bus 250 chapter 7
Carol Klutz goes to GigaStore to look for clothes. The store happens to be in the process of remodeling, and there is a lot of clutter in the aisle. Carol trips over the clutter and is injured. GigaStore may be liable for Carol's injuries because she is a(n):
business invitee
If the defendant's breach of duty actually caused the ultimate harm, it is _
factual cause
In a state that has adopted contributory negligence,
if the plaintiff is even slightly negligent she recovers nothing.
If a statute is designed to protect a certain group of people from harm by setting a minimum standard of care for a particular activity, then the courts will hold that a violation of that statute which causes an injury to another is called
negligence per se.
Jimmy, a three-year-old child, took a penny and touched an exposed wire in an electrical outlet at the dry cleaners where his mother was waiting to pick up her laundry. Jimmy's parents sued the business claiming it should have had child protective guards on the outlets. Whether the business is liable will depend upon whether (best answer):
this was negligence per se
Bob used his airplane to spray pesticide on his crops in a very careful manner on a windless day. Nevertheless, some of the pesticide spray fell on his neighbor's side of the fence and contaminated the cornmeal for the chickens. The chickens died and the neighbor sues. What is the most likely result?
Cal is liable because spraying pesticides is an abnormally dangerous activity.
proximate clause
For the defendant to be liable, the type of harm must have been reasonably foreseeable.
Negligence Per Se
If a legislature sets a minimum standard of care for a particular activity in order to protect a certain group of people, and a violation of the statute injures a member of that group, the defendant has committed negligence per se.
factual cause
If one event directly led to the ultimate harm, it is the factual cause.
duty
If the defendant could foresee that misconduct would injure a particular person, he probably has a duty to her. Special duties exist for people on the job, landowners, and employers. )
Contributory and Comparative Negligence
In a contributory negligence state, a plaintiff who is even slightly responsible for his own injury recovers nothing; in a comparative negligence state, the jury may apportion liability between plaintiff and defendant.
Steve is making copies. Lonnie, his coworker, politely asks, "When will you be done with the copier?" Steve punches Lonnie in the face. Later, Lonnie learns that Steve's last two employers fired him for punching coworkers. He also finds out that his company did not do a background check of any kind on Steve before hiring him. Can Lonnie hold the company liable for the attack, or should Lonnie's only action be against Steve?
Lonnie's company can be held liable for hiring violent employees.
A sports fan, injured by a hockey puck that flew into the stands during an NHL game. The sports fan sues the NHL. Who will win this case and under what theory of the law?
NHL will win under assumption of the risk
Irving was a notary public who prepared income tax returns for Maroevich. Irving agreed to draft a will for Maroevich, leaving all of the property to Maroevich's sister, Biakanja. When Maroevich died, the probate court refused to accept the will because Irving had failed to have the signatures properly witnessed. As a result, Biakanja inherited only one-eighth of the estate. She sued Irving. Irving defended by saying that he had no duty of due care to Biakanja because all of his dealings were with Maroevich and none were with her. Is Irving right?
No, Irving has a duty of care because it was foreseeable that the failure to properly witness the signatures on the will would cause injury to Biakanja.
permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation.
Res Ipsa Loquiter. the thing speaks for itself" and permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation. See the section.
An18-year-old, 220-pound pet chimpanzee in Staking, Ohio left a woman in critical condition after attacking her—mutilating her face and hands. The owner, Sedrick, who tried to stop the attack, was also injured and briefly hospitalized. The victim remains in critical condition. ?The victim sues Sedrick for her injuries. What is the likely outcome and under what theory of law?
The victim will win under the theory of strict liability.
is a defense to a business engaging in ultrahazardous activities (strict liability).
There is no defense to engaging in ultrahazardous activities.
