Torts: Strict Liability and Negligence

Podcast Beta

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is required for a patient to provide informed consent?

The physician can choose not to disclose certain information if they feel it is unnecessary.

The physician must provide sufficient information regarding all aspects of the proposed treatment. (correct)

The physician must follow a uniform standard of information disclosure.

The patient must sign a consent form without understanding the implications.

How is a physician's duty to disclose information determined?

By the patient's ability to ask specific questions.

By conduct that is reasonable under the circumstances. (correct)

By a self-regulating standard established by the medical profession.

By the physician's personal judgment about what is significant.

What does the term 'scope of required disclosure' refer to?

Any information necessary for the patient to make an informed treatment decision. (correct)

Information that only pertains to the physician's qualifications.

A standard amount of information applicable to all patients.

The minimum amount of information a physician must disclose.

What are exceptions to the duty of disclosure for physicians?

In emergency situations with an unconscious patient. Signup and view all the answers

What role do statutes play regarding the standard of care in informed consent?

They can modify and add precision to the general negligence standard. Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary consideration in determining negligence in Stone v Bolton?

The likelihood and magnitude of injury Signup and view all the answers

Which characteristic is NOT considered when determining the reasonable person's standard of care?

Race Signup and view all the answers

In evaluating the reasonable person's actions, what does the formula p x l > B represent?

Probability times loss must be greater than burden Signup and view all the answers

Why do courts generally not account for unique characteristics like gender in negligence standard?

It is irrelevant to the reasonable person's actions Signup and view all the answers

What is emphasized in the concept of a reasonable person according to the discussed principles?

A person of average intelligence Signup and view all the answers

What is the rationale behind allowing children to be held to a different standard of care?

They are expected to grow and learn Signup and view all the answers

What does 'correction justice' refer to in the context of Stone v Bolton?

A balance of benefits and interests involved Signup and view all the answers

In the context of negligence assessments, why is proof of mental disability often challenging?

It needs to be apparent and objectively verifiable Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary consideration in determining strict liability?

Actions of the defendant regardless of intent Signup and view all the answers

What must a plaintiff demonstrate to recover damages in a negligence case?

The defendant acted with insufficient care Signup and view all the answers

What distinguishes objective terms from subjective terms in legal analysis?

Subjective terms focus on individual characteristics Signup and view all the answers

Which concept refers to the level of care expected of a prudent person in society?

Ordinary care Signup and view all the answers

In the case of Brown v. Kendall, what was the key issue for the court?

Whether the defendant acted with lawful intent and without fault Signup and view all the answers

What does 'preponderance of evidence' mean in a legal context?

Evidence that has a greater than 50% chance of being truthful Signup and view all the answers

What was the outcome of the initial trial in Brown v. Kendall?

The plaintiff won an assault and battery case Signup and view all the answers

If a defendant acts with ordinary care, what is generally the outcome regarding liability?

The plaintiff must prove unlawful action Signup and view all the answers

What is necessary for a plaintiff to successfully bring an action based on res ipsa loquitur in the context of medical treatment?

An unconscious status during the injury. Signup and view all the answers

Which of the following is a key requirement of res ipsa loquitur as mentioned in the content?

The injury must be caused by an external force. Signup and view all the answers

What aspect of negligence is emphasized by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when multiple defendants are involved?

Collective negligence is a consideration. Signup and view all the answers

What is a major criticism mentioned concerning the use of res ipsa loquitur in proving causation?

It requires strict liability standards. Signup and view all the answers

What critical element must a plaintiff show concerning the exclusive control of the defendant in a res ipsa loquitur case?

That the injury must not ordinarily happen without negligence. Signup and view all the answers

What general principle of negligence is highlighted in the text?

Negligence is centered around what is deemed 'reasonable.' Signup and view all the answers

In cases involving res ipsa loquitur, what do courts usually find concerning a group of medical professionals?

They are typically seen as collectively negligent. Signup and view all the answers

What does the term 'factual cause' refer to in the context of tortious conduct?

A cause that is easily identifiable and straightforward. Signup and view all the answers

What is considered a superseding cause according to the definitions provided?

An intentional tort by a third party that arises from an opportunity created by another's negligence. Signup and view all the answers

Under RST 449, when is the actor still liable for harm caused by a third party?

When the actor should have foreseen the third party's potential actions. Signup and view all the answers

What principle did the court establish in the 'In re Polemis' case?

An actor can be held liable for damages even if the outcome was not foreseeable. Signup and view all the answers

What does the foreseeability approach entail in the context of proximate cause?

It assesses whether the type of harm that occurred was predictable. Signup and view all the answers

In the context of negligence, what is a key difference between foreseeability and directness in terms of proximate cause?

Foreseeability assesses potential outcomes, while directness focuses on the connection between the act and the harm. Signup and view all the answers

What was the result for the charterers in the In re Polemis case, despite their lack of foreseeability regarding the fire?

They had to pay damages, as their negligence was a proximate cause. Signup and view all the answers

If harm from a third party is considered a hazard that makes the actor negligent, what impact does this have on liability?

The actor can still be liable for harm despite the type of third-party act. Signup and view all the answers

According to the outlined rules, why must judges reject the foreseeability approach in certain proximate cause cases?

