Liability Flashcards

1
Q

Sine qua non causation is…

A

A test to determine liability commonly called the “but for” test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

The “but for” test can be used for X defendant(s)

A

Generally only 1 defedant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Rinaldo v. McGovern

A

Even though a golf ball had caused the accident, shouting fore was so unlikely to have provided any warning or changed the outcome that the golfer was not liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Stubbs v. City of Rochester

A

If there are several possible causes for a plaintiff’s injury, and the defendant is responsible for only one of them, the plaintiff may recover if the plaintiff establishes facts that show with reasonable certainty that the injury resulted from a cause for which the defendant was responsible.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Mitchell v. Person Enterprises

A

The possibility that a hotel was negligent by allowing in someone who later killed a guest was insufficient to show causation because the killer’s name and motive were unknown so it was not known how or why they got into the hotel room

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp.

A

A management company was liable when their negligently maintained gate allowed the entrance of a stranger who assaulted a guest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

If an exposure occurs without immediate onset of the injuring disease, how can recovery be accomplished?

A

There are three ways,
1. pure risk
2. fear of disease
3. medical monitoring

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Pure risk is (often/rarely) sucessful for recovering after exposure

A

Rarely. There is no accompanying injury so courts are hesitant to award damages for a loss that might never occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Fear of disease is (often/rarely) successful for recovering after exposure

A

Rarely successful. Most courts deny recovery until the injury arises out of hesitanty to give awards for losses that may never occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Medical monitoring is the (most/least) likley recovery method to be sucessful for exposure claims

A

The most likely to be successful, though it is sometimes limited for public policy reasons, as was the case for this against tobacco companies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Dillion v. Evanston Hospital

A

Damages were awarded for current injures and the risk of possible future issues, though they had not yet arise because the risk of the injury was more likely than not to occur

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Petriello v. Kalman

A

If the risk is not substantial the plaintiff could sue with a similarly low reward

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Lamping v. American Home Products, Inc.

A

Generally recovery is allowed for the cost of monitoring for a disease after exposure without preventing a future claim should it arise and require more treatment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

In re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigation

A

A cause of action for medical monitoring can be established by proving:

(1) Plaintiff was significantly exposed to a proven hazard substance through the negligence of the defendant

(2) As a proximate result, the plaintiff suffers a significantly increased risk of contracting a serious latent disease

(3) That increased risk makes periodic diagnostic medical testing necessary

(4) Monitoring and testing procedures exist which make early detection and treatment possible and beneficial

Minority rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Caronia v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

A

NY decided to extend liability for testing expenses to a cigarette maker for policy reasons

(1) if allowed tens of millions of people could file similar suits

(2) it could take money way from those with physical injuries to those who never develop serious issues

(3) the system needed to supply funding would need to extremely complex

A dissent argued that it was important to allow testing before the disease develop to the serious point of needing more care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Mink v. University of Chicago

A

Simply having an enhanced risk of cancer because of exposure without physical injury is insufficient for a claim under the idea of pure risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Simmons v. Pacor Inc.

A

The court adopted a two disease rule where a plaintiff could sue for their current illness related to asbestos while still being allowed to recover for a secondary illness if it arose

This falls under a special asbestos exception and does not expand

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

The “substantial factor” test can be used for X defendant(s)

A

2 or more since it accounts for the fact that one cause may play off the other while keeping all guilty parties accountable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

In re an Arbitration Between Polemis & Another & Furness, Withy, & Co. Ltd.

A

A negligent actor can be held liable for all damages his negligent act caused, even if not reasonably foreseeable

Minority view countered by Wagon Mound

20
Q

Overseas Thankship Ltd. v. Mort’s Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (The Wagon Mound)

A

A defendant is only liable for the consequences flowing from his negligent act that are foreseeable to a reasonable person at the time of the negligent act.

