Defenses Flashcards
(43 cards)
Contributory Negligence (CL Rule)
Contributory Negligence - breach of a duty that contributes to the damages caused.
Rule: Plaintiff’s negligence, no matter how small, is a total bar to recovery…in other words, the plaintiff’s contributory negligence shields a negligent defendant from all liability.
Contributory Negligence
Modified Comparative Fault
Modern systems reject the idea that a plaintiff’s negligence is a complete bar to recovery.
Rule: Plaintiff is barred from recovering only if the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility is greater than the jurisdictional limit.
2 Types of Comparative Fault Jurisdictions
Two Kinds (Depending on Jurisdiction):
- 49% - Plaintiff can recover damages only if his negligence is less than that of the defendants.
- 50% - Plaintiff can recover damages only if his negligence is less than or equal to (not more than) that of the defendants.
***** The only time these systems differ is when the jury finds the plaintiff exactly 50% responsible.
Rule: When the plaintiff’s negligence does not bar recovery,
the total damages awarded to the plaintiff are ___________________.
Rule: When the plaintiff’s negligence does not bar recovery, the total damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s responsibility.
Modified Comparative Fault
Unit Rule
Unit Rule - When determining whether plaintiff’s negligence is complete bar to recovery in modified comparative fault jurisdictions, compare the plaintiff’s negligence to the combined negligence of all defendants. (THIS IS THE MAJORITY)
Rationale for Unit Rule = Wisconsin Rule does not make sense because the more defendants there are, the harder it would be to recover
Modified Comparative Fault
Wisconsin Rule
Wisconsin Rule - When comparing negligence, the plaintiff must be less negligent than each defendant individually.
Pure Comparative Fault
Rule: Plaintiff is barred from recovering only if ___________.
Rule: Plaintiff is barred from recovering only if the plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility is 100 percent
(in other words, as long as the defendant’s negligence was also a proximate cause of the accident, the plaintiff can recover something.)
Pure Comparative Fault
Rule: When the plaintiff’s negligence does not bar recovery,
the total damages awarded to the plaintiff are _______________.
Rule: When the plaintiff’s negligence does not bar recovery, the total damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s responsibility.
Comparative Fault/ Contributory Negligence
Aportionment of Fault
Apportionment of fault - no real system for how jury is supposed to allocate fault
- court in Dobson used the Learned Hand formula to determine, not just whether the parties were negligent, but how negligent they were.
- Texas uses 50% rule (complete bar only if plaintiff’s negligence is greater than 50%) with a built in unit rule.
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Express Assumption of Risk
- Almost always involve written releases in which a plaintiff agrees not to sue a defendant if certain risks cause harm (exculpatory agreement)
- The releases essentially takes away the defendant’s duty.
- This is an affirmative defense in the truest sense of the word.
- Exculpatory agreement may also be unenforceable as against injuries that it did not cover (EX: the agreement released liability from “inherent risks” but not negligence of instructor.)
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Express Assumption of Risk
General Rule
General Rule: **These agreements are generally upheld because people have the right to contract for their personal dealings. **
- **Court will not uphold exculpatory agreement if it is not in clear, specific, and unmistakable language. **
However, court balances freedom to contract vs. public policy. Enforceability of such a release involves two questions:
- **Does public policy permit releases in connection with the activity?
- If so, does the particular release merit enforcement?**
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Express Assumption of Risk
Common areas where express releases are not upheld:
Common areas where express releases are not upheld: public duty, innkeeper, employer-employee, etc
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Express Assumption of Risk
6 Factors to Consider
6 Factors to Consider: Whether exculpatory agreements violate public policy
(1) The agreement concerns an endeavor generally thought suitable for public regulation.
(2) The party seeking exculpation is performing a service of great importance to the public and is often a matter of practical necessity for members of the public.
(3) Such party holds itself out as willing to perform this service for any member of the public, or at least any member within certain established standards.
(4) Disparity of bargaining power
(5) Standardized adhesion contract of exculpation
(6) Members of the public are under the control of the furnisher of the services
Defenses: Assumption of Risk
Express Assumption of Risk vs Settlement
Express assumption of risk is a release in advance of the harm
Similar to a settlement, which is a release after the harm.
