1

1Ck1S
I about reevance ask |s th|s kLL1LD to the neg|gence reevance of facts to the case
II rea of aw |mposes dut|es on persons to act |n a manner that w| not |n[ure other persons
III L|ab||ty 8ased Upon Iaut
1 1ort clvll wrong oLher Lhan a breach of conLracL for whlch Lhe law provldes a remedy
2 keasons for 1orts system so people donL Lake Lhlngs lnLo Lhelr own hands vlndlcaLe lndlvldual rlghLs of
redress/compensaLlng for ln[ury lncenLlve Lo geL people Lo acL responslbly/deLer wrongful conducL proLecLlng
rlghLs and llberLles of people sLrlke a balance
3 lablllLy ls based on faulL noL ln[ury Could be an occlJeot u could noL have avolded by Lhe use of Lhe klnd and
degree of care necessary Lo Lhe pressure and clrcumsLance SPL was ln (8rown v kendall
4 Sk ArC uC Cttln thC rlht OCll DOllCx (Or uht l rCOnblC nO uht' nOt? [rCtln tOO
rlKx n CnvlrOnmCnt Or tOO (C?8-CL
IV -eg|gence (ob[ecLlve) tooJotJ of teosoooble cote opplles to oll
Sk uid they oct reosonob/y qiven the circumstonces?
LLLML-1S]kLUIkLML-1S ( must prove) uon'L 8lLe Clay reLend uonuLs
uuLy
8reach
Cause ln lacL
roxlmaLe Cause
uamages

LLLML-L1S CI CUSL CI C1IC-
1 Duty Lo use reasonable care CbllgaLlon recognlzed by law requlrlng acLor Lo conform Lo a cerLaln sLandard of
conducL for Lhe proLecLlon of oLhers agalnsL unreasonable rlsks When seeklng a sLandard (look Lo corp pollcy lndusLry
pracLlce and sLandards sLaLuLes/regulaLlons
2 8reach of Duty lallure Lo conform Lo requlred sLandard how dld Lhe u behave unreasonably?
% ooJ 2 oeqllqeot bebovlot Joesot meoo lloble)
Causat|on |n fact show reasonably close causal connecLlon beLween Lhe breach(negllgence) and damages/ln[ury
Pave Lo show Lhrough a llnk of evenLs caused 8
4 rox|mate cause Lo sLop lL from golng over dlsLances of Llme and space from belng buLLerflyeffecL Where do Lhe
reverberaLlons of causallLy sLop? We cuL off llablllLy afLer Lhe flrsL proprleLary lnLeresL has been harmed usually
3 Damages have Lo prove Lhey were acLually hurL
-LCCL-CL lC8Muoclol lmpllcotloos/keosoooble
Maln ldea balance beLween reasonably foreseeable rlsk and burden Lo socleLy ll abouL proporLlon of danger agalnsL burden
lf greaLer danger for publlc burden on u
oteseeoblllty people wlll noL be held llable for damages lncurred from an unforeseeable occurrence (ublLz
v Wells golf club ln yard chlld use noL foreseeable)
ThlnK O( OCll lmDCt. OOn't unt tO bn lCvln xOur Ol( Club OutlOC.
2 f damages resulL b/c of unforeseen exLreme clrcumsLances noL llable (8lyLh v 8lrmlngham exLra cold wlnLer
and bursL plpes)
2

FlrnC luC: ttC O( ClrCumtnCC COntltutC COntlnCnCx lnt nO
rCOnblC DCrOn Cn DrOvlOC

3 keosoooble cote f under all clrcumsLances u dld noL Lake necessary precauLlons as 8 would under llke
clrcumsLancesnegllgence 8LSC-8L L8SC- Cl 1PL CCMMu-1?!!!!! f u aren'L from Lhere and don'L
know of Lhe rlsks socleLy should noL have Lo bear LhaL burden (-oLre dame snow skld S Cal) (MuLLon 8usLlng)
4 1aklng precauLlons Lo proLecL Lhe publlc good where Lhe burden of Lhe precauLlons ls ouLwelghed by Lhe
danger LhaL would occur lf Lhe precauLlons weren'L Laken (Chlcago 88/krayenbuhl LurnLable lock kld's
ankle)
1oo large burden on MunlclpallLy Lo proLecL cars on all roads agalnsL all clrcumcsLances
(uavlson/Snohomlsh guardralls)
unt tO blnCC OCll COt nO bCnC(lt. [Ou OCll COt nO hlh bCnC(lt.

tlvet owes a duLy of care Lo her passengers because lL ls foreseeable LhaL Lhey may be ln[ured lf Lhrough
lnaLLenLlon oLherwlse Lhe drlver lnvolves Lhe car she ls operaLlng ln a colllslon
Where acLlons of passenger LhaL lnLerfere wlLh drlver's safe operaLlon of vehlcle are foreseeable
fallure Lo prevenL conducL may be breach of drlvers duLy (lpher/arsell sllly frlend grabblng sLeerlng
wheel)
LxCL1C- Where Lhe acLlons of a passenger LhaL cause an accldenL are noL forseeable drlver -C1 negllgenL
LCu1C- lC8 8LLl (proballLy) (ln[ury) 8(burden) lablllLy depends upon wheLher 8 \

1 1he greaLer Lhe rlsk of harm Lo oLhers LhaL ls creaLed by a person's acLlvlLy Lhe greaLer Lhe burden or duLy Lo
avold ln[ury Lo oLhers becomes 1he rlsk deflnes Lhe duLy LhaL musL be underLaken (unlLed SLaLes v Carrol
1owlng )
2 roporLlon of danger agalnsL 8urdenlf greaLer danger for publlc burden ls on Lhe u(Chlcago v krayenbuhl)
2 8esLaLemenL of LorLs -LGLIGL-CL
l person acLs negllgenLly lf Lhe person does noL exerclse reasonable care under all clrcumsLances
rlmary facLors Lo conslder ln ascerLalnlng wheLher Lhe person's conducL lacks reasonable care are Lhe
forseeabe |ke|hood that person's conduct w| resut |n harm the foreseeabe sever|ty of any harm
that may ensue and the burden of precaut|osn to e|mante or reduce the r|sk of harm

S1-u8u Cl C8L
kemloJet -eg ls W?S relevanL Lhe clrcumsLances of Llme place or person -u Lhls shows law requlres no more Lhan
whaL ls reasonable

1 1he keasonabe rudent erson k 1he sLandard ls Lhe average reasonable person noL varylng for every
level of lnLelllgence or person keasonabe man of ord|nary rudence ordlnary" does -C1 mean super
cauLlous worrywarL [tnOrO l lmDOrtnt (Or OCll DCCt.
dld Lhe besL could" -C1 uLlL-SL We aren'L flndlng faulL we are allocaLlng rlsk (vaugh/ Menlove
8C-C8-CL S -C1 uLlL-SL 8 would check Lo ensure hls/her sLuff ls safe so lf problem occurs b/c
person dld noL Lake due care (llke oLher ppl would) Lhen Lhey are negllgenL


all drlvers (noL owners of car) musL know condlLlons of Lhose parLs llkely Lo become dangerous where
flaw/faulLs would be seen by reasonable lnspecLlon(uelalr v Mcdoo Lhln Llre pop) [rOtCCt OthCr
On hlhux
ClC8CL1lu-LSS -C1 uLlL-SL unless dlsLracLed aLLenLlon lapse of Llme or oLher slmllar facLors
make lL reasonable Lo forgeL lwoys opply tbot teosooobleoess l1

2 MLSu8L reasonable by applylng cusLom or comparlng lL Lo cusLom whaL ls usually done may be evldence
of whaL oughL Lo be done D1 wbot ooqbt to be Jooe ls flxeJ stooJotJ of teosoooble ptoJeoce wheLher lL
ls usually complled wlLh or noL
l 8esponslbllLy Lo keep up wlLh lndusLry sLandard (noL necessarlly cusLom of Lhe Llme
and cusLoms change!) (1rlmarco v klelnbroken shower glass door)

3 Lmergency Doctr|ne 8 relevanL Lo Lhe clrcumsLances!! LxcepLlon Lo reasonable prudence can be made
under exLreme clrcumsLances when someone ls noL Lhlnklng properly or maklng declslons under llfe or
deaLh clrcumsLances 1o poollfy os oo emetqeocy tbe eveot most be oofoteseeo soJJeo ooJ ooexpecteJ
%Cordas v eerless 1rans Co eloquenL case chaffuer [umps ouL of car)
LxCL1C- ?ou cannoL have caused Lhe emergency
4 P?SC/ML-1 uS81LS S1-DkD whaL ls reasonable among oLhers wlLh slmllar or same
handlcap LxperL LesLlmony (8oberLs v SLaLe of ouslana 8llnd osL Cfflce employee bumps lnLo old frall
man noL uslng hls noL uslng cane noL neg)

CPu8L- usually held Lo sLandard of reasonable chlld LhaL age LxCL1 when a chlld engages ln lnherenLly
dangerous acLlvlLles chlld should be held Lo an adulL sLandard of care (8oblnson v lndsay kld on
snowmoblle)


-S-1?
SuuuL- ML-1 -CC1? ls llke sudden hearL aLLack or selzure or sLroke noL llable for negllgence
(no foreseeable lncapable of avoldlng lL) (8reunlg v merlcan lamlly ns Co woman god Look Lhe
wheel drlvlng on wrong slde)
8l Lhey know Lhey have menLal dlsorder or lf lLs forseeable Lhls rule doesn'L apply MenLal Pandlcap
doesn'L counL as a physlcal handlcap (connecL Lo Menlove)
[OllCx bl (Or hOlOln DCrm. ]nnC DDl llblC (Or tOrt: (1IhCrC 2 lnnOCCnt DDl u((Cr
lO. hOulO bC bOrnC bx OnC tht CuCO lt.(2ITO CnCOurC DDl lntCrCtCO ln lnnC
DCrOn' CttC tO COntrOl hlm Or hCr (3IFCr O( lnnltx OC(CnC lCOln tO (lC Cllm
O( lnnltx tO vOlO llbllltx.
CcLlon may lle agalnsL persons responslble for carlng for Lhe menLally lll person based on neg
supervlslon buL only lf a careLaklng responslblllLy has been assumed


1PL 8ClLSSC- sLandard of 8 ln same professlon ln good sLandlng (remember lf someLhlng Lakes place [ work
respondeaL superlor ls l8 CML)

4

LlemenLs/8equlremenLs for professlonal
a 9ossess tbe tepolteJ Jeqtee of leotoloq sklll ooJ oblllty oecessoty to ptoctlce bls/bet
ptofessloo
b xetclse qooJ foltb lo best joJqmeot
c xetclse teosoooble ooJ otqlooty cote ooJ Jlllqeoce lo tbe ose of bls ot bet sklll ooJ lo
oppllcotloo of koowleJqe

1 Measure mlnlmal/average sLandard generally appllcable Lo all professlonals ?ou use ob[ecLlve sLandard
Lhe sklll and knowledge of LhaL calllng (PeaLh v SwlfL plloL courL used sub[ sLnd noL ok)

LxCL1C- all Lhlngs we do ouLslde of our professlon reasonable person sLandard
LxCL1C- SpeclallsLs held Lo hlgher sLandards (because Lhey puL Lhemselves as such)

3 Lxpert test|mony necessary Lo supporL a seL a facLs Lhe ordlnary [ury would noL recognlze or deLermlne
Lhose facLs -o experL LesLlmony no case because has burden of proof (u-LSS so obvlous layperson
undersLands llke 8)

4 MLuC M8C1CL SullCL-C? Cl LvuL-CL Cl Ck Cl C8L n order for a malpracLlce sulL Lo
hold musL be offltmotlvely ptoveo SLandard of med racLlce musL be shown by afflrmaLlve evldence [ury
can't specuate -oL negllgence [usL because unsuccessful 1esLlmony of oLher physlclans as Lo whaL Lhey
would have done lsn'L sufflclenL (8oyce v 8rown broken ankle bone)

lCCW -1C- S1-u8u noL CC(mosL of Lhe Llme
When educaLlon for professlon ls sLandardlzed so ls Lhe sLandard of care varylng geo sLandards of
care noL valld

