Torts Fall 2006 - Vermont

Front 1

Exceptions to Reasonable Person standard

Back 1

1) Mental condition/disability if distinct
2) Doesnt create bad line drawing problems
3) Doesnt create bad perverse incentives
4) Unlikely to be phony

Front 2

Standard of care for Medical Professionals

Back 2

Must act with the level of skill and learning commonly possesed by members of the profession in good standing.

Exception: If the medical professional has superior skill and knowledge he must use it.

Front 3

Standard of care for children

Back 3

The conduct of a reasonable person of that age and experience UNLESS
they are engaged in a dangerous activity normally only pursued in by adults

Front 4

Is insanity a defense to using reasnable care?

Back 4

Yes, if the instanity resultedf FROM using reasonable care.

Hays v. Williams

Front 5

When is there an affirmative duty to act?

Back 5

Special relationship

Front 6

Public duty doctrine

Back 6

Public agencies owe a duty to the public at large, not an individual, unless they are in a special relationship.

Front 7

Public duty Notable Exception

Back 7

Police owe a duty to protect .9/

Front 8

3 Guidelines for breach of duty

Back 8

1) Compliance wit custom
2) Compliance with law
3) Res ipsa loquitor

Front 9

Negligence per se EXCEPTIONS

Back 9

1) If violating the statute in the manner it was violated was expected to prevent the harm the statute was designed to prevent.

2) If the harm that befell the plaintiff was not the harm the statute was designed to prevent

Front 10

Res ipsa requirements

Back 10

1) high probability of negligence GIVEN the injury AND
2) D's have better knowledge of what happened AND
3) Exclusive control of D

Front 11

Res ipsa policy reasons

Back 11

1) Smoking out of evidence
2) Overcome a conspiracy of silence to get information out

Front 12

Effect of res ipsa

Back 12

Shifts the burden of proof onto the Defendants

Front 13

What happens if all Ds are not negligent - can res ipsa apply?

Back 13

No

Front 14

Compliance with custom

General rule

Back 14

Compliance with custom is no defense, but it is a factor

Front 15

Compliance with custom will be a good defense in this scenario

Back 15

When the two parties are contractually related. )Rodi Yachts)

Front 16

Rodi Yachts reasoning for custom

Back 16

Can take it into acount because P got what he bargained for, he assumed the risk for a cheaper price (in the market context)

Front 17

TJ Hooper reasoning for custom

Back 17

No defense

Front 18

Two rules for undertaking to help someone.

Back 18

1) If you undertake to provide services and then do so negligently, you are liable if (a) the negligent act increased the risk of harm OR (b) the harm is suffered bease of the other's reliance upon the undertaking

2) If you undertake to rescue someone, you will be liable for (a) failing to use reasonable care, or (b) discontinuing service if it puts them in a worse position

Front 19

3 prongs of Proximate Cause

Back 19

1) Remoteness/forseeability
2) Lack of superceding/intervening causes
3) Psychological "grab bag"

Front 20

Alternative liability distinguised from res ipsa

Back 20

shifts the burden of proof on the question of causation vs. the question of breach

Front 21

Alternative Liability/Causation reqruiements

Back 21

1) Multiple negligent acts that cannot be sorted out
2) Can prove that one of the Ds caused the harm but dont know which