Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/25

Click to flip

25 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Case Description:

Lubitz v. Wells
Would a reasonable foresee a risk in the conduct associated with a golf club? It comes to the resolution that all things can inflict injury – is a foreseeable risk of harm. Court did not think so
Case Description:

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks
No reasonable person could account for the severity of the freeze. Waterworks not liable. Lead to later DISPROVED assumption that if something has never happened before you don't have to take precaution from it.
Case Description:

Gulf Refining v. Williams
Court overruled Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks. Doesn't matter that it hasn't happened before, but that there was a foreseeable risk.
Case Description:

Chicago, B. & W.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl
Question becomes regarding railroad turntable: are we negligent in introducing these products into the stream of commerce? Use the risk benefit analysis. Weigh the benefits to the public/ to society against the risk. If the risk is greater than the benefit, then the def’ is negligent.
Case Description:

Davidson v. Snohomish County
Snohomish County could not build the perfect guardrail to protect the driver, not economically feaseible. Court stated they must do what is reasonable and they did.
Case Description:

US v. Carroll Towing Co
Judge determined formula for negligence: probability of loss (foreseeable risk) X Gravity of the Injury
If amount is greater than burden to reduce risk the Def’ is negligent
If the probability of Loss X Gravity of the Injury < Burden to Reduce Risk, the Def’ is not negligent
Definition of Negligence
Doing what a reasonable prudent person would not do OR not doing what a reasonable person would do.
4 Elements for an Actionable Negligence Cause of Action:
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Proximate Cause
4. Damage/Injury that Results
Definition of Duty (in Negligence terms)
When faced with the foreseeable risk, did the def’ act, did he do, what a reasonable, prudent person would do or would not do.
Characteristics of the Reasonable Prudent Person
Age - compare w/someone of same age
Physical Limitations (whether adult or child, if def’ is physically challenged)-compare w/exact same physical disability
Intellect – NO ALLOWANCES
Knowledge – NO ALLOWANCES
Experience (different between being raised on a farm and being raised in the city)
Case Description:

Vaughan v. Menlove
Def’ said he didn’t know that the hay could ignite and thus, shouldn’t be liable Court found that it is not a matter of whether the def’ knew, but whether a reasonable, prudent person would know. It’s whether he should have known. HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.
Case Description:

Delaire v. McAdoo
A reasonable man should know that it is unsafe to drive when tires are worn through. Court found that it is foreseeable that when a car has tires so worn that the fabric is showing, the tire will “blow out” and def' should be liable.
Case Description:

Trimarco v. Klien
Plf' was severly cut by glass in the shower. Brings about the argument of customary care (what is the custom) vs. ordinary care (standard of the reasonable person). It is not the question of the “custom”, but what the reasonable prudent person would do.
Case Description:

TX Case – Plf’ v. Nursing Home
TX Court agreed that what is customary is not conclusive of ordinary care. An elderly man that is known to “wander” and there isn’t enough attendants to watch over him. The customary is not to have enough attendants for every person. Court found that custom is no excuse for ordinary care.
Case Description:

Cordas v. Peerless
Emergency Doctrine – Question of Law – when an individual is required to act instinctively (react immediately). Suit was brought forth stating that the def’ should have known that exiting a moving vehicle would foreseeable create a risk for a pedestrian.
Case Description:

Roberts v. State of LA
Illustrates disability. Would a reasonably prudent blind person (def’s physical limitations are always imposed on the reasonably prudent person) act by relying on their facial sense – COURT FOUND YES.
Case Description:

Robinson v. Lindsay
Can a child be negligent:
At some age a child is not capable of being negligent (TX - 4-5 yrs old, a child is incapable of being negligent)
If a child is engaged in an adult activity (activity that is only for adults is inherently dangerous for children)? Hold to standard of an adult.
Former Anglo American Age View of Negligence
Former Anglo American View: |_______|______|______|
Birth 7 14 21

Birth – 7: no negligence

7-14: could be negligent depending on the facts

14-21: could be considered an adult
Case Description:
Breunig v. Aerican Family Insurance
DOES NOT REPRESENT THE MAJORITY - court distinguishes between pre-existing insanity and insanity that has unexpect impact on the mind of the def' - fact to be considered for teh jury.
Case Description:
Breunig v. Aerican Family Insurance
Woman not found negligent b/c of her unexpected insanity attack where she thought God was leading her to the light an she could fly b/c batman could fly.
Insanity Defense Logic -
1.Where 1 of 2 innocent persons must suffer a loss it should be borne by the one who caused it
2. To induce those interested in the estate of the insane person to take greater control of the person
3. To favor an insanity defense would lead to false claims of insanity to avoid liability
Negligence of the Professional - Who are we dealing with?
Dealing w/the expert. Individuals, the plumber, the electrician, the farmer, are b/c of their education, learned skilled or ability or knowledge, training and skill held to a higher standard above the ordinary lay person. We hold them to a standard of a reasonable prudent expert under acting under similar circumstances and only when they are engaged in a realm of their expertise.
Case Descrption:

Heath v. Swift Home
Jury charge read objectively to compare experiences w/plf. Appellate court reversed and applied a subjective test that compared w/experiences of reasonable prudent pilot.
Case Description:

Hodges v. Carter
Malpractice lawsuit agst atty. Court of appeals found no negligence b/c it was a practice performed for many years.
How to determine if an atty was negligent? (Guilty of Malpractice)
1. Did they possess knowledge, training & skill for the field as a reasonable/prudent lawyer?
2. Did they exercise ordinary care in light of their knowledge, training and skill?
3. Did they exercise their best judgment?