LxCL1C- MosL courL adopLed a 'slmllar communlLy slmllar sLandlng' clrcumsLances Lo allow for dlfferences
ln speclallzed docs

uu1? Cl -lC8MLu CC-SL-1 to lofotm whaL a reasonable paLlenL would wanL Lo know lf Joc qets potleots
cooseot bot bos bteocbeJ Joty to lofotm potleot bos coose of octloo lo oeq fot follote to lofotm potleot of bls
optloos teqotJless of tbe Joe cote exetclseJ ot tteotmeot (ScoLL v 8radford lady goess ln Lo geL hysLerecLomy
comes ouL wlLh Lons of problems)
elemenLs
-lC8M1C- foll Jlsclosote of oll motetlol tlsks 9oteotlol tlsks oltetootlves wbot tbe tteotmeot ls
whaL would Lhe reasonable paLlenL wanL Lo know?
8 CuSL would a reasonable paLlenL have undergone Lhe surgery had Lhey known Lhe rlsks?
C -u8?unexplalned adverse rlsks happened

LxCL1C-S lf Lelllng Lhem would cause undue sLress C8 lf lLs an emergency don'L have Lo geL consenL

luuC8? uu1? of lnformed consenL uCC musL dlsclose any personal lnLeresLs (econ research eLc)
unrelaLed Lo Lhe surgery Lo Lhe paLlenL (Moore v 1he 8egenLs of u of Cal removed hls spleen he ls flne buL
doc used cells and sold Lhem for blg money)

ggravated -eg|gence lor a whlle Lrled Lo separaLe degrees of neg (sllghL ordlnary gross) -CW mosLly
done away wlL Lhls and [usL overall sLandard applled Je do use GGkV1LD neg|gence (|ntent|ona
d|sregard for the safety of others kLCkLLSS) st| the standard for U-I1IVL damages tr|gger|ng d|fference

VICL1IC- CI S11U1L
1 -eg per se unexcused vlolaLlon of sLaLuLe
3

2 uu1? 88LCP ?ou vlolaLed your duLy l ooexcoseJ vlolaLlon u may have excuse lL was reasonable Lo
vlolaLe lL Je kL hed to the k standard but courts ook reasonaby at statutes
3 l 1 LS S11u1L flxes Lhe S1-u8u by whlch Lhe facL of neg ls deLermlned
o eglslaLures make sLaLuLes esLabllshlng sLandards of care for common slLuaLlons wlLh
Lhe lnLeresL of promoLlng safeLy Soclety speokloq tbtooqb lts leqlslotote ooJ lJeotlfles
wbot lt tbloks ls tlsky ot oot
3 must be statute or ord|nance -C1 schoo rue ordlnances generally LreaLed aL a lower level Lhan
sLaLuLe([usL evldence of neg)
4 usually vlolaLlon of a sLaLuLe small crlmlnal flne 8u1 may argue u ls negllgenL for falllng Lo comply w/
sLaLuLory sLandard of care 8 wouldn'L do LhaL

When a sLaLuLe/munlclpal ordlnance lmposes on ppl a speclflc duLy for Lhe proLecLlon/beneflL of oLhers lf
someone neglecLs Lo perform LhaL duLy he/she ls llable Lo Lhose whose proLecLlon/beneflL lL was lmposed
for any ln[urles Lhe sLaLue was deslgned Lo prevenL and prox caused by Lhe negllgence (Csbornev Mc
MasLers unlabeled polson)

8LMLM8L8 Lhe purpose of Lhe rule does lL affecL Lhe reasonableness of Lhe conducL? f sLaLue says musL
wear helmeL and person hurLs Lhelr knee noL relevanL noL neg per se
LIC8ILI1 CI S11U1L
1 II LIC8LL 1PL- every clLlzen bound Lo obey -oL appllcable -C1 8Cu-u
2 kULL -oL almed [ prevenLlng Lype of harm occurred does -C1 esLabllsh a sLnd of care releveanL Lo Lhe
clrcumsLances and can noL be used Lo esLabllsh u's neg
| (doesn'L mean loses [usL means has burden Lo prove u neg under 8 sLandard)
3 kULL Lvldence of vlo of a sLaLuLe may -C1 be used Lo esLabllsh breach of duLy u-LSS Lhe sLaLuLe
esLabllshes a relevanL sLandard of care
| SLaLuLe ony reevant lf meanL Lo proLecL persons llke from Lhe Lype of harm LhaL acLually
occurred
|| Dec|s|on depends on determ|nat|on of the statute 8LCC-u1C-S
9otty bos to be wltblo tbe loteot of tbe stotote % 99 9k11)
8 lojoty ls type meoot to be ptotecteJ (|n[ury reated to not foow|ng the statute?)
C Jbetbet lts opptoptlote to lmpose tott lloblllty fot vlolotloos of tbe stotote
1 uuCL declde sLndrd ln sLaLuLe approprlaLe for LorL law looklng lf
l lmpose dlsproporLlonaLe llablllLy Lo relaLlve serlousness of u's conducL
ll mposes llablllLy wlLhouL faulL
lll lmpose afflrm duLles Lo acL(erry /S- S- uaycare chlld abuse)
4 CCu81 MuS1 k-CW u8CSL Cl S11u1L 1C ? S1-u8u Does |s ceary def|ne proh|b|ted
conduct?1o opply tbe J ptecooJltloos most koow tbe potpose of tbe stotote lf oot lt qoes to Ioty %-ey v
?ellow Cab Co)

CourLs llkely re[ecL cusLom where lL conLradlcLs Lhe l u 8CvLS CCMLu W1P S11u1L doesn'L mean
-C1 neg May have Lo do more Lhan sLaLuLe says
a usL llke cusLom sLaLuLe helps us undersLand how Lo deal wlLh whaL's reasonable buL lL can be wrong
ulLlmaLely lLs whaL ls reasonable under Lhe clrcumsLances (and besL for socleLy ln a way)

LIILC1 CI S11U1L


1 Most Is lLs neg per se buL u has a chance Lo defend and Lhen u may have burden of proof dependlng on
Lhe clrcumsLances vC1C- Cl S11u1L S L-CuCP 1C CL1 ?Cu 1C 1PL u8? Lhen [ury uses lL as a
sLandard of care l lL applles
2 II I unexcused vlolaLlon of sLaLuLe -egllgence per se lable(MarLln/Perzog u hlLs dldn'L have llghLs on
buggy) D's ony defense SLaLuLe dld noL ? under Lhe clrcumsLances or vlolaLlon dld noL CuSL 's
ln[ury
LkCUSLD VICL1IC-S lablllLy wlLhouL faulL noL Lruly negllgence n excused vlolaLlon ls noL negllgence and sLaLuLory
sLandard lnappllcable Lhere are clrcumsLances where ordlnary rules do noL apply)
[nrCOnblC tO uC utOmtlC rulC O( nCllCnCC uhCrC ObCrvln uOulO Dut DCrOn ln OnCr thCx COulO hvC vOlOCO
bx OlrCrOln thC CnCrl rulC.
CCL18LL LkCUSLS (noL llmlLed)
l ncapaclLy
ll ack of knowedlge of need Lo comply (LallllghL goes ouL whlle drlvlng)
lll nablllLy Lo comply (llLLle glrl ln road)
lv Lmergency (bllzzard)
v Compllance causes greaLer rlsk Lhan vlolaLlon
VICL1IC- S kL8U118LL kLSUM1IC- (ma[orlLy) proof of sLaL vlo creaLes 'presumpLlon' u was neg buL u ls free Lo
rebuL presumpLlon by showlng 8 would have acLed as she dld (due carelegally sufflclenL LxCuSL) up Lo [ury lf u are neg
ll burden ls on Lhe u Lo show Lhls and evldence should be sLrong poslLlve unequlvocal and credlble
8 (Zenl v nderson Woman walklng on slde of Lhe road ls hlL by college sLudenL crazy snowy ouL)
VICL1IC- S -LG Lk SL] S M11Lk CI LJ udge lnsLrucLs [ury Lhey MuS1 flnd u neglf Lhey flnd u vlolaLed Lhe
sLaLuLe [ury doesn'L declde reasonableness of ur behavlor move Lo causaLlon -o excuse
VICL1IC- S LVIDL-CL CI -LG(mlnorlLy) vlo glven Lo [ury as evldnc Lhen [ury looks aL evldence Lo declde lf neg or noL
LkCL1IC- you can follow all Lhe sLaLuLes and sLlll be llable SomeLlmes neg -C1 Lo vlolaLe
kCCI CI -LGLIGL-CL
1 8urden of ead|ngs when flle complalnL and answer courL only has Lo flgure ouL lf u have enough
evldence cases dlsmlssed when [udges say u don'L even have enough Lo go Lo [ury
2 8urden of roduct|on puL forward evldence aL Lrlal parLles LhaL dld Lhe pleadlng are ones LhaL need Lo
come forward wlLh evldence
3 8urden of ersuas|on goes Lo [ury geLs verdlcL
CCUk1 IUk CIkCUMS1-1IL LVIDL-CL musL show enough evldence LhaL an |nference of negllgence can be made Lo
geL Lo [ury
1 MUS1 kCVL
a u had acLual knowledge of a condlLlon on Lhe premlse
b CondlLlon posed an unreasonable rlsk of harm
c u dld -C1 exerclse reasonable care Lo reduce or ellmlnaLe rlsk
d u's lallure Lo use care 8Cx CuSLu 's ln[urles
8-- CSLS (Coddard verdlcL for u Could been dropped wlLhln 1mln)n[ou verdlcL for b was dark grLLy dlrL
Lrampled SomeLhlng Lo base concluslon on LhaL dld noL uS1 drop)(oye noL sufflclenL evldence LhaL a reasonable [ury could
deLermlne lengLh of Llme b has been on floor)
8as|c -ot|ce kequ|rement When relles on a fallure of u Lo correcL a dangerous condlLlon Lo prove u's neg has burden of
showlng u had noLlce of Lhe defecL ln sufflclenL Llme Lo correcL lL (CrLega v kmarL spllled mllk)



LxCL1C- ls noL requlred when u's meLhod of selllng would lnescapably lead Lo such mlshaps f dangerous
condlLlons are easlly foreseeable and conLlnuous consLrucLlve noLlce doesn'L need Lo be proved
2 PL 8uLL Croc v 8esendez SC (references Corbln case) a slgn ls noL enough Lo safeguard yourself from
unreasonable behavlor
kLS IS LCUI1Ck lt speoks fot ltself lq lofeteoces ote olloweJ Jbeo tbete lsot eoooqb octool evlJeoce coott wlll
sometlmes floJ tbete ls btlJqe tbe qop b/c lts obvloos lo tbe llqbt of bomoo teosoo ooJ coosotloo
rovldes ln[ured wlLh commonsense lnference of neg where dlrecL proof ls wanLlng as long as cerLaln elemenLs are
presenL
1 CC8L 8LCu8LML-1S (resLaLemenL 2
nd
28u)
SlLuaLlon would noL normally occur wlLhouL negllgence
under excluslve conLrol of u
noL responslble for neg
2 When facLs are prlma facle evldence of negllgence lf facLs are lnconslsLenL wlLh neg u musL prove LhaL
(8ryne v 8oadle 8arrel falls ouL of wlndow onLo guy's head Pe doesn'L have Lo prove Lhrough wlnLess eLc
Lo prove lL fell negllgenLly barrel's don'L [usL roll ouL of warehouses wlLhouL some negllgence)
3 musL provlde sufflclenL evldence (beyond [usL Lhe ln[ury or accldenL) so [ury can lnfer causaLlon from u's
breach of duLy need sufflclenL showlng of lLs lmmedlaLe preclplLaLlng cause Lnough so 8 would say more
llkely Lhan noL negllgence ls cause of evenL (Mcuougald v erry erry had Llred underneaLh Lraller he
drove over rallroad Lrakcs lL fell and and bounced and hls Mcu's wlndshleld Mcu say heyy oot excloslve
coottol Well we don'Lhave Lo be absoluLely cerLaln lL was ln hls conLrol buL mosL llkely ury flnds lL meeLs
requlremenLs of 8 Mcu wlns)

