH § 39

i. RTT: LPEH § 39: Duty based on prior conduct creating a risk of physical harm 1. When an actor's prior conduct, even though not tortious, creates a continuing risk of physical harm of a type characteristic of the conduct, the actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent or minimize the harm.

O'brien

immigrant woman holding out arm = implied consent

RST 2

intent to contact, need not intent to cause harm or offense

Gorris

plaintiff shipped sheep with the defendant who failed to pen them in accordance with statute; sheep was washed overboard in a storm ○ Court found plaintiff couldn't recover even though defendant failed to follow the statute because the type of harm it was supposed to prevent was disease and the sheep not being washed overboard ■ Statute had nothing to do with this particular harm, even though the sheep wouldn't have washed away if they were pinned

Haft

plaintiffs brought wrongful death actions when a father and son drowned in the pool at the defendant's motel; defendant had not provided a required lifeguard ● Court addressed the burden of proof on causation by stating that it is usually plaintiff's burden, but the defendant's negligence also prevented plaintiff from having a witness ○ Plaintiffs have therefore done all they can to prove that the defendants, negligent in failure to provide a lifeguard, greatly enhanced the chances of the drownings and that a lifeguard would have prevented the deaths ■ Requiring plaintiff to establish proximate causation any more would give defendants an advantage ● By not providing a lifeguard or the signage makes it nearly impossible for plaintiff to satisfy the cause-in-fact element; Under these circumstances, burden of proof should be shifted to defendants

RST 17

type of accident + class of actor

Holland

● inexperienced driver gets the benefit of the lower standard against her driving instructor (with whom she has a special relationship), but not against an injured pedestrian (a stranger) who did not assume the risk