Unintentional Torts (Negligence), Defenses, and Strict Liability

Res Ipsa Loquitur

A doctrine under which negligence may be inferred simply because an event occurred, if it is the type of event that would not occur in the absence of negligence. Literally, the term means "the facts speak for themselves."

Res Ipsa Loquitur Example

A kidney donor, Darnell Backus, sustained injuries to his cervical spine and to the muscles on the left side of his body as a result of the surgery to harvest his kidney. He sued the hospital and physicians involved in the transplant operation for damages. Backus asserted res ipsa loquitor because the injury was the kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence. The burden of proof shifted to the defendants, and because they failed to show that they had not been negligent, Backus won.

business invitees

A person, such as a customer or a client, who is invited onto business premises by the owner of those premises for business purposes. Store owners have a duty to protect customers from potentially slipping and injuring themselves on merchandise that has fallen off the shelves, for instance.

Contributory Negligence

A rule in tort law, used in only a few states, that completely bars the plaintiff from recovering any damages if the damage suffered is partly the plaintiff's own fault.

Comparative Negligence

A rule in tort law, used in the majority of states, that reduces the plaintiff's recovery in proportion to the plaintiff's degree of fault, rather than barring recovery completely.

Applications of Strict Liability

A significant application of strict liability is in the area of product liability—liability of manufacturers and sellers for harmful or defective products. Liability here is a matter of social policy and is based on two factors: 1.The manufacturer or seller can better bear the cost of injury because it can spread the cost throughout society by increasing prices of goods and services. 2.The manufacturer or seller is making a profit from its activities and therefore should bear the cost of injury as an operating expense.

Good Samaritan statutes

A state statute stipulating that persons who provide emergency services to, or rescue, someone in peril cannot be sued for negligence unless they act recklessly, thereby causing further harm.

Dram Shop Acts

A state statute that imposes liability on the owners of bars and persons who serve alcoholic drinks for injuries resulting from accidents caused by intoxicated persons.

causation in fact

An act or omission without which an event would not have occurred.

negligence per se

An action or failure to act in violation of a statutory requirement. Negligence per se may occur if an individual violates a statute or ordinance and thereby causes the kind of harm that the statute was intended to prevent. The statute must clearly set out what standard of conduct is expected, when and where it is expected, and of whom it is expected.

Superseding Cause

An unforeseeable intervening event may break the connection between a wrongful act and an injury to another. If so, the event acts as a superseding cause—that is, it relieves a defendant of liability for injuries caused by the intervening event. Ex. While riding his bicycle, Derrick negligently hits Julie, who is walking on the sidewalk. As a result of the impact, Julie falls and fractures her hip. While she is waiting for help to arrive, a small plane crashes nearby and explodes, and some of the fiery debris hits her, causing her to sustain severe burns. Derrick will be liable for Julie's fractured hip because the risk of hitting her with his bicycle was foreseeable. Normally, Derrick will not be liable for the burns caused by the plane crash—because the risk of a plane's crashing nearby and injuring Julie was not foreseeable.

Compensatory Damages

Compensatory damages are the norm in negligence cases. As noted earlier, a court will award punitive damages only if the defendant's conduct was grossly negligent, reflecting an intentional failure to perform a duty with reckless disregard of the consequences to others.

Defenses to Negligence

Defendants often defend against negligence claims by asserting that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of one or more of the required elements for negligence. Additionally, there are three basic affirmative defenses in negligence cases (defenses that a defendant can use to avoid liability even if the facts are as the plaintiff states): 1.assumption of risk, 2.superseding cause, and 3.contributory and comparative negligence.

Injury Requirement and Damages

For a tort to have been committed, the plaintiff must have suffered a legally recognizable injury. To recover damages (receive compensation), the plaintiff must have suffered some loss, harm, wrong, or invasion of a protected interest. Essentially, the purpose of tort law is to compensate for legally recognized injuries resulting from wrongful acts. Example - If you carelessly bump into a passerby, who stumbles and falls as a result, you may be liable in tort if the passerby is injured in the fall. If the person is unharmed, however, there normally cannot be a suit for damages because no injury was suffered.

reasonable person standard example

For instance, pharmacists are generally not held liable for any negative effects resulting from medications that were prescribed by a patient's physician. Nevertheless, if the pharmacist is aware of a customer-specific risk of taking the prescribed medication, such as an allergy, the pharmacist may be liable for failing to warn the customer.

causation

If a person fails in a duty of care and someone suffers an injury, the wrongful act must have caused the harm for the act to be considered a tort.