4 MuS1 8L LxCuSvL CC-18C Lxcluslve conLrol ls physlcal conLrol as well as conLrol of lnsLrumenLallLy
LxCL1C- lf Joesot bove excloslve coottol ovet ppl ot losttomeots oot kl9 (arson v SL lrancls PoLel
chalr Lhrown ouL of wlndow durlng parLles on u u? hlLs -oL hoLel's faulL 8LCuSL noL someLhlng
LhaL would noL ordlnarlly happen wlLhouL neg (ppl Lhrow sLuff ouL of wlndows when hoLel's meeL Lhelr
duLy of care) -u hoLel's do -C1 have excluslve conLrol over whaL ppl do ln Lhelr rooms Case Lhrown
ouL)
LxCL1C- 1C LxCL1C- f Lhls was lL auderdale and sprlng break hoLel mlghL be llable bc knew
Lhese slLuaLlons would happen lf renL ouL Lo parLy people PL8L lL wasn'L expecLed u uay [usL
happened
[OOK t lnCCntlvC. uht lmDCt O( mKln hOtCl' llblC (Or uht DCODlC OO?
lf collectlve excloslve coottol of losttomeotollty collectlve tespooslblllty -umber ond re/otionship of the us
not determinotive of whether klL opp/ies ny u charged wlLh care of unconsclous (who reclveves unusual
ln[urles durlng LhaL Llme) so neglecLed hlm Lo allow ln[ury Lo occur and would be llable 1hese us may be
properly called upon Lo meeL lnference of neg by glvlng explaLlon of Lhelr conducL (?barra v Spangard guy
goes ln for appendlx surgery comes ouL wlLh ln[ured shoulder u's all passlng Lhe buck lound all u's
negllgenL bc each keeps saylng ' don'L know')

LllLC1S Cl 8 (up Lo clrcumsLanLlal evldence of case whlch applles)
WarranLs lofeteoce of neg for [ury Lo use when decldlng
8

8 8alses ptesomptloo of neg requlrlng [ury Lo flnd neg lf u doesn'L provlde sufflclenL evldence Lo rebuL
preempLlon
C 8alses presumpLlon -u sblfts botJeo of ptoof Lo u and requlres he prove ln[ury noL caused by hls
neg (Sulllvan v CrabLree 's son dles as passenger ln u's Lruck whlch he losL conLrol over (maybe bc
of loose gravel) and lL fllpped CourL says lnferences could be hls faulL or noL up Lo [ury Lhey ruled for
u so lLs for u)

l you geL enough lnfo from u 8 has no use u have Lhe lnfo1nLkL MUS1 8L U-k-CJ- IC1CkS


V Causat|on |n Iact f harm would have occurred w/o unoL cause noL neg no award
lf causaLlon cannoL be shown Lhen one of Lhe elemenLs ls mlsslng
S- Cu -C- 8uL for Lhere ls noLhlng (appy th|s IIkS1)
1 -egllgence ls noL found u-LSS lL was Lhe cause ln facL of Lhe harm for whlch recovery ls soughL -oL sole
cause buL sobstootlol foctot lo btloqloq oboot tbe botm l accldenL would have happened 8u1 lC8 Lhls
noL sub lacLor(erklns v 1exas and - Crleans 8 Co( afLer hlLLlng car Look 1230fL Lo sLop ccldenL
would have occurred regardless of excesslve speed of Lraln dlsmlssed)
If but for doesn't prove |t (or mut|pe Ds) then ook to see |s |t a substant|a factor?
8CCl Cl CuS1C- must be more |key than not
1 Where neg of u greaLly mulLlplles chance of accldenL Lo Lhen lLs characLer would mosL llkely lead Lo Lhe
ln[ury SC posslblllLy lL mlghL have happened wlLhouL neg ls noL sufflclenL Lo break chaln of cause and
effecL (8eynolds v 1exas andac 8y Co she dues bc fell down sLalrway She ls blg and ppl were rushlng
buL sLalrway was noL llL or had handrall -egllgence)

2 DLIL-SL Susplclon or speculaLlon ls noL enough Lo prove causaLlon -eed Lo prove 8uL for" lC1S
lmporLanL(CenLry v uouglas Pereford 8anch nc Man accldenLly shooLs frlend when he sLumble up
sLalrs ConfllcL over causLlon can'L Lell lf lL was a sub facLor -oL llable)

3 DLIL-SL osslblllLy of exlsLence of an evenL does noL prove lLs probably (crulse shlp woman sllps ln
shower and says negllgenL Loo much space beLween nonsllp grlps)


4 DLIL-SL 8ecause evenL occurs afLer anoLher doesn'L mean lL was caused by lL 91 n 9k1k kC
n %loqlc follocy) %kramer Servlce v Wllklns 8roken glass from hoLel cuL's 's forehead cancer)

f u's acLlons lncrease rlsk of harm Lo anoLher LhaL evldence ls enough for [ury Lo make declslon lf Lhe
lncreased rlsk was a sub facLor ln Lhe resulLanL harm
uMCLS should only be for Lhe harm caused by Lhls neg so below only for premaLure deaLh noL
enLlre deaLh (PerskovlLz v Croup PealLh Coop of ugeL Sound uoc delayed dlagnoses of man's
cancer lowered hls recovery chances by 14 buL sLlll more llkely Lhan noL he wlll dle of Lhe cancer So


buL for Lhe delay would he survlve? -o 8u1 14 reducaLlon ln chance of survlval ls enough cause Lo
go Lo [ury)

LxL81 1LS1MC-? 1C SuC81 CuSL MuS1 8L CCCu SCL-CL -u 8LLv-1 IkL 1LS1 (uauberL)
Cood Sclence
l 1heory ls accepLed ln sclenLlflc comm
ll Sub[ecL Lo peer revlew and publlcaLlon
lll Can lL or has lL been LesLed
8 8elevanL
l uoes lL loglcally advance maLerlal aspecLs of Lhe case?

musL esLabllsh causaLlon by a ma[orlLy of Lhe evldence or LhaL Lhe neg MCkL LIkLL 1n- -C1 caused
Lhe ln[ury ( )
SLaLlsLlcally Lhls means musL more Lhan double one's chances (uauberL blrLh defecL mornlng slckness
plll)
CC-Cu88L-1 CuSLS
1 When separaLe acLs of neg comblne Lo produce dlrecLly a slngle ln[ury each Lf ls responslble for enLlre
resulL even Lhough hls acL mlghL noL have caused lL
2 When ln[urles are lnseparable boLh are responslble Lo pay (Plll vLdmunds car lefL ln mlddle of road aL
nlghL wlLhouL llghLs drlver hlLs car)
3 Where one cause ls unknown and lL comblnes wlLh u's Lhe known Lf ls fully responslble for ln[ury even lf
would have happened wlLhouL known Lf's negllgence (nderson v Mlnneapolls 8allway bog flre caused
by u merged wlLh oLher lndependenL flre of unknown cause and burned 's properLy u ls negllgenL)
8C8LMS - uL1L8M--C WPCP 81? CuSLu 1PL P8M
1 CC-CL81 Cl C1C- f lL ls clear only C-L u ls llable buL can'L deLermlne whlch one boLh are llable unless
one can prove he or she ls noL 8urden shlfLs Lo u
Summers v 1lce uudes hunLlng Cnly one shoL ln Lhe eye buL don'L know whlch one 8oLh shoL
negllgenLly buL lL's a quesLlon of cause -oL [olnL LorLfeasors b/c one absoluLely dld noL conLrlbuLe Lo
Lhe ln[ury
[ut ChOOC OutCOmC uhCrC OnC DCrOn uhO l nOt rCDOnlblC l llblC OthCrulC [
Ct nOt ;utlCC.

2 C1-C -uLL-uL-1? Jbeo mote tboo ooe loJlvlJool coottlbotes/ cooses oo loJlvlslble lojoty eocb ls
jolotly ooJ sevetolly lloble
When a producL ls proved Lo cause ln[ury buL lL could be any of Lhe many manufacLurers and some are
noL presenL/ unknown dlvlde llablllLy proporLlonal llablllLy
1 elLher markeL share deLermlnes llablllLy C8 (esp when Lhere ls an orphan share) Lake number
of u's reasonably called ln and dlvlde 100 of markeL among Lhem up Lo Lhem Lo prove how
much Lhey caused/Lhelr share (Slndell v boLL abs ln[ured bc of drug Laken by moLher
durlng preg buL cannoL ldenLlfy Lhe manufacLurer)
[Clln lOC O( CuC nO C((CCt. rC(lCCt trCnO tO bC trx nO bC (lr

10

VI rox|mate or Lega Causegray area u ls llable for all damages 8 Cx CuSLu by Lhelr neg all
ln[urles k- k k, 1nlk -C

MI- CI-1rlsks u should have anLlclpaLed and falled Lo averL Lhe rlsk (foreseeable scope of rlsk)

cLual cause whaL happened? 8Cx CuSL whaL shall we do abouL lL?
f you have duLy neg cause ln facL and damages musL sLlll prove prox cause CourLs may Lhlnk of dlfferenL reasons
lL's noL rlghL Lo lmpose llablllLy on u lf Lhe cause and effecL sequence ls
-eed Lo cuL off llablllLy ln Lhe lnLeresL of falrness CLherwlse damages would be lmposslble Lo lnsure oneself agalnsL
and Loo lnflnlLe/unllmlLed exLenL
l unforeseeable
ll ndlrecL
lll unnaLural
lv 1oo remoLe

CfLen lL's Lhe drawlng of an arblLrary llne sk Jas the wrongfu act the prox cause?
allll abouL how you phrase Lhe facLs
kCCLDUkL lf by maLLer of law -C1 prox cause courL dlsmlsses Lhe complalnL granLs sum [udgemenL or dlrecLs a
verdlcL for Lhe u

u-lC8LSLL8L CC-SLCuL-LCS CourLs someLlme draw Lhe llne ln a seemlngly sub[ecLlve way usually where Lhe
consequences become 'unforseen'( 8yan v -? CenLral 88u l8L noL llable for damages Lo house nexL Lo woodshed)
1 Ioreseeabeprox cause(usually) llresLone Llre blew up and LhaL car hlL u u can sue Lhem (also under
producL llablllLy lLs exposure)
2 8emoLeness of damages (even lf caused by person's neg) 88S recover CLherwlse person could be llable
for lncalculable and lnflnlLe damages

3 5nLL 5kuLL ?ou are llable ln damages for aggravaLlon of 8LLxS1-C CC-u1C- ?ou Lake Lhe
as you flnd Lhem (8arLolone veckovlch welghL llfLer was menLally unsLable accldenL's physlcal ln[urles
ellclL a psychoLlc break)
4 Consequences whlch follow ln an unbroken sequence wlLhouL an lnLervenlng cause from Lhe orlglnal
negllgenL acL are naLural and proxlmaLe (olemls dropped plank spark)
unforeseeabllLy of resulL v unforeseeablllLy of manner ln whlch lL was broughL abouL laLLer noL relevanL Lo
llablllLy (olemls)
DLIL-SL f Lhe ln[ury ls noL ln Lhe reasonably forseeable clrcle of consequences of Lhe acL noL llable
I- l tlsk of Jomoqe ls , stlll lloble ll lt ls cleot tbot tbe teosoooble moo woolJ bove teollzeJ ot
foteseeo ooJ pteveoteJ tbe tlsk tbeo ls lloble fot Jomoqes (Wagon Mound 2 ollwelders burnL shlp)
DLIL-SLf Lhe person ln[ured was unforeseeable b/c Lhey are noL wlLhln Lhe danger zone noL llable
(lasgraf)
9 Ioreseeabe natura prox|mate d|rect V Unforeseeabe unnatura remote and |nd|rect (SC8l v
ong sland 88 Cardozo's oplnon Pe says negllgence ls reat|ona no brlghL llne rule you are negllgenL Lo
people ln Lhe danger zone 8elaLlonal Lo noL neg -oLhlng ln slL Cave noLlce LhaL Lhe falllng package was
ln[urlous Lo someone so 8LMC1L -oL anyLhlng ln mosL cauLlous mlnd LhaL parcel wrapped ln newspaper
would spread wreckage LhroughouL sLaLlon)
1be tlsk teosooobly to be petcelveJ Jefloes tbe Joty to be obeyeJ
1 f Lhere ls a naLural and conLlnuous and dlrecL sequence Lhe neg ls a sub facLor produclng Lhe resulL and
u's llable
11

lsgraf uSSL-1 ndrew's says xOu OuC Outx tO OClCtx nOt tO bC rlKx. llable for ln[urles even
ouLslde Lhe danger zone unless lLs Loo remoLe and Lhen lnLervenlng causes come ln)
11 f reasonable people can dlffer as wheLher 's ln[ury was prox caused by u musL go Lo [ury (?un v lord
MoLor)
12 rox cause llablllLy ls cuL off where lnLervenlng of unforeseeabe supersedlng causes (even acLlons of Lhe )
are lnvolved (?un v lord MoLor)
13 1oo remoLe ln generaLlons (uLS) goL Lo cuL lL off afLer flrsL gen oLherwlse keep reverberaLlng

