In Summers v.

Tice, the California Supreme court held two hunters

liable on a concert of action theory. True or False.
False.. why? Concert of action? Is that real?
On a substantial factor test? Still false.
Alternative liability

Plaintiff purchases bottle of silver cleaner, no warning label but a bit of

glue hinting a label might be gone, she used it, and then got a rash,
both friends saying they followed the directions on the jar and used
rubber gloves… P wants to file suit against manufacturer governed by
section 402A….
a. P case might be governed by a true strict liability standard, in
which the reasonableness of manufacturer, behave wont matter
b. P action can only be for a design defect, failure to warn, and
although rhetoric of strict liability used, will not be actual
c. Case that will be governed by strict liability in which actions
will play no part of manu
d. Section 402a does not apply

Answer: Can’t for sure say one way or the other without knowing
more about the potential label, so the answer is A because it uses the
word “might”

Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior which of the following is

true
a. An employer may be held strictly liable for its negligent acts
something, look it up
b. Employer may be held liable for negligently hiring an
unsuitable employee
c. Employee is absolved from liability of his negligent acts while
under “work” order and instead the employer is held liable
(Not true)
d. A and C
e. B and C

- Intentional torts involving physical injury

o Battery
 Vosburg
 Think in terms of Restatement for exam
 Intent: Either you want it to happen or you are
 substantially certain that the result desired will occur
• Fire gun randomly at a room 25% full, not
substantially certain, may be incredibly
negligent, but not substantially certain of a
result
 Consent: Restatement sees it as an affirmative
defense
o Trespass to chattels
o Trespass to land
- Privileges
o Consent – Restatement….
o Self-defense
 If it’s a third party you are protecting, most courts
will take position that you better be right
o Doctrine of Necessity
 Ploof v. Putnam
- Unintentional torts
o Actual cause
 999/1000 is it true that but for the D conduct would
the result still have occurred
• Special cases, like the 2 joining fires, etc where
but-for doesn’t work, and so substantial factor
test then goes into affect there
• Summers Tice was odd case, very rare
circumstance
 Market Share DES
 Sindell Case
• Theory may be applied again if new situations
arise
• Not used now?
 Ybarra
• Not alternative liability
o Didn’t know who did what
 Kingston –
o Concert of action
 Think drag racers
 Xplicit agreement to act in a way that would be
legally culpable
 2 manufacturers agree to market a defective product
 must be agreement to do the thing that makes them
legally culpable
o Know Respondeat superior (same chapter as actual cause)
 Underlying legal culpability of the employee
 That requires negligence on part of employee in torts
 usually
• If employee is engaged in blasting, so you can
say he’s subject to strict liability under
ultrahazardous blah, you could’ve held
employee liable by negligence, or strict liability
(must be acting under order of employer)
• Link between employee and employer is strict
liability, but must have the legally culpable link
between employee and victim or whoever
• Employer liable as long as employee still trying
to act within his duty as an employee
o Test most often offered
 Who is controlling the details of the work
 Common law test
• A lot of people have someone who cleans their
house (who comes every other week) are they
your employee or an independent contractor
o Who supplies tools, how much are you in
control, or how much are you directing
them in the details of the work, then that
makes them an employee,
o Independent contractor, you kind of
expect a little bit of independence
- Chapter 3 Negligence
o Think about the facts separately, analyze the facts, just
because there is harm doesn’t meant there is negligence,
what will plaintiff argue, defendant, etc
 Must show they did not act as a reasonable person
would have
 If neither foreseeable or direct, hard to hold
defendant liable
o Per Se Negligence
 Was there a statute that was violated, or an
ordinance or a regulation
 Sugar Burough case
 What was the statute trying to avoid?
• Sheep overboard case
o Statute was about disease control, not
keeping them from getting swept
overboard
• So not Per Se
 Breaking statute of having a driver’s license while
driving, usually not ruled as Per Se, will be judged on
how the driving was
 o Res Ipsa Loquitor
 We don’t know exactly what happened, but it must
have been from negligence on part of defendant
- Land Owner Liability
o Traditional
 Trespasser, Invitee, Licensee
 Nordstrom has a bunch of rats, didn’t put the rats
there, but by invitee rule, have to take reasonable
care to get rid of danger
 Only invitees have a right to be protected against
natural dangers
o Rowland v. Christian Approach
 Straight reasonableness standard
 Usually failure to intervene, is no liability, and for
hitting someone, must be negligent, this takes
middle ground
 Different because you must go and make land safe
for all, not just invitee
- Special Relationships
o Cause the baby to be in the puddle, no matter how, have
duty to pick the baby up
 If saw the baby crawling and picked it up, if you non
negligently cause the baby to be in the predicament
you have a duty to rescue
o Gratuitous acts
 Even just saying I’m gonna rescue the baby, you
must then do it because it stopped someone else
from helping the baby
- Proximate Cause
o Think in terms of palsgraf
o Don’t worry about cardozo/Andrews dispute
o For our purposes we are in jurisdiction where cardozo
opinion prevails, foreseeablility of the victim class for duty
talk early on
o Make sure u go over breach of duty, cause, damage, etc
 Cover all elements
o Know polemis and wagon mound
- Emotional and Economic Harm
o Exceptions
 People Express Case
• Foreseeability in particular
o Onto idea that there are gonna be some
people who haven’t had a physical
impact that nonetheless have a strong
 enough case that they deserve
compensation
• Airlines loss of business because forced to shut
down from someone else’s mistake
o Emotional injury case with attention
 Bystander Cases
• Dillon v Legg
o Court imposing liability with a very
flexible rule
 Where do we draw the line for
“close relationship” for who can
claim emotional distress from
being horrified from seeing an
accident
• Know thing la chusa vs Dillon
- CASES TO KNOW
o Vosburg v. Putney
o Ploof v. Putnam
o Vincent v. Erie
o Summers v. Tice
o Ybarra v. Spanguard
o United States v. Carrol Towing
o Rowland v. Christian
o Tarasoff
o Palsgraf
o Polemis
o Wagonmound
o Fletcher v. Rylands
o Ultramarez
o Shutt v. Kauffmen?
- Restatement
o Def. of Battery
o Don’t need Numbers but do know general rules
o Know Private Nuisance
o 402A
- Know Immunities a little bit, briefly,
o Federal torts claims act, know it semi well
o And sovereignty
o Charitable, not a lot to say
- Reallocation
o Know and understand it
o Defendant will ask for it
- Trespass and Nuisance
o Didn’t really go over public nuisance
  Most we know is that there are some cases like the
blockage on the road
 Not likely to get public nuisance questions
o Bloomer v. Atlantic cement
 Temporary vs permanent damages
- Rylands v Fletchers
o Abnormally dangerous arose from this case but wasn’t
used in this case, not what theya re talking about
o Talking
- Products Liability
o PV
 What is PV of 10k that would be payable 5 years
from now, interest is 3%
 Find column with 3%, go down to where it says 5
years, multiply the decimal by 10k or your amount
and you have your answer
o 3 important things
 discount rate
 cost of living raises
 raises for increased productivity
 Market Rate Analysis
 “Real” rate of interest
- Commercial torts of fraud or interference