• 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

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/10

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

10 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Probabilistic recovery for harm in the future?
A P can obtain compensation for a future injury that is not reasonably certain to occur, but the compensation would reflect the low probability (ex. asbestos cases)
Substantial Factor Test
*Restatement (Second) uses this test, which is basically the but for test with possibility of liability even if another force is also sufficient to cause harm
*NOTE: do not use unless you have a 2-fires example
Summers v. Tice
*Hunters negligently shot P at same time and it was impossible to distinguish which gun caused the injury
*Burden of disproving actual cause was placed on the Ds - since they couldn't prove which one, both were held jointly liable
Uniform Comparative Fault Act
*damages are proportional to % of fault of any Ds and Ps
*if a D is insolvent, Ct reappoints his share among Ds in the case
Daubert Case
*Sets forth the judge’s gatekeeping obligation. Up to states as to whether to apply. Requires that the expert’s methodology be:
-valid
-properly applied to facts at issue
Loss of Chance Doctrine
*P argues D's negligence prevents them from recovering fully
*Used in many med mal cases
*P recovers in proportion to P’s chance of survival prior to D’s negligence
*Matsuyama case
Concerted Action
*multiple wrongdoers but only one but-for cause
*all the Ds acting together (drag racing)
Enterprise Liability
*j/s
*Unrelated Ds are held jointly liable because they are part of the same enterprise
*shift burden to Ds to prove they are not cause-in-fact
Market Share Liability
*j/s
*Where identification of the manufacturer of a drug that injures a plaintiff is impossible, courts might apply a market share theory, using a national market, to determine liability and apportionment of damages.
How is market defined?
(Great Teams Always Imbibe Drugs)
*geographic scope
*temporal scope
*absent Ds
*insolvent Ds
*Ds who can disprove role