-1L8vL--C CuSLS otJeo oo to ptove %some J
tJ
potty ot fotce come lo J5 1nlk 8nI$l-1kI-1lO-
lOk58L?
2 Interven|ng ([ust means comes |n causa |nk) SULkSLDI-G means cuts off |ab||ty
3 Supersed|ng cause |f forseeabe resut of D's neg|gence Where acLs of a
rd
parLy lnLervene beLween Lhe
u's conducL and 'sln[ury Lhe causal connecLlon ls noL auLomaLlcally severed/supersedlng llablllLy Lurns on
wheLher Lhe lnLervenlng acL ls normal and foreseeable consequence of u's negllgence ( uerdlarlan
runaway car [ work slLe selzure ball of flre man should have foreseen a car hurLlng workers so noL
lnLervenlng)
4
rd
parLy negllgence usually foreseebale and supersedlng prox cause of an accldenL)
?ou hlL someone wlLh your car and Lhen uoc malpracLlce you could be llable b/c lLs all relaLed
C1 Cl CCu person lalble even for resulL of exLraordlnary force of naLure l Lhe rlsks of LhaL force of
naLure were rlsks agalnsL whlch Lhe acLor should have Laken adequaLe precauLlons
DLIL-SL nLenLlonal Crlmlnal acLs are lnLervenlng causes LhaL cuL off llablllLy (keep ln mlnd lLs goL Lo be
exLraordlnary unforeseeable naLure relleve orlglnal wrongdoers of llablllLy) (WaLson v k? and - 8rldge
and 88 Co man sLruck maLch whlch caused flre b/c negllgenL gas splll causlng exploslon)
LxCL1C- lf ur negllgence creaLes envlronmenL for crlmlnal acL sLlll llable (mosL llkely) f you dldn'L puL
llghLs behlnd your bar ln a dark alley where ppl park baslcally lnvlLlng crlmlnal acLs (1eenager buys
lquld llre and Lhrows lL aL classmaLe sLore/l noL llable )
Sulclde doesn'L always cuL off llablllLy musL creaLe 88LSS18L MuSL Lo klll oneself (luller v rels)

8LSCuL uCC18-L allows an ln[ured rescuer Lo sue Lhe person whlch caused Lhe danger requlrlng Lhe
rescue D-GLk I-VI1LS kLSCUL Lhe cry of dlsLress ls Lhe cry for rellef" (w/ln foreseeable clrcle)
u was negllgenL Lo Lhe person resuced and neg caused Lhe perll Lo hlm/her
8 erll or appearance of perll was lmmlnenL
C 8 would have concluded perll exlsLed
u 8escuer acLed wlLh reasonable care when resculng ( McCoy v merlcna Suzukl MoLor Corp)
-C1L 8u applles ln producL llablllLy cases
-LC1LS presumpLlon of assumlng rlsk
8escuers are foreseeable
QOOO OCll vluC. CnCOurC hClDln OthCr


u8C CC? May -C1 lmpose llablllLy even where llkely prox cause b/c of ubol noL reallsLlc or Loo heavy a burden on
socleLy (average clLlzen)
12

1 Soclal PCS1 Says even Lhough burdens avg clLlzens ln Lhe end lLs besL for socleLy SC soclal hosL has duLy Lo Lhlrd
parLy (ln[ured by drunk guesL) ( kelly v Cwlnnell)

LxCL1C- j[T lmOt ll ttC uDrCmC COurt hvC OCCllnCO tO lmDOC llbllltx On OCll hOt
uhCn rCClDlCnt O( lCOhOl l n Oult. TOO mut rCDOnlbllltx nO unCCrtln Cn(OrCCmCnt On
DDl.

2 [ub[Ol (vOr thC vllbllltx O( DrCCrlDtlOn Oru CvCn thOuh mOt Crrx OmC rlK. (LnrlghL v
Lll llly and CC gma Look pllls gdaughLer has cerebral palsy)
V Io|nt 1ortfeasors Jbo poys? now Jo tbey poy?
1 ways Lo geL olnL and Several llablllLy
ConcerL of cLlon (2 or more us engaged LogeLher ln [olnL negllgenL acLlvlLy)
8 Cwe Common uuLy egal 8elaLlonshlp (respondenLsuperlor ex employer/ee)
C ndlvlslble n[ury ( acLlng lndependnLly concurrenLly neg)

2 can [oln mulLlple u's ln same acLlon buL noL requlred Lo

3 Lach u ls llable for Lhe whole ln[ury elLher LogeLher or lndlvldually chooses where Lo geL $
D can then f|e contr|but|on act|on say|ng hey I've pa|d more than my fa|r share pay urs now! 8uL
fully saLlsfled aL Lhls polnL
8 ows for 'deep pockets' cho|ce
4 DIVISI8LL I-IUkILS LLCC1L I-IUkILS 1C SLk1L Ds-CC I and S
II IS -D CCM IUL1 lf one of Lhe ln[urles ls lndlvlslble Lhen apply S for LhaL even lf oLher
ln[urles dlvlslble
-C S
musL geL separaLe clalm from all of Lhe us
8 (unknown u or gone) bears Lhe orphan share
81? -u C-uL8 Cl uS
1 Wrongdoes acLlng ln concerL are each llable for harm Lo a Lhlrd person arlslng from Lhe LorLlous conducL of Lhe
oLher because he has lnduced and encouraged Lhe LorL (8lerczynskl v 8ogers road race) boLh llable even
Lhough only one losL conLrol and hlLs car)(8oy's [oke shooL Lhelr frlend)
2 uoesn'L always apply ln s of comparaLlve faulLalLernaLlve ls several llablllLygeL money based on proporLlon of
faulL (usually b/c orphan share) n[ured parLy bears Lhe loss of any uncollecLlble share (Coney v C upholds
and S says lLs noL unfalr Lo u's rlghLs) (8arLleLL v -M Weldlng 2 drlvers llable (lndlvlslble ln[ury) one hlL and ran
(unknown) uC-L wlLh and S says lLs unfalr u only llable for hls parL)
3 f you are more Lhan 30 negllgenL courLs say you geL -u unless lL's a pure comparaLlve faulL sLaLe
4 1S MC8L 8Cu1 CCM81vL 8LSC-S81? for ln[ury raLher Lhan comparaLlve lu1 so doesn'L maLLer as
much lf lnLenLlonal LorL or negllgence or producL llablllLy you can [oln Lhem under and S or [olnL acLlon (several
us) ln comparaLlve faulL
S1SlC1C- -u 8LLSL
1 can only geL one saLlsfacLlon for ln[ury elLher cumulaLlvely from everyone or from one
Can'L rellLlgaLe Lhe same lssue afLer you've goLLen compensaLlon Ls called collaLeral esLoppel (8undL
v Lmbro)
2 ny parLlal saLlsfacLlon of Lhe clalm musL be credlLed Lo Lhe oLher parLles who are also llable
1

3 1he release of 1 [olnL LorLfeasor lsn'L Lhe release of Lhem all 8elease can be for parLlal comp or no comp (Cox v
earl nvesLmenL Co lf you wanL Lo seLLle wlLh u1 and sLlll conLlnue acLlon agalnsL u2 go for lL)
Mary Carter greements enLeres lnLo a seLLlemenL agreemenL w/ one u and goes Lo Lrlal wlLh oLher
us seLLllng u remalns a parLy and guaranLees a mln paymenL whlch may be offseL by [udgmenL
recovered aL Lrlal So u has blg lncenLlve Lo asslsL 's presenLaLlon of case (Llbaor v SmlLh COurt
ulll rC;CCt [[rCCmCnt (rCvCrC/rCmnO CCI l( (lnO thCx O lnt DubDOl b/C
CnCOurC (urthCr lltltlOn nO mllCO ;urx nO CnCOurC unCthlCl COllulOn. ut
tCll ;urx hCO O( tlmC bOut rCCmCnt. lt C((CCtI
ulfference beLween release and covenanL noL Lo sue could be counLerclalm for breach of k
CC-188u1C- -u -uLM-1? temeJles fot s
MuLually Lxcluslve 8emedles! Slocum v uonahue
CC-188u1C-comes from ldea you pald more Lhan your falr share 8ased on Shared lu1 of [olnL Lfs
2 When Lhere are [olnL Lfs one of Lhem can brlng anouLn lnLo Lhe law sulL (andor a separaLe one afLerwards)
3 u (LorLfeasor forced Lo pay) holds rlghL Lo conLrlbuLlon and can Lake acLlon/collecL from fellow LorLfeasor even lf
dldn'L make Lhem a u (knell v lelLman guesLs ln knell's car ln[ured only sue l bc k are Lhelr frlends l geLs half
from k k says -C conLrlbuLlon w/us b/c dldn'L allege we were [olnL1ls courLs say -C conLrlbuLlon allowed)
4 When a LorL ls commlLed by Lhe concurrenL neg of Lwo or more person who are -C1 lnLenLlonal wrongdoers
conLrlbuLlon may be enforceable
Ceoetoly -1 petmltteJ omooq jolot tfs
oes -1 opply to stotes wltboot I ooJ lloblllty
n mosL sLaLes nonlmmune Lfs may -C1 seek conLrlbuLlon or lndemnlLy from Lhose who are lmmune (?ellow Cab
c ureslln( 1l can'L collecL from 1l's wlfe b/c husband/wlfe noL llable for LorLlous acLs by one agalnsL Lhe
oLherDubDOl ln (vOr O( OOmCtlC DCCC)
seLLllng u ls proLecLed from conLrlbuLlon as long as lL ls made ln good falLh (ma[orlLy)
-uLM-lC1C- o 2
oJ
coteqoty of IooJ lloblllty kespooJeot opetlot
1 pplles Lo vlcarlous llabllLy
2 vlcarlouslLy llabel parLy who ls w/o faulL (by law had Lo defend herself agalnsL wrongful acLs of anoLher) Lo recover
from Lhe wrongdoer Lhe enLlre amounL of hls loss (lncludlng aLLorney's fees)
3 C-? use when lndemnlLee does noL [oln ln Lhe negllgenL acL
4 Can arlse Lhrough agreemenL
C81C-ML-1 Cl uMCLS
1 ConcurrenL 1ls (dlsLlncL and separaLe ln[urles)
Where lndependenL concurrlng acLs cause dlsncL and separaLe ln[urles Lo Lhe or where some
reasonable means of apporLlonlng Lhe damages ls evldenL tbe cootts qeoetolly wlll oppottloo Jomoqes
occotJloq to lloblllty
2 ConcurrenL 1ls (Slngle ndlvlslble ln[ury)
Where Lhe ln[ury ls lLself lndlvlslble Lhe [udge/[ury musL deLermlne wheLher or noL ls praclLcble Lo
apporLlon he harm among 1lsf noL enLlre llablllLy may be lmposed upon 1 (or several)
8 1ls ndlvlslble ln[ury can'L deLermlne apporLlonmenL b/c all aL faulL Lhen and S baslcally can
collecL from whoever Lhen us deal wlLh conLrlbuLlon among Lhemselves(Mlchle v CreaL akes SLeel
ulvlslon -aL'l SLeel Corp planLs polluLlng)
14