To ensure all damages are covered without regard to predictability. Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Strict Liability and Negligence

The most debated topic in torts is when a defendant is liable for physical harms they inadvertently cause to the plaintiff
Traditional strict liability: the defendant is liable regardless of their actions
Competing with this is the defendant's liability only being determined if they acted with insufficient care/negligence

Ordinary Care and Extraordinary Care

Ordinary care: the degree of care a reasonable person would take to avoid causing harm, depending on the specific context
Extraordinary care: going beyond the standard of ordinary care, taking extra precautions

Objective and Subjective Terms

Objective terms: ignore the individual's actions or circumstances
Subjective terms: consider the individual's distinctive characteristics and the specific situation
Subjective terms are generally considered more accurate and relevant

Preponderance of Evidence and Brown v. Kendall

Preponderance of Evidence: greater than 50% chance that a statement is truthful
Brown v. Kendall: a landmark case where the court established that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted unlawfully without ordinary care
Facts: Kendall tried to break up a fight between his dog and Brown's using a stick, unintentionally hitting Brown in the eye and causing severe damage
Issue: Can a defendant be held liable if they acted with lawful intent without fault?
Rule: A defendant is not liable if they act with ordinary care, even if an accident occurs
Reasoning: the plaintiff must prove the defendant acted unlawfully and without ordinary care, which Kendall did not

Balancing of Interests and Cases

Stone v. Bolton: considers corrective justice and liability for harms caused by low-probability, high-impact events
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks: highlights the impact of foreseeable harm on reasonable care decisions
Cooley v. Public Service Co: emphasizes the need to balance the interests of individuals with the collective needs of society

The Reasonable Person

The reasonable person embodies an objective standard of care in negligence cases
Characteristics: the reasonable person is not considered to be stupid, but they may be considered above-average intelligent; age and physical disabilities are considered; mental disabilities are generally not considered unless demonstrably obvious and objectively verifiable
Reasons for using an objective standard:
- It reflects the assumption of risk that individuals undertake
- It simplifies proving liability
- It incentivizes people to act responsibly

Calculus of Risk

This section discusses how judges can apply calculus of risk to determine reasonable care
Two approaches:
- Common sense interpretation
- Formal calculus of risk (more precise)
The cost of avoiding injury is relevant in determining reasonable care.
Formula: P x L > B (Expected Loss > Burden of Prevention)
Stone v. Bolton: the court considered the likelihood (P) and the magnitude (L) of the injury, but considered the cost (B) irrelevant
This case rejects the "Hands Formula" which incorporates the burden of prevention (B).
Calculating the cost of actions should be incorporated into calculating reasonable care.

Informed consent is not based on custom, but custom can be used to prove malpractice in medical negligence cases
The legal standard for informed consent requires physicians to provide patients with sufficient information to make informed decisions about their treatment.
Physicians have a duty to disclose information that is sufficient and material for a patient to make an informed decision.

Res Ipsa Loquitur (RIL) - Ybarra Case

If an injury is unusual and occurs in the course of medical treatment, all defendants who directly or indirectly had control over the patient or instruments that might have caused the injury are potentially liable under RIL
The purpose of RIL is to provide a remedy for injured patients when they can't establish specific acts of negligence and causation.
Ybarra v. Spangard: the court found that a collective group of doctors and nurses had exclusive control over the patient's care, making them collectively liable under RIL
Contested issue: using RIL to prove causation, blurring the lines between negligence and strict liability

Causation

Two types:
- Factual cause (but-for causation): the defendant's actions were a necessary condition for the harm to occur
- Proximate cause: the defendant's actions are sufficiently connected to the harm to justify holding them liable

Intervening and Superseding Causes

RST 448: intentional acts committed by third parties, benefiting from the defendant's negligence, are typically considered superseding causes and negate the defendant's liability, unless the defendant reasonably foresaw the harm occurring
RST 449: the defendant can be held liable if the likelihood of a third-party's act contributing to the harm was a foreseeable risk in the defendant's actions

Polemis and Foreseeability

Case involving the charter of a vessel where negligence of the charterer's employees led to a fire after a plank fell, causing an explosion
Issue: Whether a defendant can be held liable for all losses resulting from their negligence, even if those losses are not reasonably foreseeable
Rule: A negligent actor can be held liable for all damage caused by their negligence as long as they are the proximate cause.
Reasoning: The employees were negligent, and damage resulted from that negligence. The foreseeability of the specific type of harm is irrelevant as long as the damage is caused by the negligence.

Proximate Cause Approaches

Two approaches to proving proximate causation:
- Foreseeability: the harm must be reasonably foreseeable
- Directness: causation is determined based on the chain of events, regardless of foreseeability
Polemis: court rejects the foreseeability approach, implying that it is enough that the negligent conduct directly caused the damage, even if unforeseeable.
The court highlights that the defendant must have acted negligently, and the damage must be caused by that negligence for the defendant to be liable.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

This quiz explores the principles of strict liability and negligence in tort law. It delves into the differences between ordinary and extraordinary care, and examines objective versus subjective terms in legal contexts. Additionally, it covers the significance of preponderance of evidence and notable cases like Brown v. Kendall.