Majority view countered by Polemis

21
Q

Wagner v. International

A
22
Q

Danger invites rescue rule

A

When someone tries to rescue the initial victim of a tort, the tortfeasor is liable as an exception even if they were not within the inital zone of danger

23
Q

Moore v. Shah

A

A son was not entitled to recover after medical malpractice left his father in need of a kidney which he donated

24
Q

Define recklessness

A

General definition: Aware of a high degree of fault and disregarded it

25
Q

Under a theory of contributory negligence what percent of fault bars recovery?

A

1%

26
Q

(Contributory/comparative) negligence is the majority rule

A

Comparative. Contributory is only left in a few states because it was considered extremely harsh

27
Q

Last Clear Chance Doctrine

A

The doctrine considers which party had the last opportunity to avoid the accident that caused the harm. Therefore, a negligent plaintiff may recover damages if they can show that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

Example: Yes I was driving a slow vehicle on a highway, but you had the last chance to prevent the accident because you hit me

It is an exception to contributory negligence because it limits liability

Makes no longical sense but still exists

28
Q

When can a plaintiff be reckless and still recovery under contributory negligence?

A

When there is a statute meant to protect that class from themselves, like children

29
Q

Generally contributory negligence (does/ doesn’t) impute negligence to others innocently involved

A

Does not, so passangers of a reckless bus driver are not barred from recovery though there are exceptions

30
Q

Exceptions to the rule against imputing contributory negligence

A

(1) Employers under respondent superior
(2) Spouses for loss of consortium
(3) Wrongful death
(4) Some states impute for bystanders but not all

31
Q

Allowing some subjectivity with the plaintiff is a (new/old) trend under contributory negligence

A

New and only some states do this

32
Q

A resonable person standard applies to (one/both) party(s) in a comparative negligence action

A

Both

33
Q

How does a plaintiff assume the risk

Important

A

They actually and subjectively knew of the risk and appreciated its unreasonableness, nature and magnitude, then voluntarily proceeded reasonably or not

34
Q

How does assumption of the risk affect a lawsuit?

A

It limits liability, but does not negate unreasonable conduct by the defendant

35
Q

Butterfield v. Forrester (British)

A

The court refused liability because the plaintiff was acting recklessly by riding his horse too fast where a reasonable person going slower could have avoid the injury altogether

36
Q

Davies v. Mann (British)

A

The contributory negligence of a plaintiff will not defeat his negligence claim if the defendant, by the exercise of reasonable care, could have avoided the consequence of the plaintiff’s negligence.

37
Q

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Johnson

A

Allowed full recovery for a plaintiff with no adjustments for their own behavior because of the last chance doctrine 9

Only has this effect in the minority of states that still follow the older negligence rules

38
Q

How is comparative negligence different than contributory negligence?

A

it allows the plaintiff to recover even with some fault and adjusts damages afterwards

There are three types that determine the maxiumum amount of plaintiff fault

39
Q

What are the three types of comparative negligence?

A

(1) Pure comparative fault [least common]
(2) “Not as great” fault
(3) “No greater than” fault

40
Q

When does “not as great” fault limit liability?

A

Recovery is only allowed when the defendant has more fault than the plaintiff

41
Q

When does “no greater than” fault limit liability?

A

Recovery is only allowed when the plaintiff has less fault than the defendant

42
Q

States that switched to comparative negligence via statute tend to use what theory of the system?

A

Tended to use a modified system

43
Q

States that switched to comparative negligence via judicial decision tend to use what theory of the system?

A

Pure systems

44
Q

How is the cost of recovery dispersed between guilty defedants?

A

It can differ originally, but ultimately they owe their precentage of fault

45
Q

How can one liable party recovery from another?

A

Indemnity

46
Q

Coleman v. Soccer Ass’n of Columbia

A

The Maryland court refused to switch to a comparative system, saying the change is so complex it is best undertaken by the legislature rather than a court

47
Q

Alibrandi v. Helmsley

A

Juries often use a comparative negligence structure to determine damages, even in states that still use contributory negligence