ÿþ<html> <head> <meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode"> <meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered)"> <title>Chapter 1 -- Breach of Duty</title> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate {mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char"; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:8.0pt; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} span.BalloonTextChar {mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char"; mso-style-link:"Balloon Text"; font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";} .MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <script type="text/javascript" src="js/jquery-1.3.2.min.js"> </script> <script> function SwitchText(text){ $("#text").html(text); }; $(document).ready(function(){ var defaultText = 'One who offers professional services (medicine, law, engineering) is held to the standard of reasonable care; one problem in such cases is to adapt the standard of reasonable care to a professional setting that juries may have a hard time evaluating. In addition, unique issues arise such as the duty of the professional to third parties (not clients of the professional) and the special requirements of informed consent.' $("#text").html(defaultText); $("area").hover( function () { //on is taken care of above }, function () { $("#text").html(defaultText); } ); }); </script> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <div style='margin-top:37.5pt;margin-bottom:37.5pt' id=main> <p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><img width=628 height=442 src="Chapter01_files/image001.gif" align=right hspace=12><b><a href="#Breach_of_Duty">Establishing a Breach of Duty</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Abnormally_Dangerous_Activities">Abnormally Dangerous Activities</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Animals">Animals</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Company_Rulebooks">Company Rulebooks</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Custom_of_the_Industry">Custom of the Industry</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Juror_Experience">Juror Experience</a> </b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Learned_Hand">Learned Hand</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Negligence_Defining_Reasonable_Care">Negligence (Defining Reasonable Care)</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Negligence_per_se">Negligence per se (Statutory Violation)</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Nuisance">Nuisance</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Post_Accident_Repairs">Post-Accident Repairs</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Reasonable_Person">Reasonable Person</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Res_Ipsa_Loquitur">Res Ipsa Loquitur</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Strict_Liability">Strict Liability</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b><a href="#Useful_Evidence_of_Negligence">Useful Evidence of Negligence</a></b></p> <p class=MsoNormal>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Breach_of_Duty"><b>Breach of Duty</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            The first step in establishing <i>liability</i> is to show that there is something about what the defendant did that justifies imposing the cost of the plaintiff's injury upon the defendant rather than the plaintiff.  It may be, for example, that the defendant acted negligently; alternatively, the defendant may have acted with reasonable care, but was engaged in an activity that creates such a high risk of danger that accidents caused by that activity should be borne by the defendant rather than the innocent victims.  In most cases the plaintiff can establish a breach of duty either by showing that the defendant was negligent OR by establishing that the defendant is subject to strict liability.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Negligence_Defining_Reasonable_Care"><b>Negligence (Defining Reasonable Care)</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Negligence is defined as the failure to use ordinary care.  Ordinary care is what a reasonably prudent person would do in the same or similar circumstances.  Ordinary care is also referred to as reasonable care.  Because the standard of reasonable care is so general, it is usually necessary to examine the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine whether reasonable care was used.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Useful_Evidence_of_Negligence"><b>Useful Evidence of Negligence</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Even if we have carefully defined what constitutes reasonable care (or the lack thereof), we must decide what kinds of evidence will be relevant to the determination of reasonable care, and what effect that evidence will have.    </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Abnormally_Dangerous_Activities"><b>Abnormally Dangerous Activities</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Some activities carried on in society are useful, but carry with them a very high degree of danger.  These activities may produce injury even when reasonable care is used, and the magnitude of the harm is often so great that the plaintiff would have no way of avoiding the risk.  For example, tankers that carry large quantities of gasoline, or companies that manufacture explosives, rarely cause injury, but when they do the effect is often catastrophic.  Whether or not an activity is abnormally dangerous is judged by the criteria established in the Restatement of Torts.  These criteria are:  (1) whether the activity poses a high risk of harm; (2) whether the harm, if it occurs, is likely to be great; (3) whether accidents occur even when reasonable care is exercised; (4) whether the activity is commonly engaged in; (5) whether the activity is appropriate to the place where it is carried on; and (6) whether the activity is of low value to the community.