summary of last class l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 17

SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 180 Views
  • Uploaded on

SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS. DUTY OF PARENTS SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE DANGEROUS PERSON— TARASOFF PROFESSIONAL STANDARD CAN PARTY BE IDENTIFIED: COMPARE THOMPSON NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT. DUTY AND LIQUOR. 1. SELLING LIQUOR: BRIGANCE 2. DUTY TO DRIVER? 3. SOCIAL PROVIDERS OF LIQUOR.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS' - happy


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
summary of last class
SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS

DUTY OF PARENTS

SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE

DANGEROUS PERSON—TARASOFF

PROFESSIONAL STANDARD

CAN PARTY BE IDENTIFIED:

COMPARE THOMPSON

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

duty and liquor
DUTY AND LIQUOR

1. SELLING LIQUOR: BRIGANCE

2. DUTY TO DRIVER?

3. SOCIAL PROVIDERS OF LIQUOR

duty and proximate cause
DUTY AND PROXIMATE CAUSE

LIMITING LIABILITY UNDER PROXIMATE CAUSE:

THE RISK PRINCIPLE

LIMITING LIABILITY UNDER DUTY: CATEGORIZING CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES

1. LANDOWNERS/ OCCUPIERS

2. NONFEASANCE

duty and proximate cause cont
DUTY AND PROXIMATE CAUSE(Cont.)

3. CONTRACTS AND PROMISES

4. PURE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

5. ECONOMIC LOSS

DUTY SETS LEGAL RULES

PROXIMATE CAUSE IS MORE FACT SPECIFIC (NOTE 3. P. 570)

DUTY USES GENERIC CLASSES OF CASES

categorizing the emotional distress rules
CATEGORIZING THE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS RULES

TWO LARGE CATEGORIES:

1. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS FROM RISKS OF PHYSICAL HARM

TO PERSONS PUT AT RISK

WHERE THIRD PARTIES AT RISK

2. EMOTIONAL DISTRESS INDEPENDENT OF PHYSICAL RISK

the development where p was at physical risk
THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE P WAS AT PHYSICAL RISK

1. IMPACT RULE (MITCHELL)

IMPACT --> EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

2. PHYSICAL INJURY OR MANIFESTATION

EMOTIONAL DISTRESSINJURY/MANIFESTATION

3. PURE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

more limitations on recovery for e d
MORE LIMITATIONS ON RECOVERY FOR E.D.

THE “ZONE OF DANGER” TEST

GRUBE

FEAR FOR ONE’S OWN SAFETY

QUESTIONING THE ZONE OF DANGER TEST: DILLON v. LEGG

DILLON TEST:P. 575 note 3

THING TEST

direct victims
DIRECT VICTIMS

BURGESS

1. P AND D IN A PREEXISTING RELATIONSHIP OR

  • CLEAR THAT D’S NEGLIGENCE WILL DIRECTLY INJURE P

BYSTANDER RULES DON’T APPLY

progression of nied
PROGRESSION OF NIED
  • IMPACT RULE
  • ZONE OF DANGER
  • THING
  • DILLON

5. GENERAL FORESEEABILITY ANALYSIS

loss of consortium
LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

GENERAL RULES:

  • SPOUSES CAN RECOVER
  • CHILDREN GENERALLY CANNOT
  • PARENTS GENERALLY CANNOT

THE QUESTION OF UNMARRIED COHABITANTS

duties independent of physical risks
DUTIES INDEPENDENT OF PHYSICAL RISKS

2 TRADITIONAL EXCEPTIONS

1. DEATH MESSAGES

2. MISHANDLING OF CORPSES

SHOULD “MISINFORMATION” IDEA (DEATH MESSAGES) BE EXPANDED?

HEINER (586)

GENERAL DUTY RULE: SACCO (588)

fear of future injury
FEAR OF FUTURE INJURY

POTTER (526)

WHY DOESN’T THING APPLY?

WHY NOT A DIRECT VICTIM?

HOLDING:

1. “MORE LIKELY THAN NOT” TO GET CANCER UNLESS

2. MALICE (WILLFUL/CONSCIOUS DISREGARD)

more future fears
MORE FUTURE FEARS

HARTWIG (529)

HOW DIFFERENT FROM POTTER?

PARASITIC DAMAGE?

NO ACTUAL EXPOSURE REQUIREMENT

MINORITY RULE

TIME PERIOD COVERED

introduction to vicarious liability
INTRODUCTION TO VICARIOUS LIABILITY

1. SAME AS “RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR”

2. FORM OF STRICT LIABILITY

3. DISTINGUISH: EMPLOYER’S OWN NEGLIGENCE

EXAMPLE: NEGLIGENT HIRING

4. WHAT YOU NEED TO GET OUT OF THIS MATERIAL

5. GOALS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY

the basics i
THE BASICS I

HOW DO WE DETERMINE? RIVIELLO (557) – THE LITTLE KNIFE ACCIDENT

AND FRUIT (558)

1. THE CONTROL THEORY

PUPPET MASTER IDEA

2. “DOING HIS MASTER’S WORK”

3. INCIDENT TO THE ENTERPRISE

“EMPLOYMENT”—EVEN IF NOT PAID

the basics ii
THE BASICS II

TRAVEL TO AND FROM WORK: HINMAN (560)

“GOING AND COMING RULE”

EXCEPTIONS:

1. INCIDENTAL BENEFIT

COMPARE: FAUL (562)

2. SPECIAL HAZARDS

3. DUAL PURPOSE DOCTRINE

RELATED IDEA: “FROLIC AND DETOUR”