3 Succeslve 1ls (unrelaLed accldenLs)
has burden of provlng whaL damages lL suffered ln Lhe 1
sL
accldenL and u's can'L be held esponslblle
for a second lndependL accldenL
8 -o duty for harm]oss of funct|on CUSLD by a preex|st|ng |n[ury (bc not caused by current |n[ury)
C ?ou are llable for Lhe all Lhe damages you prox caused no more
4 Succeslve1ls (relaLed accldenLs)
Where aggravaLlon of ln[ury ls dlrecLly relaLed Lo accldenL flrsL 1l ls llable for all ln[urles dlrecLly
resulLlng from lL SubsequenL 1ls are llable for speclflc ln[urles (8ruckman v ena man hlL ln accldenL
1 ln[ured PlL ln 2
nd
accldenL year laLer ln[urles from 1 aggravaLed Sues man from accldenL 1 -CL
ggravaLlon ls b/c of dlsLlncL lnLervenlng cause w/o whlch 2nd ln[ury would noL have occurred -C
[olnL 1ls here)
LxCL1C- Second ln[ury caused by weakened condlLlon resulLlng from flrsL ln[ury ( can recover from orlglnal u
for second ln[ury) ook aL lengLh of Llme beLween accldenLs locaLlon and naLure of Lhe second ln[ury
reasonableness of 's conducL and characLer of Lhe 2
nd
accldenL

VI Duty of Carewhenever an lndlvldual Lakes an afflrmaLlve acLlon LhaL he should reasonably forsee could
lnvolve an unreasonable rlsk of harm Lo oLher he ls under a duLy Lo Lhem Lo exerclse Lhe care of a reasonable person
as Lo whaL he does/doesn'L do
8v1? Cl CC-18C1
a uuLy exlsLs for Lhe manufacLurer or repalrer of a producL Lo all Lhose who are foreseeably aL rlsk by exposure
or use of a defecLlve producL rlvlLy of k ls noL requlred (Macpherson v 8ulkCar collapsed under Lhe guy b/c
wheels of defecLlve wood)
used Lo be WlnLerboLLom only llable Lo Lhose you have a kwlLh
LxCL1C- rlvlLy of k sLlll exlsLs ln many professlonal relaLlonshlp parLlcularly ln aLLorneycllneL
relaLlonshlpLLorney's duLy ls Lo lLs cllenL(ClageLL v uacylawyers mess up blddlng sall owe duLy Lo cllenL noL
hlghesL bldder)

b -onfeasance when only prom and breach only k acLlon lles no LorL acLlon/Mlsfeasance greaLer chance of
recovery ln LorL
LxCL1C- Lo -l publlc uLlllLy/common carrler has duLy Lo publlc llable for LorL even where no k -u
When u makes a k w/o lnLenLlon Lo perform form of mlsrep/fraud LorL acLlon

c ur duLy Lo
rd
parLles Lo warn paLlenL abouL LreaLmenL's effecLs on drlvlng ablllLy where clrcumsLances are
such LhaL Lhe reasonable paLlenL could noL have been expecLed Lo be aware of Lhe rlsk w/o warnlng

d f parLy falls Lo provlde someLhlng promlsed ln a k (afflrmaLlve acLlon) noL llable for LorL damages of
rd

parLles (P8 Moch Co v 8ensselaer WaLer u conLracLed w/ clLy Lo provlde waLer for all lLs publlc waLer sLuff
flre happens dldn'L supply adequaLe quanLlLy of waLer Lo exLlngulsh Lhe flre -oL under duLy Lo )

13

lu8L 1C C1 law generally does noL lmpose an obllgaLlon Lo afflrmaLlvely acL
1 College has no afflrmaLlve duLy Lo lnLervene ln prlvaLe llves of Lhelr sLudenLs or supervlse Lhelr assoclaLlons
Pegel v angsam
2 -o obllgaLlon on professlonals Lo asslsL an lndlvldual ln need of Lhelr servlces
LkCL1IC-s
ff|rmat|ve duty to act when you caused Lhe ln[ury
8 lallure Lo render asslsLance when lnsLrumenLallLy ls under your conLrol ls neg lf ln[ury ls aggravaLed
Lhrough lack of due care (S yres v Plcks boy flnger ln escalaLor)
C u has speclal relaLlon Lo LhaL requlre hlm Lo exerclse afflrmaLlve care Lo proLecL hlm agalnsL Lhe
conducL of d parLy
1Carrler may have duLy Lo prevenL aLLack on passenger
u u sLands ln a speclal relaLlon Lo Lhe
rd
person LhaL glves hlm a power of conLrol over LhaL person's
acLlons Pe ls Lhus requlred Lo use reasonable care Lo exerclse conLrol Lo prevenL Lhe
rd
person from
ln[urlng Lhe
1ShlpmasLer/sallor lnnkeeper/guesL Common carrler/passenger
employer/employee [allor/[allee Cccupler/enLeree onLo land parenL/chlld
hlL and run husband/wlfe(someLlmes) emergency room Go over p43
L u ls C-? llable for fallure Lo exerclse care of reasonable person under Lhe clrcumsLances
l uuLy Lo acL exlsLs whenever u assume a responslblllLy Lo acL and such underLaklng lncreases Lhe rlsk of
harm or ls relled upon by Lhe Lo hls deLrlmenL
C nnocenL person who nonnegllgenLlycrease dangerous condlLlon has duLy Lo Lake reasonable
precauLlons agalnsL ln[ury Lo persons uslng lL
P PlL and run drlver musL sLop and glve ald!!
3 blllty to fotesee lojoty to o poteotlol 9 ls ctoclol lo wbetbet Joty sboolJ be lmposeJ ook aL clrcumsLances
1 spouse has duLy of care Lo Lake reasonable sLeps Lo prevenL or warn of
Lhe harm ( S and MS v 81P man sexually abuslng llLLle nelghbor
glrls wlfe knew dldn'L say anyLhlng) (
4 S?CP18S1's/1PL8S1S uu1? MusL breach confldenLlallLy duLy when Speclallzed knowledge abouL a
parLlcular person wlLh a parLlcular LhreaL and lLs llkely Lhey could do lL (elemenLs speclal relaLlonshlp
parLlcularlzed knowledge) Duty of communlcaLlon Lo prevenL harm (1arasofL v 8egenLs u of Call 's daughLer
shoL dead by oddar sues sychs bc oddar had Lold Lhem he would klll her)

u8L LCC-CMC CSS arlses when person suffers pecunlary loss noL consequenL upon ln[ury Lo hls
person/properLy) -C1 llkely Lo recover(SLaLe of ouslana v M/v 1esLbank 8lg C splll on Mlss 8lver Lons of ppl
sulng (flshermen eLc) u's geL summ [udgemenL dlsmlsslng all clalms for econ losses unaccompanled by physlcal
damage Lo properLy
A. l( u OO lt (Or OnC. OO lt (Or ll. nOnCnlCl nO un(lr
8 -o llablllLy for pur econ loss MuS1 8L P?SC MC1 on person/proprleLary lnLeresL (can
be flsh ln sea Lo flshermen)
C ppplles for 1P8L1 Lo physlcal properlLy lnLeresL Loo

LMC1C- uS18LSS When emo dlsLress accompanles a physlcal ln[ury prox caused by neg may recover
damages for emo dlsLress most moolfest ltself lo some lojoty tbot coo be objectlvely obsetveJ %ualey vaCrolx)
Some sLaLes 8LCu8L physlcal lmpacL Lo dlsLressed parLy ln order Lo recover/mov|ng away from
requ|rement of phys|ca man|festat|on
1

a LxCL1C- don'L need physlcal manlfesLaLlon lf lnvolves negllgenL lnLerference
w/dead bodles or deaLhLelegram
8 may recover damages for emo dlsLress caused by obervlngLhe negllgenLly lnfllcLed ln[yr of a
rd

person lf eements
a Closely relaLed Lo Lhe ln[ury vlcLlm (llmlt to ppl wbo ote teolly tlqbt)
b resenL aL Lhe scene fo Lhe ln[uryproduclng evenL aL Lhe Llme lL occurs and ls Lhen
aware LhaL ls causlng ln[ury Lo vlcLlm
c s a resulL suffers serlous emo dlsLress greaLer Lhan would be anLlcpaLed ln a
dlslnLeresLed wlLness and whlch ls noL an abnormal reponse glven Lhe clrcumsLnaces
(1hlng v a Chusa Mom doesn'L recover b/c wasn'L Lhere)
C LxCL1C- erson can'L be hypersenslLlve (measured by reacLlons expecLed of normal persons) -u
u LxCL1C- lf you can'L aL all reasonably expecL LhaL your conducL would lnduce such an ln[ury you
aren'L really negllgenL (ob[ecLlve reasonable sLnd applled)
VII DamagesL
1 baslc klnds of damages
-omlnal small sum of $ Lo ln order Lo compleLe Lhe elemenLs
8 CompensaLory puL back Lo Lhe poslLlon Lhey were ln besL way we can use $
C unlLlve glve added lncenLlve Lo u noL Lo behave LhaL way punlsh or make an example of u Lo deLer
oLhers from Lhls klnd of behavlor
L8SC- -u8LS Coal ls Lo puL vlcLlm back lnLo poslLlon she was ln prlor Lo Lhe negllgen
1 LLML-1S (fotote stoff bove to pot lo evlJeoce ftom O9k1 tbot ls ,k lk 1n- -1 fotote locot expeose)
l asL physlcal and menLal paln
ll luLure physlcal and menLal paln
lll asL medlcal expenses
lv luLure medlcal expenses
v oss of earnlng capaclLy
vl ermanenL dlsablllLy and dlsflguremenL
2 -o no Lo speculaLlve damages!! -eed evldence Lo supporL
3 Max|mum recovery rue udge's [ob ls Lo make sure LhaL Lhere was evldence Lo supporL [ury's award f noL
[udge may reduce verdlcL Lo hlghesL amounL [ury could properly have awarded( nderson v Sears sad casellLLle
glrl botot sears heaLer)
uamages award ls lmproper lf
l no/lack of evldence Lo supporL $ value
ll so hlgh lL shocks Lhe consclence
lll L resulLs from passlon or pre[udlce of Lhe [ury ( looks for blas or lack of ob[ecLlvlLy)

8 CalculaLlng damages ls very dlfflculL when lL comes Lo 'paln and sufferlng' When nonfaLal ln[ury look Lo
permanency of Lhe condlLlon posslblllLy of fuLure deLerloraLlon exLenL of med expenses (easler parL) and
resLrlcLlons lmposed on CourLs aren'L Loo fond of comparlng award Lo llke cases (8lchardson v Chapman 2
fllghL aLLendanLs ward reduced)

3 Coaterasource rue prohlblLs courLs from conslderlng mlLlgaLed cosLs when assesslng damages musL excluse
evldence of paymenLs recelved by an ln[ured parLy fromsources 'collaLeral' Lo Lhe wrongdoer such as prlvaLe
1

lnsurance or gov beneflLs even Lhough double recovery for Lhe same damage may resulL (MonLgomery Ward
Co v nderson)
LxCL1C-S Lo rebuL 'sLesLlmony LhaL he/she was compelled by flnlclal necesslLy Lo reLurn Lo wrok
premaLurealy or Lo forgoe addlLlonal med care Lo show LhaL had aLLrlbuLed hls condlLlon Lo some oLher
cause Lo lmpeach 's LesLlmony LhaL he/she had pald medlcal expense herself Lo show LhaL had acLually
condlLloned Lo work lnsLead of belng ouL of work as clalmed paymenLs made by u or [olnLLf or anyone on Lhelr
behalf may noL be excluded

4 has a duty to m|t|gate damages as a reasonable vlcLlm would f doesn'L won'L recover for damages for whaL
mlghL oLherwlse be a permanenL ln[ury (Zlmmerman v usland lady had knee ln[ury could have had surgery Lo
flx lL dldn'L now perm ln[ury)f 8 would have surgery look Lo
l rlsk lnvolved ln surgery
ll probably of success
lll $/efforL requlred (someLlmes paln lnvolved Loo)
lv (some s look aL rellglous bellef)
oss of consorLlum by spouse (spouse of ln[ured person can recover for loss of con[ugal relaLlons)
can usually recover reasonable value of free medlcal servlces conferred onLo hlm from u
P?SC P8M 1C 8CL81?
1CompleLely damaged goods markeL value aL Llme and place of LorL
2arLlally damaged cosL of repalr
31emp deprlvaLlon renLal value
LxCL1C- famlly helrlooms and peLs (ln a way) excluded
u-1vL uMCLS
1 -LCCL-1 1C81S degree of reprehenslblllLy ls mosL lmporLanL lndlcaLor lndeLermlng reasonableness of punlLlve
damages
a 1LS1 harm caused was physlcal/noL econ conducL showed lndlfference Lo or reckless dlsregard of Le
healLh/safeLy of oLhers LargeL of Lhe conducL had flnanclal vulnerablllLy conducL lnvolved repeaLed acLlons
harm was resulL of lnLenLlonal mallce/Lrlckery/decelL
2 Comp damages ptetepolslte for unl damages
3 unl damages -C1 reduced by comparaLlve faulL sLaLuLe
4 unl damages don'L compensaLe so has no rlghL or enLlLlemenL Lo unl award of any amounL many sLaLes
allocaLe a large porLlon of unl award back Lo Lhe sLaLe (dom vlolence fund or someLhlng) CheaLham v ohle
(hubby clrculaLes nudey plcs ln a 8uuL way sLaLe Lakes 3 of her punl award)
SLaLe cannoL punlsh u for conducL LhaL may have been lawful where lL occurred or unlawful ouLslde of Lhe sLaLe's
(SLaLe larm MuLual uLomoblle ns v Campbell
unl damages should be no greaLer Lhan comp damages (11 max) Lxxon Shlpplng Co v 8aker splll ln Mlss rlver)
uSu? permlLLed when d has commlLLed an -1L-1C- LorL
[Ourt unt tO CnO OCtCrrCnCC tO DDl llKC [. but OOn't unt tO CnCOurC ult (Or DunltlvC
OmC. trCnO ln COurt tO llhtCnln thC uClht O( thCC OmC. trxln tO bC mOrC (lr.