Kenneth was exposed to radiation on his job in an environmental cleanup. In a lawsuit against his employer, Kenneth documented his injuries to -date. He wins his case and gets the damages that he requested. Two years later, it has been determined that there is more damage that they thought initially. Kenneth wants to go back to court and sue for these additional costs that he has incurred. Kenneth will most likely...
Will not be able to sue because his injury has already been fully litigated.
Mavrex, Inc. received an application from Larry and, since his written qualifications seemed to meet a pressing current need, they hired him without checking his references or prior records. Actually, Larry had been in prison for murder several years earlier. Tom, a long-time Mavrex employee, angered Larry when Tom tried to tell Larry how to do his job. Larry attacked and injured Tom. Can Tom sue Mavrex and under what theory?
Yes. Under negligent hiring.
A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp., stalled in rush hour traffic on a busy interstate highway because of a defective alternator, which caused a complete failure of the truck's electrical system. The driver stood nearby and waved traffic around his stalled truck. A panel truck approached the GMC truck, and immediately behind the panel truck, Davis was driving a Volkswagen fastback. Because of the panel truck, Davis was unable to see the stalled GMC truck. The panel truck swerved out of the way of the GMC truck, and Davis drove straight into it. The accident killed him. Davis's widow sued GMC. GMC moved for summary judgment, alleging (1) no duty to Davis, (2) no factual causation, and (3) no foreseeable harm. Should summary judgment be granted?
Summary judgment for GMC denied; there was factual cause and the injury was foreseeable.
Mario was driving his truck in a comparative negligence state. Suddenly a sheet of plywood flew off the truck bed and onto the road. Sandy, who was driving behind Mario's truck, swerved and struck a telephone pole, causing her severe injuries. Which of the following is correct?
The actions of Mario and Sandy will be weighed to determine liability.
elements
The five elements of negligence are duty of due care, breach, factual causation, proximate causation, and damage.
damages
The plaintiff must persuade the court that he has suffered a harm that is genuine, not speculative. Damages for emotional distress, without a physical injury, are awarded only in select cases.
Assumption of the risk:
. means a person who voluntarily enters a situation that has an obvious danger cannot complain if she is injured
In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 20 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover:
80 percent of the damges
breach of duty
A defendant breaches his duty of due care by failing to meet his duty of care.
strict liability
A defendant is strictly liable for harm caused by an ultrahazardous activity or a defective product. Ultrahazardous activities include using harmful chemicals, blasting, and keeping wild animals. Strict liability means that if the defendant's conduct led to the harm, the defendant is liable, even if she exercises extraordinary care.
Ryder leased a truck to Florida Food Service. Powers, an employee, drove it to make deliveries. He noticed that the door strap used to close the rear door was frayed, and he asked Ryder to fix it. Ryder failed to do so in spite of numerous requests. The strap broke, and Powers replaced it with a nylon rope. Later, when Powers was attempting to close the rear door, the nylon rope broke and he fell, sustaining severe injuries to his neck and back. He sued Ryder. The trial court found that Power's attachment of the replacement rope was a superseding cause, relieving Ryder of any liability, and granted summary judgment for Ryder. Powers appealed. How should the appellate court rule?
Reverse and remand, as Ryder was informed of the problem and failed to take corrective measures.
Defendants are held strictly liable for actions that are determined to be ultrahazardous activities. Which activity listed below is NOT considered to be ultrahazardous?
Selling fireworks.
At approximately 7:50 PM bells at the train station rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express train's approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The train's engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 99 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as it passed through the station. Harris's widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroad's negligence caused her husband's death. Will she win
no, Harris's own actions were the factual cause of harm. The train station provided safety measures that Harris ignored, which any reasonable person would have stopped upon hearing and seeing the bells and flashing red lights.
For a defendant to be liable in a negligence case, the type of harm caused must have been:
reasonably foreseeable. The type of harm caused must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the negligence. See the section.
An invitee is:
someone on the property because it is a public place or a business open to the public.
In a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must show the defendant breached a reasonable duty of care, which is
that duty which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances.
