Torts Ii- Final Exam Review (Rowe)

Front 1

Why should govt's exercise of its legislative or judicial or quasi-judicial powers be exempted from abolition of tort immunity?

Back 1

(When exercise their power, there is more immunity, why is this the case?)

- Looking @ legislators and judges for example: Cannot sue these people if unable to do their jobs.

- Sometime, may be high enough official to be absolutely immune

- Must be some discretion to do their jobs efficiently

Front 2

Court's decision to abrogate immunity swept broader than the city involved in this case. court even extended rule to the state. Was this holding defensible? Should court have limited its holding to municipal defendants?

Back 2

There were state statutes that abrogated the immunity is a good justification; defensible by state statutes "chipping away" at the rule.
- Decisions were inconsistent

Hint 2

- May as well make a hard and fast rule.

- counterargument: should have allowed legislation to dictate the rule and get rid of sovereign immunity.

Front 3

What if city makes a decision that yellow light on a stop light should only be for 3 seconds before turning red? then P is injured by driver trying to make it through the light. Can state be liable for negligence for not allowing sufficient time before light changes from yellow to red?

Back 3

NO. Should not be liable if functioning proper.
"Discretionary Function Doctrine" of QI:

Once the government undertakes a duty, the discretion of making the decision is where the protection lies.

After making the decision, in implementation and execution, the protection does not extend.
Rule:

Front 4

suppose that traffic light malfunctions and changes deirctly from green to red without switching to yellow, causing injuries to a motorist. If motorist can prove negligent maintenance of traffic light, would the state be liable?

Back 4

would be liable, not an exercise of discretion, RATHER an act of implementation or execution

Front 5

Can members of the state parole board by sued for negligently paroling an inmate who causes violence after being released?

Back 5

Discretionary Function to make decision to parole: = Protection by discretionary function doctrine.

The Immunity covers the board= No liability.

Hint 5

Example re: liability:
(Who is responsible for maintenance after decision?)
ministerial versus discretionary duties:

Parole board versus parole officer

Front 6

A major general negligently bumps and causes injuries to a waitress on the stairway of a restaurant where an official banquet in being held. Can major general be held liable for negligence?

Back 6

This is not scope of employment and in scope of employment = no immunity. Conduct outside scope of employment.

Hint 6

He is a high ranking official....complete/absolute immunity?

MInor Argument may be made for scop of employment b/c the banquet was for employment, however, the argument will fail on prong of discretionary function

Front 7

What if FBI agent arrests wrong suspect? Can agent be held personally liable for false imprisonment?

Back 7

NO, within scope of employment and discretionary function.

Front 8

What if FBI agent arrests right suspect, but brutally beats the suspect after he has been handcuffed and otherwise subdues? Can agent be held personally liable for battery?

Back 8

Yes, outside scope of employment and he will be liable for violations of constitutional rights

Front 9

What is FTCA? What are its limitations & When is Federal government NOT liable?

(ADD LIST)

Back 9

Federal Tort Claims Act:

Limits:

1. Discretionary Functions Doctrines:
- Not liable for I/Ts by employees;
-

Exceptions:

2.

Front 10

What is Qualified Immunity for state & Federal Employees?

Back 10

"Qualified Immunity" Not absolute
1. Discretionary Decision;
2. within Scope of Employment

Immunizes employee from liability

Hint 10

"Ministerial decisions" = Liabiliity and no immunization
- Westfall Act: When employee is substituted by Federal government as Defendant
-