VIIIDefenses
18

-1ll'S CC-uuC1
Contr|butory -eg|genceDsoolly totolly bots 9s oblllty to tecovet lf 9 ls ot foolt ot oll %buLLerfleld man rldlng dlrLy
fasL on horse hlLs pole u lefL ln road u noL llable)
8urden of roof on u for pleadlng and provlng conLrlbuLory neg
8 &conLrlbuLory neg musL be a substant|a factor ln brlng abouL resulL ln order Lo bar recovery
C -C1 a uLlL-SL Lo an lnLenLlonal LorL or reckless conducL
u CourLs flnd lL preLLy harsh mosLly done away wlLh 8oLh parLles musL be negllgenL
L Last cear chance rue WS -LC u had a chance Lo avold Lhe accldenL afLer Lhe opporLunlLy was no
longer avallable Lo Lhe u ls Lhe one who should bear Lhe loss Cr lf was helpless Lo avold danger
creaLed by u's neg or was [usL lnaLLenLlve Lo Lhe danger (uavles vMann donkey's feeL feLLered ouL
grazlng ln Lhe road PlL and kllled)
l cootts locbloq closet to compototlve oeq owoy ftom oll ot ootbloq -ow qooe except lo ,
-I
2Comparat|ve -eg|gence (18?-C 1C CC1L 8LSC-S81? 1C 8L1vL uLC8LSS Cl 8LSC-S81?)
ure form 's damages reduced ln proporLlon Lo neg aLLrlbuLed Lo hlm/her 1s
8 MCDIIILD
a 49 rue lf 's neg noL as greaL as u may recover s greaL as or more bars
recovery McnLye v 8alenLlne (overLurnlng conL neg) s
b -ot greater than lf greaLer Lhan bars recovery CLherwlse [usL reduced by faulL
1only dlfferenL ln 30/30 21s
C S|ght only Su ( ps neg ls sllghL compared Lo ds)

3 ssumpt|on of k|sk ony applles lf assumlng rlsk of 1PS ln[ury
Lxpress xcolpototy looses can walve LorL llablllLy ln ks (adheslon ks and eLc) (Selgneur v -aL'l
llLness nsLlLuLe)
LxCL1C- (1) parLy lnLenLlonally causes harm (2) unequal bargallng power () LransacLlon lnvolves
pub nLeresL / goes agalnsL lL
&l( thCx OlOn't hvC thCC CluC thCx mlht nOt bC blC tO DrOvlOC thC
CrvlCC.
8 Imp|ed
1acLual knowledge of Lhe parLlcular rlsk musL sub[ecLlvely know
2MusL appreclaLe magnlLude Lhe rlsk undersLand whaL lL enLalls (Lhlnk old
person/chlld)
3volunLarlly encounLer Lhe rlsk (8ush v Comm 8ealLy she falls Lhrough bad
floor ln ouLhouse lnLo poopypoop below argumenL ls she assumed rlsk by
enLerlng aL nlghL w/o Lorch)
C f assumed rlsk ls reasonable recover full amounL ssumed rlsk unreasonable LreaLed as
comparaLlve faulL C8 1oLally cuLs off llablllLy for u b/c assumed Lhe rlsk u has Lo allege lL ln Lhe
answer and prove lL
u -oL llkely avallable

Ik Str|ct L|ab||ty ConducL LhaL ls nelLher lnLenLlonal nor negllgenL buL LhaL sub[ecLs Lhe acLor Lo sLrlcL llablllLy
because of publlc pollcy
-MSmposed on Lhose who keep possess ot botbot Lhe anlmal noL [usL Lhe owner
1 Wu -MS
1

?ou own a wlld anlmal sLrlcL llablllLy lf ln[ury
8 andowners noL responslble for harm done by wlld anlmal on Lhelr properLy unless Lhey reduce wlld
anlmal Lo possesslon C8 lnLroduce nonlndlgenous anlmal lnLo area
C SLrlcL llablllLy noL avallable agalnsL owner of escaped wlld anlmal once someone else has Laken
possesslon of lL
2 Cwners of anlmals of a klnd llkely Lo roam and do damage ls sl for Lhelr Lrespasses
3 uCMLS1C -MS
oe blte tole afLer 1
sL
blLe sLrlcL llablllLy Can be llable for flrsL blLe buL negllgence
8 f owner of 'domesLlc' anlmal has reason Lo know LhaL anlmal has vlclous propenslLles sufflclenL Lo
classlfy lL as a wlld anlmal and lmpose sl musL prove u had reason Lo know lf noL no sl -ot llkely to
cteote speclesspeclflc stoJ of cote
8-C8M? u-CL8CuS C1v1LS
1 When engaglng ln abnormally dangerous acLlvlLles" sLrlcL llablllLy may be applled wlLhouL showlng of lnLenL or
negllgence (Spano/erlnl (8S1-C)) courLs don'L wanL Lo ouLlaw Lhese Lhlngs alLhough Lhey are so dangerous
so who wlll bear Lhe soclal cosLs?
2 f you brlng someLhlng noL naLural onLo properLy LhaL causes a rlsk lf lL escapes lf lL happens you are llable even lf
no faulL of u 8ylands v lleLcher (mlne and waLer case) LkCL1IC- acL of god or 's neg caused Lhe escape
3 1LS1lacLors for deLermlnlng lf acLlvlLy ls ulLrahazardous
LxlsLence of a hlgh degree of rlsk of some harm Lo Lhe person land or chaLLels of oLhers
8 lkellhood harm LhaL resulLs wlll be greaL
C Inab||ty to e|m|nate r|sk by exerc|se of reasonabe care dlsLlngulshlng facLor from neg
u LxLenL Lo whlch Lhe acLlvlLy ls noL a maLLer of common usage
L napproprlaLeness of acLlvlLy Lo Lhe place where lL ls carrled on
l LxLenL Lo whlch lLs value Lo Lhe comm ls ouLwelghed by lLs dangerous aLLrlbuLes
a (Mlller v Clvll ConsLrucLors shooLlng range noL sl b/c doesn'L meeL all of Lhe above
Could deal wlLh rlsk by LreaLlng lL as neg lssue Lsp # )
4 CourLs also look Lo economlcs and heavlly on wheLher accldenLs can be avolded by reasonable care (ndlana
Parbor 8elL 88 v merlcan Cyanamld Co blg chem splll on 88 ln resldenLlal area says beLLer Lo look aL lL as neg
Makes more sense Lo move homes Lhan rerouLe 88 )

LkCL1IC-ommoo osoqe drlvlng and oLher acLlvlLles noL sub[ecL Lo sl b/c noL abnormal -eeds Lo creaLe
abnormal rlsk of harm Lo oLhers
LIMI1I1IC- C- S1kIC1 LI8ILI1
1 only has Lo prove ln[ury prox caused by person dolng ulLrahazardous acLlvlLy 1haL's lL (no breach of duLy or neg)
2 Defenses agalnsL S
Can'L apply S proLecL agalnsL harms relaLlng Lo 's exLraordlnary/unusual use of Lhe land -oL
forseeable prox cause or recognlzed rlsk of harm from Lhe acLlvlLy (losLer v resLon Mlll Co
8S1-C noL llable for ln[ury of mama mlnk eaLlng her young) bc she was dlsLurbed by Lhe blasLlng
8 Can'L apply S when ln[ury resulLs from acL of Cod u had no reason Lo anLlclpaLe
C Can'L apply S were conLrlbuLory negllgence
u f ln[ury ls due -C1 Lo keeplng of Lhe anlmal buL ln[ured parLy's unnecessary/ volunLarlly puLLlng
hlmself ln a way Lo be hurL knowlng Lhe probably consequences of hls acLLhen falrly sald broughL
20

ln[ury upon hlmself noL S (Sandy v8ushey guy geLs klcked by u's horse when he brushlng hls own
horse -oL hls faulL u llable)

k roducts L|ab||ty
-LCCL-CLllablllLy exlsLs on all sellers of chaLLels
W88-1?
1 Lxpress Jarranty Cne engaged ln Lhe blzz of se|ng chaLLels who makes a publlc mlsrep of maLerlal facL
conernlgn Lhe characLer or quallLy of a chaLLel sold by hlm ls sub[ecL Lo 81? for physlcal harm Lo aconsumer of
charrel caused by [usLlflable rellance upon Lhe mlsrep (applles even even w/o k or even lf noL noL made
negllgenLly) (8asLer v lorL MoLor lord adverLlslng has shaLLerproof glass glass shaLLers and man loses hls eye)
l kemember musL have relled on warranLy when purchaslng Lhe producL lf Lhey dldn'L know abouL
someLhlng Lhen Lhey can noL have relled upon lL
ll Someone made a prom|se about a product and |ts not true! (Lhlnk false adverLlslng) Ls Cuasl
conLracLual
lll &&carefu may [usL be hyperbole(exaggerat|on]|nfat|on]puffery to se)c noL guaranLeelng anyLhlng
8 would see LhaL

2 Imp|ed Jarranty lmplled warranLy runs w/ Lhe producL Sue ln LorLs (LorLs has broader damages) mplled
warrnaLy onall goods LhaL Lhey wlll funcLlon properly and safely(Pennlngen v 8loomfleld MoLors
l I1 LILS 1C JnCLVLk IS LkCSLD 1C 1nL kCDUC1!! 8uyer/user/eLc
ll 8uy a blke expecL lL Lo funcLlon and work as a blke
u unt thl lmDllCO urrntx tO mCn OmCthln. Or DDl uOulOn't bux nxthln nO thCn
mnu(CturC uOulO bC CrCuCO. AlO. rlC O( thC rCultOrx ttC. (Ou. DDl Cn
COn(lOCntlx bux thln (rOm mnu(CurCr thCx'vC nCvCr CCn.
S18C1 81? - 1C81 f manufacLurer puLs someLhlng lnLo sLream of commerce and lLs defecLlve (u-LCS-8?
u-CL8CuS 1C uSL8 C8 CC-SuML8) and hurLs someone sLrlcLly llable doesn'L have Lo prove neg l
Seller ls enegaged ln blzz of selllng such a properLy
8 L ls expecLedLo and does reach Lhe user/consumer wltboot sobstootlol cbooqe ln Lhe condlLlon ln whlch lL ls
sold (Creenman v ?uba ower roducLs man powerLool)
a -C1L manufacLure or sell so reLaller can be llable Loo geL em boLh!

