Standard narrowed for physically disabled, children (not mentally disabled!).

In
1. Zone of Danger
emergency situations, act as a reasonable person in that emergency.
2. Relationships
NEGLIGENCE 3. Public Policy
Professional standard of care: professional must exercise the requisite degree
4. Misfeasance
ANALYSIS Is a duty owed? of learning, skills, and ability of that calling with reasonable and ordinary care.

Generally, not to expose Custom: not a duty in itself, but evidence of a reasonable common practice can
foreseeable victims to an show a reasonable person would've followed it
What is the unreasonable risk of harm - to
act as a reasonable person Statute: can impose a duty to comply in cases where safety statute, P in class of
duty? would. people protected by statute, suffered harm statute designed to prevent
Duty
Invitee (business purposes): duty to keep premises reasonably safe and inspect for latent defects
Licensee (Social Guest): no duty to act to keep premises safe, just warn of hidden dangers known to host and refrain from
Affirmative/Heightened hurting licensee
Duties Trespasser:generally no duty until you discover them or have reason to except them (diff. for children)

Landlord to Tenant: generally, no duty, six exceptions (no duty to social guests either)

NO DUTY OWED Rescue: no duty to rescue, but if you voluntarily undertake a rescue, you assume a duty to proceed in a
WHEN: pure non-negligent manner
economic harm or
emotional distress
If you caused the harm or what caused the harm is under your control, duty
without physical
Special Relationships: to render assistance
symptoms (unless
bystander) Duty to warn a third party if you know of a specific danger to that specfic
plaintiff

B < PL: likelihood that conduct will cause harm + gravity of harm outweigh Common carriers to passengers, innkeepers to guests, public utilities,
the burden, so a reasonable person would have taken precautions business/possessor of land with premises open to public, employer to
employees who are in imminent danger or injured and helpless
Social utility: does the social utility of the conduct outweigh the harm?
Special relationship can arise between parties if one party has control ability
Social utility argument can fail if harm is very severe.
over person/area and other doesn't and therefore, D should've taken
measures to protect P (sex abuse case)
Custom can be indication of how a reasonable person would act. If they
Breach deviated from established custom, P can argue evidence of unreasonable
person. If D complied, maybe the whole industry is wrong and the custom
is unreasonable.

Circumstantial evidence (such as constructive notice) and Rep Ipsa Loquitor can be used to show
breach.

Violation of a safety statute or regulation can establish breach if P was in class statute designed to
D can argue that's not necessarily true, exact
protect and harm was of kind designed to prevent. cause of harm was undetermined, could have
been due to other D. P can argue that had
they done X, the harm wouldn't have occurred
either way.
But for Test: but for your negligent act, my harm wouldn't have occurred.

Cause in Fact Types:

1. Joint & Several Liability (multiple sufficient causes)
Substantial Factor Test for Concurrent Causes
2. Market Share Liability (fungible products)
3. Multiple actions caused uncertainty

D will argue superseding or intervening cause was

Foreseeability: it was foreseeable that your act would cause harm, so the exact
not foreseeable, so he didn't cause the harm
Proximate manner in which that harm occurs is irrelevant
Cause Direct, Natural, Immediate: harm was a direct, natural, immediate result of your
D will argue harm is too remote, too attenuated in
actions
time and space (work retrospectively, find break in
chain)
Superseding Criminal Act often cuts off
liability unless risk is what made D neg.
1. Unlimited liability would destroy civilization
2. Insurance available?
Public Policy
3. Avoid "ruinous liability" when damages are that great
4. However, is there a public policy reason to hold liable?

To person or property

1. In zone of danger Example: P's act was a failure to exercise reasonable care,
Harm Purely emotional
2. Related to victim by blood or
marriage
and his negligence is the superseding cause.
distress if physical
3. Distress was severe and
manifestation
beyond what a reasonable
emotional response would be Example: When P did X, he P can argue if no other
Bystander Test for voluntarily and knowingly options = not voluntary;
emotional distress from assumed the risk of doing so. he didn't know of risk.
Comparative Negligence
witnessing

Assumption of Risk Immune from intentional torts, discretionary acts, libel/slander

Plaintiff's Conduct Employees can be sued for 1) negligent/wrongful acts 2) within scope
of employment 3) not discretionary
Parental Immunity for neg.
supervision
Affirmative Not immune for MINISTERIAL ACTS - operational level, no
judgment/choice made
Defenses Charities (mostly abolished)
Immunity for discretionary acts, legislative and judicial decision making,
Federal Gov. NOT IMMUNE FOR MINISTERIAL ACTS

State agencies: usually immune, unless private function - sometimes

No duty to protect a specific individual unless relationship develops; not

Immunities State Gov. immune for propriety or private functions

Municipalities Judges, president, governor, legislators have ABSOLUTE immunity for actions on the job

Public Officials Prosecutors, officers, lower level officials have QUALIFIED immunity - can be lost if
reasonable person would know actions are violating a statutory or constitutional right