Torts Flashcards
Loss of Consortium
Uninjured spouse has a separate cause of action against all D’s for three types of damage
- Loss of services
- Loss of society (companionship)
- Loss of sex
What is the duty owed to a Licensee?
Owner/Occupier owes a Licensee a duty to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition known to the owner or occupier that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the license and that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
What is a manufacturing defect?
For a manufacturing defect, the PL will prevail if:
A product has a M.D. when it differs from the other products in the manufacturing process and is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer
For a M.D., the PL will prevail if the product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary customer because of a departure from its intended design.
What is a design defect?
For design defects, the PL must show:
A product has a D.D. when all of the products of a line are made identical, but have dangerous propensities because of their mechanical features or packaging.
For a D.D., the PL must show a reasonable alternative design (i.e., that a less dangerous modification or alternative was economically feasible).
A husband was on his way to meet his wife for lunch at the restaurant in the lobby of a bank building where she worked. He had just entered the building, which was owned and operated by the bank, when he heard screams and the sound of breaking glass from the restaurant area. He immediately saw that a large piece of artwork made of stained glass had fallen onto the seating area of the restaurant. In the seating area he saw several injured persons, including his wife, lying in the wreckage of the artwork. He fainted and hit his head on the marble floor, fracturing his skull. The artwork had collapsed because the pedestal that the bank had provided for the artwork was not properly constructed.
If the husband sues the bank for his injury, is he likely to prevail?
The husband will recover for his injuries because his wife was among those injured by the collapse of the artwork. The duty to avoid negligent infliction of emotional distress may be breached when the defendant creates a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the plaintiff. In most jurisdictions, a bystander who sees the defendant negligently injuring another can recover for his own distress if (i) the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant’s negligence are closely related, (ii) the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury, and (iii) the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event. Observation is typically by sight, but may also be by hearing or other senses under certain circumstances. Here, the husband heard the screams and the sound of breaking glass when the artwork collapsed as he entered the lobby. Even though he evidently did not see the artwork collapse on the diners, he heard it crash where his wife was sitting and saw the immediate aftermath. Because his wife was one of the persons injured by the collapse of the artwork, he can recover damages for the injuries caused by his distress
An attorney came to work on a Saturday. When he signed in, he was advised by the morning security guard employed by the building management that he must be out of the building by 5 p.m., when it closes. However, he stayed past 5 p.m. to complete a brief that had to be filed on Monday morning. At 5:15 p.m., the afternoon security guard set the locks on all the doors of the building and left. Because she was in a hurry, she did not check the sign-in sheet to make sure that everyone had signed out, contrary to mandatory procedures. When the attorney tried to exit 15 minutes later, he discovered that the doors were all locked and could not be opened from the inside. He used his cell phone to call for help, and a supervisor from the building arrived and let him out shortly thereafter.
If the attorney sues the building management for false imprisonment, is he likely to win?
No, because the guard did not know that the attorney was locked in the building.
The attorney will lose because the guard did not know that he was still in the building. For false imprisonment, the plaintiff must show (i) an act or omission on the part of the defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff to a bounded area, (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to confine or restrain the plaintiff, and (iii) causation. Here, because the guard apparently did not know that the attorney was still in the building, she had no intent to confine him when she locked the doors.