In deciding whether there is causation, the court must address two questions

In deciding whether there is causation, the court must address two questions: a.Is there causation in fact? Did the injury occur because of the defendant's act, or would it have occurred anyway? If an injury would not have occurred without the defendant's act, then there is causation in fact. Causation in fact can usually be determined by the use of the "but for" test: but for the wrongful act, the injury would not have occurred. Theoretically, causation in fact is limitless. One could claim, for example, that "but for" the creation of the world, a particular injury would not have occurred. Thus, as a practical matter, the law has to establish limits, and it does so through the concept of proximate cause. b.Was the act the proximate cause of the injury? Proximate cause, or legal cause, exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability. Courts use proximate cause to limit the scope of the defendant's liability to a subset of the total number of potential plaintiffs that might have been harmed by the defendant's actions.

reasonable person standard example

Landowners who rent or lease premises to tenants are expected to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the tenants and their guests are not harmed in common areas, such as stairways, entryways, and laundry rooms.

proximate cause

Legal cause. It exists when the connection between an act and an injury is strong enough to justify imposing liability.

Strict Liability/liability without fault

Liability that is imposed on certain activities regardless of fault.

malpractice

Negligence—the failure to exercise due care—on the part of a professional, such as a physician, is commonly referred to as malpractice.

Applications of Strict Liability Example

Persons who keep wild animals, for example, are strictly liable for any harm inflicted by the animals. In addition, an owner of domestic animals may be strictly liable for harm caused by those animals if the owner knew, or should have known, that the animals were dangerous or had a propensity to harm others.

social hosts

Some states' statutes also impose liability on social hosts (persons hosting parties) for injuries caused by guests who became intoxicated at the hosts' homes. Example - Selena hosts a Super Bowl party at which Raul, a minor, sneaks alcoholic drinks. Selena is potentially liable for damages resulting from Raul's drunk driving after the party.

danger invites rescue doctrine

Sometimes, a person who is trying to avoid harm—such as an individual who swerves to avoid a head-on collision with a drunk driver—ends up causing harm to another (such as a cyclist riding in the bike lane) as a result. In those situations, the original wrongdoer (the drunk driver in this scenario) is liable to anyone who is injured, even if the injury actually resulted from another person's attempt to escape harm.

What is meant by strict liability?

Strict liability for damages proximately caused by an abnormally dangerous or exceptional activity is one application of this doctrine. Courts apply the doctrine of strict liability in such cases because of the extreme risk of the activity. For instance, even if blasting with dynamite is performed with all reasonable care, there is still a risk of injury. Because of the potential for harm, the person who is engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity—and benefits from it—is responsible for paying for any injuries caused by that activity. Although there is no fault, there is still responsibility because of the dangerous nature of the undertaking.

Duty of Care

The duty of all persons, as established by tort law, to exercise a reasonable amount of care in their dealings with others. Failure to exercise due care, which is normally determined by the reasonable person standard, constitutes the tort of negligence. Example - Failure to live up to a standard of care may be an act (setting fire to a building) or an omission (neglecting to put out a campfire).

negligence

The failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

reasonable person standard

The standard of behavior expected of a hypothetical "reasonable person." It is the standard against which negligence is measured and that must be observed to avoid liability for negligence. It is society's judgment on how people should act. If the so-called reasonable person existed, he or she would be careful, conscientious, even tempered, and honest.

assumption of risk

This is the defense of assumption of risk, which requires 1.knowledge of the risk and 2.voluntary assumption of the risk. The assumption of risk defense is frequently asserted when the plaintiff is injured during recreational activities that involve known risk, such as skiing and skydiving. Assumption of risk can apply not only to participants in sporting events, but also to spectators and bystanders who are injured while attending those events.

Negligence Action

To succeed in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove each of the following: 1.Duty. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. 2.Breach. The defendant breached that duty. 3.Causation. The defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injury. 4.Damages. The plaintiff suffered a legally recognizable injury.