1. Welcome to PA310 Torts James D. Allen, JD - Instructor

2. Torts Breach of Duty Hypothetical For this Seminar, we will discuss the following hypothetical scenario: For this Seminar, we will discuss the following hypothetical scenario: Ralph and Ed are walking on the sidewalk that runs right along the side of a warehouse owned by the Acme Warehouse Company. All of a sudden, a barrel falls from the third story window of the warehouse. The barrel hits both Ralph and Ed. Ralph sustains only minor injuries, but Ed is in a coma. If Ralph and Ed (through his family) sue the Acme Warehouse Company, what theories may they use? Be prepared to discuss the theory and the elements they would need to prove in order for the suit to be successful.

3. Torts Battery? What are the elements?

4. Torts Battery 1. An act by Δ which brings about harmful or offensive contact to the Π’s person. 2. Intent on the part of Δ to bring about the harmful or offensive contact 3. Causation

5. Torts Assault? What are the elements?

6. Torts Assault 1. An act by Δ creating a reasonable apprehension in the Π of immediate harmful or offensive contact in Π’s person. 2. Intent 3. Causation

7. Torts Negligence? What are the elements?

8. Torts Negligence 1. A duty on the part of the Δ to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the Π against unreasonable risk of injury. 2. Breach of that duty by Δ. 3. That breach was the actual and proximate cause of the Π’s injury. 4. Damage to the Π’s person or property

9. Torts Duty A general duty of care is imposed on all human activity. When a person engages in an activity he is under a legal duty to act as a reasonably prudent person. 1. Did Acme owe a duty to Ralph and Ed?

10. General Rule-A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable Πs General Rule-A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable Πs Can you argue that Ralph and Ed were not foreseeable Πs? Can you argue that Ralph and Ed were not foreseeable Πs? Depends on if the court in your jurisdiction adopts the Andrews view or the Cordozo view of the Palsgraf case.

11. Torts A passenger carrying a package, while hurrying to catch and board a moving Long Island Rail Road train, appeared to two of the railroad's (Defendant's) employees to be falling. The employees were guards, one of whom was located on the car, the other of whom was located on the platform. The guard on the car attempted to pull the passenger into the car and the guard on the platform attempted to push him into the car from behind. The guards' efforts to aid the passenger caused the package the passenger was holding to fall on the rails. Unbeknownst to the guards, the package, which was approximately 15 inches (38 cm) long and wrapped in newspaper, contained fireworks, and the package exploded when it hit the rails. The shock reportedly knocked down scales at the other end of the platform (although later accounts suggest that a panicking bystander may have upset the scale), which injured Mrs. Helen Palsgraf (Plaintiff).passengerLong Island Rail RoadtrainrailroadDefendantfireworksplatformPlaintiff

12. Torts Palsgraf sued the railroad, claiming her injury resulted from negligent acts of the employee. The trial court and the intermediate appeals court found for Palsgraf (Plaintiff) by verdict from a jury, and Long Island Rail Road appealed the judgment. The Court of Appeals (the highest court in New York) reversed and dismissed Palsgraf's complaint, deciding that the relationship of the guard's action to Palsgraf's injury was too indirect to make him liable. Cardozo, writing for three other judges, wrote that there was no way that the guard could have known that the package wrapped in newspaper was dangerous, and that pushing the passenger would thereby cause an explosion. negligent

13. Torts Justice Andrews—The Δ owes a duty to anyone who suffers injuries as a proximate result of the Δ’s negligence. Justice Cardozo—Π can only recover if they are in the foreseeable “Zone of Danger”

14. Torts Actual and Proximate Cause Actual Cause (cause in fact)-Before the Δ’s conduct can be considered a proximate cause of Π’s injury, it must first be the cause in fact of the injury. Several tests exist....most popular “but for” test. “The injury would not have occurred but for the Δ’s negligence.”

15. Torts Actual and Proximate Cause Proximate Cause (Legal causation)-The Δ is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by his acts. The test is based on foreseability.

16. Torts If Acme is found liable (not guilty), what can Ralph and Ed get? Starts with a “D”

17. Torts Damages!! What kind? 1. Compensatory? 2. Punitive? 3. Nominal?

18. Torts Can an argument be made for a COA under a theory of Strict Liability? How about Products Liability? How about under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor?

19. Torts Res Ipsa Loquitor--In the common law of negligence, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (Latin for "the thing speaks for itself") states that the elements of duty of care and breach can be sometimes inferred from the very nature of an accident or other outcome, even without direct evidence of how any defendant behaved.common law negligenceduty of carebreachdefendant

20. Torts Next Week--we will discuss possible defenses for the following fact scenario: Janet is driving west on Main Street. Her five-year-old son, Jimmy, is a passenger. He is seated in the front passenger seat. Both mother and son have their seatbelts on. Jimmy is upset because he just lost his favorite baseball hat. Janet is trying to comfort him. Paul is driving east on Main Street. He attempts to make a left turn onto Pleasant Street. He thinks he has enough time to make the turn before Janet gets to the intersection. Janet sees the car, but being slightly distracted by her son, does not notice that Paul is taking the turn. Paul hits Janet. Janet files suit against Paul. Paul's attorneys have discovered that Janet was distracted. What possible defenses can Paul use? Should Jimmy and Janet have the same attorney? Why or why not? If they have separate attorneys, against whom should Jimmy have claims?