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Even where a defendant is engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity, he is only responsible for that which makes the activity abnormally dangerous; for example, a tanker carrying gasoline may strike and injure a child on a bicycle.  The plaintiff would still have to show that the plaintiff acted negligently, because the risk of harm did not arise from the release or ignition of the flammable cargo that made the activity abnormally dangerous.   </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name=Animals><b>Animals</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            A traditional source of strict liability is injury inflicted by animals that escape from the custody of the owner.  However, an owner is not liable for such injuries unless the owner knows the animal is dangerous.  Some animals (tigers, for example) are presumed dangerous.  Others, such as domestic animals like dogs, are presumed docile, but once the owner has reason to know of the animal's ferocity, the owner becomes strictly liable even is he uses reasonable care to restrain the animal from causing injury.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Company_Rulebooks"><b>Company Rulebooks</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            One useful way to establish that the defendant was negligent is to point to some policy adopted by the defendant that would have prevented the injury if it had been followed in the plaintiff's case.  These efforts are treated differently, depending upon whether they are adopted before or after the accident.  For example, where a street car company adopts a policy prior to the accident that street car conductors should ring a bell before entering an intersection, the plaintiff can use the &quot;disobedient servant&quot; as evidence that reasonable care required use of that safety precaution.  On the other hand, courts as a policy matter have excluded evidence of safety measures adopted by the defendant after the accident.  Evidence of post-accident repairs or subsequent remedial measures is usually inadmissible.  The concern in the case of post-accident repairs is that a rule allowing their use as evidence of pre-accident negligence would discourage defendants from adopting measures that might be very important for public safety.  While one might construct an argument that a similar disincentive would attach to defendants who are composing company rulebooks, courts have allowed the pre-accident repair measures (where disobeyed), but not the post-accident repair measures.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Custom_of_the_Industry"><b>Custom of the Industry</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            In many tort cases the defendant was engaged at the time of the accident in an activity that was common to the industry to which he belonged.  For example, in the <i>T.J. Hooper</i> case the defendant operated a tugboat that transported barges along the Eastern seaboard.  In deciding whether or not the defendant was using reasonable care in that operation, the court would ordinarily consider how other people, situated similarly to the defendant, conduct their operations.  If a safety measure is in common use, it suggests that it is one that reasonable people would take, and the converse is also true.  However, the court in <i>T.J. Hooper</i> announced that the custom of the industry is not dispositive of the liability issue; the plaintiff can always argue that the whole industry was lax in adopting appropriate safety measures (in the tugboat case, radios that would warn of adverse weather).</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Juror_Experience"><b>Juror Experience </b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            One way for the plaintiff to establish negligence is to appeal to the jurors' sense of what is reasonable behavior based on their own experience.  For example, if the defendant loses control of his car because he is trying to swat a wasp that flew in the window, the jurors may have enough familiarity with the situation to decide on their own what constitutes reasonable care, and whether the defendant met that standard. </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Learned_Hand"><b>Learned Hand</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Oftentimes there is no established pattern against which to measure the defendant's behavior.  In such circumstances the finder of fact should consider the relative cost of accident prevention formulated as B&lt;P*L:  Is <i>burden</i> of preventing the injury) compared with the average <i>loss</i> to be suffered if the injury occurs, multiplied by the <i>probability</i> that the injury will occur.  This test has often been referred to as a test of economic efficiency, since it suggests that a deefendant is expected to employ measures only when they are cost efficient.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Negligence_per_se"><b>Negligence per se (Statutory Violation)</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            A very effective way for the plaintiff to establish negligence is by showing that the defendant was violating a statute when the accident occurred--for example, by speeding or driving at night without proper lights.  Some courts have held that an unexcused statutory violation is more than just evidence of negligence; it is negligence <i>per se </i>or negligence as a matter of law.  What this means is that it is no longer for the jury to decide whether the defendant used reasonable care--the judge will declare the defendant negligent as a matter of law.  This requires proof that (1) a statute was in fact violated (dispute over how fast the defendant was going, for example, will be left for the jury to decide); (2) the statute was designed to protect against this kind of injury (rather than, for example, collecting taxes or avoiding a different kind of harm); and (3) the violation was unexcused.  