1 ll has Lo prove was ln[ured whlle uslng producL ln a way lL was lnLended Lo be used as a resulL of defecL and
wasn'L aware of LhaL defecL or LhaL lL was unsafe ln LhaL use
2 roducL's presence on markeL lmplles lL wlll safely do Lhe [obs for whlch lL ls bullL
3 MSuSL 88S 8LCCvL8? C-L II U-ICkLSLL8LL MISUSL!!!

8CuuC1 uLlLC1S
usL b/c defecL ln parL made by oLher company may sLlll have cause of acLlon agalnsL lnLermedlaLe man
f you have a manufacLurlng defecL you don'L have Lo know why Lheres a defecL (lf Lhere was neg) buL lf you have evldence
Lhey were neg Lhen make a clalm for LhaL Loo!! ?ou could punl damages under LhaL!
21

1 Manufactur|ng Defect producL deparLs from lLs lnLended deslgn even Lhough all posslble care was exerclsed ln Lhe
prep and markeLlng of Lhe producL 3 eements
ManufacLure made/sold producL ln defecLlve condlLlon unreasonably dangerous ln Lhe condlLlon lL was
aL Lhe Llme lL was sold
8 Was expecLed Lo and dld reach ulLlmaLe consumer w/o subsLanLlal change ln Lhe condlLlon lL was ln [
Lhe Llme lL was sold
C uefecLlve condlLlon of producL prox caused ln[ury Lo
| PardesL parL of case for
|| 8lx v CMC Corp argues brakes defecLlve ln chasls cab of Lruck LhaL hlL hlm
||| all elemenLs8CCM sLrlcL llablllLy (desplLe reasonable efforLs/care of
manufacLurer)
|v Measure compare lL w/o oLhers producLs on Lhe llne Ls an ob[ecLlve Lhlng

2 Des|gn Defect foreseeable rlsks of harm posed by producL could have been reduced of avolded by adopLlon of
reasonable alLernaLlve deslgn by seller/oLher dlsLrlbuLlon/predecessor ln comm chaln of dlsLrlbuLlon nd Lhe
omlsslon of Lhe alL deslgn makes producL noL reasonable safe k negllgenL deslgn
8easonable lLernaLlve ueslgn supply sLandard of defecLlveness meosure agalnsL exlsLlng or creaLed
(for Lhe case by experL) alLernaLlve deslgn LhaL ls mosL reasonable proves alLernaLlve
8 8lsk uLlllLy 8alanclng 1esL does Lhe rlsk of harm ouLwelgh uLlllLy of Lhe deslgn? ManufacLurer exposed
consumer Lo greaLer rlsk of danger Lhan he should have
1 usefulness and deslrablllLy of Lhe producL (uLlllLy Lo use and publlc as a whole)
2 SafeLy aspecLs of Lhe producL (llkellhood lL wlll cause ln[ury probable
serlousness of ln[ury)
3 valblllblLy of a sub producL whlch would meeL same need and -C1 be unsafe
4 ManufacLurer's ablllLy Lo ellmlnaLe Lhe unsafe characLer of Lhe producL w/o
lmpalrlng lLs usefulness or maklng lL Loo expenslve Lo malnLaln lLs uLlllLy
user's ablllLy Lo avold danger by exerclse of care ln Lhe use of Lhe producL
user's anLlclpaLed awareness of Lhe dangers lnherenL ln Lhe producL and Lhelr
avoldablllLy b/c of gen pub knwldge of obvlous condlLlon of Lhe producL or
exlsLence of sulLable warnlng or lnsLrucLlons
leaslblllLy (on parL of manufacLure) of spreadlng Lhe loss by seLLlng Lhe prlce of
Lhe producL of carrylng llablllLy lnsurance
C Consumer LxpecLaLlon 1esL uoes lL meeL safely Lhe reasonable expecLaLlons for whaL consumer
expecLed when he/she boughL lL?
u mpllcaLlon of deslgn defecL manufacLurer has Lo redo enLlre llne -oL absoluLe llablllLy don'L wanL Lo
make manufacLurers lnsurers of all Lhelr producLs
L Can be negllgence ( renLls v ?ale Mg Co walkle hllo bad deslgn))
l LkCL1IC- rodcuLs whose lnherenL characLerlslLlcs make Lhem dangerous are noL Lo be consldered
'unreasonably dangerous' (whlsky buLLer clgs) (1 need reseasonable alLernaLlve deslgn 2 consumer
expecLaLlon)
C Man may have duLy Lo make producLs of a safer deslgn even lf Lhe cusLom of Lhe lndusLry ls noL Lo use
LhaL alLernaLlve
P burden on u Lo prove lLs compllance w/sLaLe of Lhe arL [usLlfles puLLlng lL on Lhe markeL (C'8rlen v
Muskln Corp sllly man dove lnLo swlmmlng pool vlnal llnlng Loo sllppery nah)
22

roducLs llablllLy has separaLe secLlon for presc urugs and medlcal devlces f forseeable harms so
greaL ln relaLlon Lo beneflLs LhaL reasonable healLhcare provlder wouldn'L prescrlbe neg or sl

3 Jarn|ngs Defect lnadequaLe lnsLrucLlons or warnlngs when Lhe foreseeable rlsks of harm posed by Lhe producL
could have been reduced or avolded by provlslon of reasonable lnsLrucLlons or warnlng by Lhe seller or oLher
dlsLrlbuLor nd omlsslon of Lhe lnsLrucLlons/warnlngs renders Lhe producL noL reasonably safe
DLIL-SLMan musL k-CW of Lhe rlsk -o llablllLy lf dangers were noL known Lo Lhe sclenLlflc
communlLy aL Lhe Llme lL manufacLured or dlsLrlbuLed Lhe producL keosooobleoess of s follote to
woto ls lmmotetlol (nderson v CwensCornlng lung damage comlng from asbesLos)
8 Warnlng musL presenL lnformaLlon ln a clear manner
C DLIL-SL d has no duLy Lo warn of obvlous dangers
u warnlngs alone wlll noL save a producL from belng unreasonably dangerous
L lf loLs of ppl are allerglc need warnlng
l learned lnLermedlary rule (physlclan supposed Lo pass on warnlngs on drugs) doesn'L apply lf
manufacLure know dr ls unllkely Lo be Lhe lnLermedlary
C osL sale mosL s puL duLy onman 1o provlde posLsale warnlng abouL rlsk LhaL are dlscovered afLer
Lhe sale or may be requlred Lo recall
4 roof
3 ways parLlcular facL could be proved
| LxperL evldence dlrecL evldence of an ldenLlflable defecL
|| Lvldence of damaglng evenL occurrlng ln Lhe course of or followlng use of a
producL by LesLlmony of user or oLherwlse
||| LxperL evldence LhaL mosL llkely probable cause of (above) aLLrlbuLable Lo
defecL ln producL
|v Lvldence Lo negaLe exlsLence of 'probable causes' noL aLLrlbuLable Lo Lhe
maker
v hyslcal evldence of acLual condlLlon of Lhe producL afLer Lhe accldenL would
be such LhaL a layman could lnfer lL was defecLlve MosL convlnclng save Lhe
pleces" (lrledman v CMCorp doesn'L meeL crlLerlon)
8 -oLe has exLra Lrouble lf defecL arlses long afLer purchase nd tole excloJloq evlJeoce of ptoJoct
lmptovemeot to ptove Jefect
C uefecLlve per se vlolaLlng safeLy regulaLlon or sLaLuLe
u ndeLermlnaLlve defecL courLs may permlL lnference lf oLher causes negaLed
Defenses
SysLem of comparaLlve faulL exLended Lo acLlons founded on sLrlcL producL (ualy v CM (laLch on car
dldn'L work he flew ouL buL he was u8u-k/no seaLbelL) f apply assump of rlsk bar llablllLy
8 Man ls noL llable for ln[urles resulLlng from abnormal or unlnLended use of hls producL lf such use was
noL reasonably foteseeoble
| lord MoLor v MaLLhews he sLarLed LracLor ln gear reasonably foreseeable )
|| lLLle boy's wlener ln Lhe vacuum loreseeable
kI Intent|ona 1orts
1 Intent f Lhe person knows wlLh substant|a certa|nty Lhelr acLlon would cause harm Lhen lLs -1L-1 1he
certa|nty ls Lhe dlfference from negllgence L ls a sub[ecLlve deLermlnaLlon (CarraLL v ualley llLLle boy chalr prank
udge looks [ Llme sequence llable)
2

age [usL a # only lmporLanL when deLermlnlng lf chlld LhaL age would know wlLh subsLanLlal cerLalnLy
(4yr old probs capable of lnLenL 2yr old Loo young )
8 8easonable person wouldn'L expecL Lhese resulLs so [udge should have lnsLrucLed [ury of neg
elemenLs noL summary [udgmenL for assaulL/baLLery (Splvey v 8aLLaglla 'frlendly unsollclLed hug'
caused serlous neck problems)
C nLenL found nLenL Lo do an acL/ 1o brlng abouL Lhe consequnces of Lhe acL/8rlng abouL speclflc
harm/SubsLanLlally cerLaln consequnces wlll follow/acLs lnLenLlonally under fear or LhreaLs
LxLCL1C- -o acL of acLor's own (carrled onLo land)
2 nLenL can transfer
from people or ob[ecLs of lnLenL (8anson v klLner man goes ouL lnLendlng Lo hunL wolf shooLs man's
dog llable)
8 Lransfer lnLenL across LorLs llablllLy Lransfers (1almage v SmlLh CL1 Cll 1PL SPLu!)
1 f you lnLend Lo scare someone (assaulL) and end up harmlng Lhem (baLLery) lnLenL Lransfers
C LS whenever lnLended/resulLlng harm fall w/ln scope of Lhe old acLlon of Lrespass baLL assaulL
false lmprlson Lrespass Lo land Lrespass Lo chaLLel
3 MlsLaken ldenLlLy Lven lf lL was a mlsLake lf you lnLended LhaL acLlon lnLenL u-LSS lL's a reasonable mlsLake
(8anson v klLner)
4 nsane person does lnLenLlonal damage Lo person or properLy of anoLher he/she ls llable for LhaL damage [usL llke
anoLher person would be (McCulre v lmy)
MenLal lllness may prevenL speclfc klnd of lnLenL necessary for cerLaln LorLs such as decelL LhaL requlre
Lhe prove Lhe u knew he wasn'L speaklng Lhe LruLh
f volunLarlly drunk does noL absolve lnLenL
lnLenL v neg? CeL punlLlve damages more easlly ln lnLenL -o conLrlbuLory negllgence ln lnLenL CourL lmposes
hlgher degree of responslblllLy on Lhose who commlL lnLenL LorL
811L8?
1 LI8LL II81 harmful conducL
cLs lnLendlng Lo cause a harmful or offenslve conLacL wlLh Lhe person of Lhe oLher or a Lhlrd person or an
lmmlnenL apprehenslon of such a conLacL
8 harmfu conduct w|th the person of the other d|recty or |nd|recty resuts
2 knowlng or lnLenLlonal Louchlng of one person by anoLher ln a rude lnsolenL or angry manner -? Louchlng no
maLLer how sllghL may be baLLery
3 1est ls lL offenslve Lo otJlooty petsoo -C1 unduly senslLlve person(hlghly deLermlnaLlve on clrcumsLances
relaLlons Llme and place (someLhlngs you'd permlL ln some places by some people oLhers -C1)
4 Lgg Shell Skull when one lnLends a speclflc harm and lL causes dlfferenL greaLer harm sLlll llable
-o consenL Lo flrsLald/surgery where Lhere ls no consenL Lo surgery Lhe underlylng LorL ls baLLery b/c lL would be
harmful/offenslve conducL
-oL necessary Lo Louch Lhe body or cloLhlng knocklng or snaLchlng anyLhlng forom 'shandorLouchlng anyLhlng
connecLed wlLh hls perso when done ln an offenslve manner ls enough llsher v Carrousel MoLor PoLel -asa
black guy plaLe Laken from hls hand)
oo lobeteotly ossome some toocbloq lo pobllc w/o expresslon of Lhe conLrary consenL ls assumed ln all Lhose
ordlnary conLacLs LhaL are cusLomary and necessary Lo common lnLercourse k we llve ln a crowded world
expecL Lo be Louched! 9tlvlleqe of oecesslty %8osen v Wallace flredrlll Louches woman CuesLlon lsn'L 'dld you
Louch' lLs 'dld you Louch lo o cettolo woy?)
24