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Implied Assumption of Risk
Primary vs Secondary
Primary Implied Assumption of Risk: talked about last quarter…this is a situation where the court or statute says the defendant has no duty (like in baseball stadiums).
**Secondary Implied Assumption of Risk: **requires a subjective test of whether the plaintiff actually knew and appreciated the risk created by the defendant’s wrongful conduct and voluntarily accepted the risk.
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Secondary Implied Assumption of Risk
Elements
In order to have SIAR, the plaintiff must have:
(1) Had actual knowledge/appreciation of the dangerous condition, AND
(2) Voluntarily encountered that condition.
Defense: Assumption of Risk
Secondary Implied Assumption of Risk
Recovery
Traditionally, SIAR was a complete bar to recovery –> it is no longer a complete bar in most jurisdictions today (jives better with comparative fault principles).
Another problem with allowing SIAR to be a complete bar is that it completely bars recovery even for reasonable assumption of the risk –> goes against goal of apportioning damages based on fault.
Overlap with Comparative Fault –> Because SIAR is no longer complete bar to recovery, it essentially totally overlaps with comparative fault (unreasonable assumption of the risk is part of the percentage of responsibility)
Defenses
Mitigation and Avoidable Consequences
2 Approaches to Failure to Mitigate
Failure to mitigate damages in the context of tort law involves the plaintiff not going to the doctor enough and making the injuries worse, or not getting some surgery done that could have saved some damages.
Two Different Approaches:
(1) **Failure to mitigate = fault **<– **NOTE: **could push plaintiff over the comparative fault limit (when combined with fault bringing about injury) and bar recovery
(2) Failure to mitigate = damage question (meaning that any injury caused by failure to mitigate is stricken from award) –> TX Courts use this approach
Defenses
Mitigation and Avoidable Consequences
**Failure to Mitigate: **Not wearing a seatbelt
- **Failure to mitigate usually relates to post-injury conduct **so in most jurisdictions, failure to wear seatbelt is not considered in failure to mitigate.
- However, there are some jurisdictions that allow not wearing a seatbelt to be treated a comparative fault on the part of the plaintiff –> based on reasonable foreseeability of accidents happening
- Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences: Theory that reduces recovery for those injuries that plaintiff could reasonably have avoided.
- TX is in this group
Defenses
Mitigation and Avoidable Consequences
Failure to Mitigate: Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences: Theory that reduces recovery for those injuries that plaintiff could reasonably have avoided.
- TX is in this group
Defenses
Immunities: Sovereign Immunity
- True affirmative defense
- General Rule: Sovereign immunity prohibits suits against the government, unless the government has given permission to sue.
- Traditionally based on the idea that “the king can do no wrong”à at one time all state and federal governments were immune from suit.
- In US, this rationale was based on the idea that the public would be suing themselves, essentially, as “owners” of government.
Defenses
Immunities: Sovereign Immunity
Federal Tort Claims Act:
**Federal Tort Claims Act: ** allows suit against the federal government for claims based on negligence of any employee of the government while acting within the scope of his employment.
- Exception: Immunity still applies if government was performing discretionary function.
- Purpose of Exception: Shield government from judicial second-guessing over judgments of policy.
- Note: Policy of inspection make be discretionary, but actual inspection is not…so could sue for negligent inspection of guard (Coulthurst)
Defenses
Immunities: Sovereign Immunity
Federal Tort Claims Act: Berkowitz-Gaubert Test:
Berkowitz-Gaubert Test: The discretionary function exception bars suit only if:
(1) The acts were discretionary, in that they involve an element of judgment or choice and are not compelled by statute or regulation, AND
(2) The judgment or choice in question is grounded in “consideration of public policy”
Defenses
Immunities: Sovereign Immunity
State Tort Claims Act
State Tort Claims Act: Most states have similar statutes but approach it differently
- federal statute says that plaintiffs may sue and lays out exceptions when immunity will still apply,
- some state statutes say that immunity is still the rule, and **lays out certain areas where suit will be allowed. **