Note that even if the defendant is <i>negligent </i>as a matter of law, it doesn't necessarily show that such negligence <i>caused </i>the injury.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name=Nuisance><b>Nuisance</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            A defendant is subject to strict liability for injuries caused to an owner of real property where that owner has suffered an unreasonable interference with his property rights.  The main difference between this standard and the negligence standard is that some interference may be unreasonable (for example, the drifting of noxious odors or cement dust), even though the defendant is using reasonable care in operating the facility.  Most nuisance cases today are governed in the first instance by zoning ordinances that specify the uses of property that are appropriate to a given area.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            If a plaintiff establishes that the defendant's activities constitute a nuisance, the plaintiff is usually entitled to have the court order <i>injunctive relief</i> as well as damages.  The court's power to <i>enjoin</i> a nuisance is subject to general equitable rules, and where the situation warrants a creative remedy, the court may split the damage and injunctive relief, such as was done in <i>Boomer v. Atlantic Cement</i>.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><i>            Coming to the nuisance</i>.  In determining whether the defendant's activity is a nuisance, courts have looked in part to the expectations of the parties when they purchased their property.  Long-standing use of the property for some purpose that would otherwise be noxious (e.g., conducting a cattle feedlot or operating an airport that produces loud noise and vibration) may make it difficult for a plaintiff who moves into the environment to establish that the defendant's activity is a nuisance.  However, even if the plaintiff is guilty of &quot;coming to the nuisance,&quot; that is only one factor to consider in determining the parties' reasonable expectations and in balancing the equities.  </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Post_Accident_Repairs"><b>Post-Accident Repairs</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Evidence of post-accident repairs or subsequent remedial measures are usually inadmissible.  The concern in the case of post-accident repairs is that a rule allowing their use as evidence of pre-accident negligence would discourage defendants from adopting measures that might be very important for public safety.  While one might construct an argument that a similar disincentive would attach to defendants who are composing company rulebooks, courts have allowed the pre-accident repair measures (where disobeyed), but not the post-accident repair measures.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Reasonable_Person"><b>Reasonable Person</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            The standard of reasonable care is based upon determining  what a reasonable person would do in the same or similar circumstances.  Because it is based upon the peculiar factual circumstances of each case the jury must exercise its own judgment about what was appropriate.  Some characteristics of the defendant may be considered part of the &quot;circumstances&quot;; for example, if a child is accused of negligence, the question for the jury may be, &quot;What would a reasonable [child] do in those circumstances?&quot;  On the other hand, where children engage in adult activities, such as operating motorized vehicles, they may be held to an adult standard.  </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Res_Ipsa_Loquitur"><b>Res Ipsa Loquitur</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            The plaintiff has the burden to show that the defendant was negligent.  This must be based upon evidence testimony from a witness who saw the defendant speeding; skid marks; the defendant's own description of what he did, etc.  Sometimes, however, the evidence of negligence is destroyed in the accident for example, where a skywalk collapses, or a powder factory blows up, or a gasoline truck crashes and burns.  In such cases it is logical to infer negligence, but there is no proof that would tell one way or another.  In such cases the plaintiff may ask the judge to infer negligence based upon the maxim <i>res ipsa loquitur</i>  the thing speaks for itself.   To qualify for a res ipsa instruction, the plaintiff must show (1) that the accident was the <i>type</i> of accident that ordinarily doesn't occur except where there has been negligence; (2) the defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality or process that caused the injury; and (3) other potential causes, such as negligence on the part of the plaintiff or third parties, have been sufficiently eliminated.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><a name="Strict_Liability"><b>Strict Liability</b></a></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            While most cases require proof of negligence on the part of the defendant, some injuries lead to strict liability.  In order to qualify for strict liability, the plaintiff must show that the case falls within one of the designated classes of cases where strict liability has been permitted.</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'><b>Useful Evidence of Negligence</b></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>            Even if we have carefully defined what constitutes reasonable care (or the lack thereof), we must decide what kinds of evidence will be relevant to the determination of reasonable care, and what effect that evidence will have.    </p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:12.0pt;text-autospace:none'>&nbsp;</p> </div> </div> </body> </html>