,C -o octuo/ domoqes need to be proved u noL [usLllable for conLacLs whlch do acLual harm also for
Lhose whlch are offenslve and lnsulLlng ersonal lndlgnlLy essence of baLLery so llable noL [usL for conLacL whlch
do acLual physlcal harm buL also for Lhose whlch are offenslve or lnsulLlng (llsher)
9 8aLLery wotse tboo assaulL

SSu1
1 LLempLed baLLery assaulL de S eL ex v W de S (148) man Lrles Lo hlL woman wlLh haLcheL and mlsses f you
make an efforL Lowards conLacL and lL doesn'L happen lLs assaulL (no acLual harm has Lo be done)
2 L,-15 1bete most be oo loteotloool oolowfol ottempt to toocb tbe petsoo ot offer Lo Louch Lhe person ln a
rude or angry manner under such clrcumsLances Lo creaLe ln Lhe mlnd of Lhe parLy alleglng Lhe assaulL a well
founded fear/apprehenslon/anLlclpaLlon of an lmmlnenL baLLery coupled wlLh Lhe apparenL presenL ablllLy Lo
effecLuaLe Lhe aLLempL lf noL prevenLed k99 woolJ leqltlmotely feot lt boppeoloq (WesLern unlon 1elegraph v
Plll come back here and leL me love you)
3 -C1L vlcLlm musL only have apprehenslon of conLacL lL ls noL necessary Lhe u have Lhe acLual ablllLy Lo carry ouL
Lhe LhreaLened conducL
4 Words ln Lhemselves no maLLer how LhreaLenlng assaulL
-o acLual damages need Lo be proved

lSL M8SCML-1 ulrecL resLralnL by a person of Lhe physlcal llberLy of anoLher w/o adequaLe legal [usLlflcaLlon
1 2 ma|n eements resLralnL ln lndlvldual oqolost bls wlll -u oolowfoloess of tbe testtolot %8lg 1own -urslng Pome
v -ewman)
-o l lf knew of a reasonable means of escape (Pardy v abelles ulsLrlbuLlng Co (she could have lefL)
8 -C l no maLLer how unreasonable Lhe arresL lf commlLed Lhe crlme
2 f falsely arresLed by person who doesn'L have proper legal auLhorlLy lLs unlawful lLs l(LnrlghL v Croves dog loose
(leash law)
3 dea of resLralnL may be dlfferenL Lhan we Lhlnk(WhlLLaker v Sanford lmpassable sea Lrylng Lo leave Lhe culL )
4 -o llablllLy of u unless Lhe person physlcally resLralned knows of Lhe conflnemenL or ls harmed by lL -ot
remember|ng way of escape (b]c drunk etc) not same as not know|ng arv| v C|ty of k|ngston
-o acLual damages need Lo be proved
Mere refusal Lo admlL nslde movlng car LnLlre sLaLe counLry (llkely) f a way of escape ls lefL
open/avallable w/o perll of llfe or llmb usL a [oke Means of escape def unknown Lo Lscape means
unreasonable harm Lo Lhe person
-1L-1C- -lC1C- Cl LMC uS18LSS
1 C-L WPC CuSLS SLvL8L emoLlonal dlsLress Lo anoLher ls llable for (a) such emoLlonal dlsLress and (b) for bodlly
harm resulLlng from lLSevere ls a blg lssue (SLaLe 8ubblsh CollecLros v Sllllznoff (mobsLers)
2 SLandard SLvL8L emo dlsLress Lo person of ordlnary senslblllLles doesn'L lnclude mere veulgarles or lnsulLs
(Slocum v lood lalr SLores flnd lL yourself you sLlnk Lo me -oL severe no llablllLy) (ConLlnuous humlllaLlon and
raclal [okes ) (Parrls v ones consLanLly maklng fun of man wlLh sLuLLer noL enough) Mere sollclLaLlon of a
woman for sexual lnLercourse
3 ICUk LLLML-1S
nLenLlonal or reckless
23

8 LxLreme or ouLrageous ('as Lo go beyond all posslble bounds of decency/ regarded as aLroclous and
uLLerly lnLolerable ln a clvlllzed communlLy)
C Casual connecLlon beLween wrongful conducL and emo dlsLress
u MusL be severe (mosL 8s noL expecLed Lo endure lL) ([ury deLermlnes based on facLs)
4 uslng words Lo force someone Lo do someLhlng Lhey ordlnarlly wouldn'L and Lhen menLal dlsLress usually usually
deallng wlLh fraud
LkCL1IC- &have Lo sub cerLaln Lhe emo dlsLress wlll be produced by hls/her conducL cLlon has Lo be almed
aL someone have Lo know of Lhe bysLander's presence (1arlor v vllenlunga guys beaL up llLLle glrl's dad she
sees emo dlsLress -oL llable)
&Can'L Lransfer lnLenL for emo dlsLress lLs noL one of Lhe orlglnal LorLs
18LSSSS 1C -uunauLhorlzed unlawful enLry onLo land of anoLher (lnLenLlonally)
1 1respass ls lnLenLlonal even when u enLers ln honsL and reasonable bellef lL ls hls own land MusL be a physlcal
lnvaslon
2 Wlll be awarded nomlnal damages lf Lhere are no acLual damages (can do punl Loo even w/o compensaLory)
3 andowner has all Lhe space above and below hls/her properLy (Perrln shooLlng ducks lable even Lhough noL
'on' land)(lr Lravel counLs dependlng on how close lL ls ln space how low lL goes(CPLCk does lL lnLerfere wlLh Lhe
en[oymenL and use of Lhe land?)
4 p ent|ted to free]unfettered contro of the|r and If they g|ve you consent to put someth|ng there when
consent |s done then |ts trespass (8ogers leavlng pole of fence man hlLs wlLh LracLor serlously ln[ured lable)
?Cu deflne Lhe consenL lf lL goes beyond Lhe conflnes glven Lhen Lrespass llLLle consenL LoLal
consenL W1CP yourself
8 LxCL1C- publlc uLlllLles lnnkeepers and common carrlers cannoL exclude members of Lhe publlc
C uamages caused by Lrespass don'L have Lo be foreseeable Lo be compensable

18LSSSS 1C CP11LS Cne who w/o consenL or prlvllege uses or oLherwlse lnLenLlonally meddles wlLh a chaLLle whlch ls ln
possesslon of anoLher ls llabel for a Lrespass Lo Lhe person l
1 Lements
ChaLLel ls lmpalred as Lo lLs condlLlon quallLy or value
8 ossessor ls deprlved of Lhe use for a subsLanLlal Llme
C 8odlly harm ls caused Lo Lhe possessor or harm ls caused Lo some person or Lhlng ln whlch Lhe possessor has a
legally proLecLed lnLeresL (Clldden 1oby Lhe dog noL hurL or Laken no Lrespass)(CompuServe damages
caused by spam lable)
2 u sLlll llable lf lL does lL under honesL mlsLake
3 cLlon cannoL be malnLalned wlLhouL proof of acLual damages
4 uMCLS loss of value caused by lnLerference

CC-vL8S1C- 1PLl1 (dlfferenL from above b/c here you 1kL 1)
1 nLenLlonal exerclse of domlnlon or conLrol over a chaLLel whlch so serlously lnLerferes wlLh Lhe rlghL of anoLher Lo
conLrol lL LhaL Lhe acLor may [usLly be requlred Lo pay Lhe oLher full value of Lhe chaLLel(earson v uodd dldn'L
acLually Lake anyLhlng no converslon)
2 uamages pay full falr markeL value of lL
3 CourLs look aL serlousness of converslon by looklng aL
2

a LxLenL and duraLlon of acLors conLrol
b cLors lnLenL Lo asserL a rlghL ln facL lnconslsLenL wlLh Lhe oLher's rlghL Lo conLrol
c cLor's good falLh
d LxLenL/duraLlon of lnLerference wlLh Lhe oLher's rlghL Lo conLrol
e Parm doen Lo Lhe chaLLel
f nconvenlence and expense cause Lo Lhe oLher
4 Jays of convers|on acqulrlng possesslon (sLeallng) damaglng or alLerlng lL (runnlng over anlmal) uslng lL
recelvlng lL (obLalnlng possesslon afLer a purchase from a Lhelf) dlsposlng of lL mlsdellverlng lL refuslng Lo
surrender lL

kII r|v|eges
1 CC-SL-1 8 under clrcumsLance would Lake behavlor of Lo lndlcaLe consenL ?ou consenL absoluLely barred
from recovery
C'brlen woman and vacclnaLlon on shlp says 've been vacclnaLed buL doesn'L ob[ecL and puLs her
arm ouL
8 SllenL when u says 'm golng Lo punch you ln Lhe face" (nobody wanLs LhaL!)
2 n sporLs only glve consenL Lo whaL reasonable under Lhe clrcumsLances Lhere are llmlLs 1here ls room for ln[ury
buL noL for lnLenLlonal lnfllcLlon ouLslde reasonable boundarles (PackbarL -C consenL for lnLenLlonal cap you ln
Lhe back of Lhe head)
3 uCC1C8ScLlon ls unlawful lf ouLslde consLralnLs of Lhe consenL SeL by scope Llme eLc beyond LhaL -C1
Ck(Mohr wenL ln for surgery on rlghL ear physlclan decldes nahh lefL ear ls a problem flxes lL lable -oL blg
damages b/c surgery was performed well) -u remember |nformed consent
LxCL1C- Med care provlders may acL ln Lhe absence of express consenL when
a aLlenL ls unable Lo glve consenL (unconsclous lnLoxlcaLed menLal lll)
b 8lsk of serlous bodlly harm lf LreaLmenL ls delayed
c 8 would consenL Lo LreaLmenL under Lhe clrcumsLances
d uoc has no reason Lo belleve Lhls paLlenL would refuse Lhe LreaLmenL

4 n case of mlnor chlld parenL's consenL needed unless emergency
ConsenL based on fraud/uecleL -C1 valld (ue May v 8oberLs woman glvlng blrLh sLranger Lhere lled sald he was
a uoc -oL ok)
ConsenL lneffecLlve lf lncapable of expresslng raLlonal wlll (drunk)

SLluLlL-SL/uLlL-SL Cl C1PL8S u can use reasonable force Lo defend Lhemselves or properLy rlvllege agalnsL baLLery
buL lLs noL reLallaLlon
u musL have reasonable bellef force ls necessary Lo proLecL hlmself/herself Ls from your perspecLlve
8 LxLenL of force musL be reasonable Can'L brlng a bazooka Lo a knlfe flghL
C 8ad word/lnsulLs noL enough Lo Lrlgger lL
u 1ransferred lnLenL applles so u defendlng agalnsL unlnLenLlonally harms 8 noL llable Lo 8
uLlL-SL Cl 8CL81? value of human llfe/llmb ouLwelghs lnLeresL of a possessor of land ln excludlng from lL Lhose whom
he ls noL wllllng oL admlL LhereLo LhaL a possessor of land has no prlvllege Lo se force lnLended or llkely Lo cause deaLh or
serlous harm agalnsL anoLher whom Lhe possessor sees abouL oL enLer hls premlses or meddle wlLh hls chaLLel u-LSS Lhe
lnLruslon LhreaLen deaLh or serlous bodlly harm Lo Lhe occuplers or users of Lhe premlses ossessor of land cannoL do
2

lndlrecLly and by a mechanlcal devlce LhaL whlch were he presenL he could noL do lmmedlaLely and ln person (kaLko v 8lrney
sprlng gun)
8LCCvL8? Cl 8CL81?
1 Shopkeepers rlvllege you have reasonable bellef crlme has been commlLed can recover or reLaln person
Lemporally for a reoasnable Llme (8onkowskl) Podgeden v Pubbard man sLeals sLove Lhey vlolenLly hold hlm
down he pulls knlfe
2 ?ou can use some force when ln fresh pursulL of recoverlng your properLy MusL be reasonable under Lhe
clrcumsLnaces (Podgeden v hubbard sLove)
3 awful prlvllege unlawful false lmprlsonmenL