Torts

Dennis J. Kehm, Jr.

Welcome to……….

Tort…….

….Law

If what you did yesterday seems big, you haven't done anything today.

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?

Negligence

• Duty

• Breach of Duty

• Causation

• Damages

Duty

• A plaintiff first must establish that the defendant had a duty to act in a specific way toward the plaintiff. In negligence, the most common duty required is the duty of reasonable care.

Duty of Reasonable Care

• The duty of reasonable care requires a person to act in a reasonable manner in order to avoid injuring another person.

Duty of Reasonable Care

• The specific acts that must be done to meet the duty of care will vary depending on the situation. The person driving a car owes a duty of safe driving to other drivers. The person flying a plane owes a duty to fly safely to anyone who may be injured if the pilot flies dangerously. The scope of the duty of care is limited. For instance, the pilot does not owe the duty of care to people in China if they are flying only from Texas to California. Similarly, the driver in Chicago does not owe the duty of care to pedestrians in Utah.

Duty of Reasonable Care

• Foreseeability

• The law limits the people to whom one owes a duty. This limit is based on the foreseeability that a person might be harmed by an actor. Lack of foreseeability can eliminate a person's right to sue for negligence.

Breach of Duty

• Once it is determined that a duty existed, it must be proved that the duty was breached.

• To prove that the duty was breached, the plaintiff must show that a reasonable person would not have acted as the defendant did in the same situation. The law has created the reasonable prudent person standard, whereby the finder of fact must determine whether a reasonable prudent person would have done what the actor (person doing the act) did.

Causation

• After finding that there is a duty and that the defendant breached it, the finder of fact must decide whether that breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. There are two types of causation: actual cause, also known as "cause in fact," and proximate cause. Both types of causation must be present to meet this element.

Damages

• The final element of negligence is damages. The plaintiff must have suffered some injury or damage as a result of the defendant's negligence before recovery is permitted. Damages compensate for injuries that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the defendant's negligent conduct. There are two types of damages that are awarded in negligence cases: compensatory and punitive.

Acme Barrel Company

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?

Duty of Care

What duty is owed by Acme?

It was the duty of the warehouse owner (Acme) to keep the barrels in the warehouse such that they would not roll out and fall on people below

Breach of Duty

Duty was to keep barrels from falling out the window

A barrel fell out of the window, but we don’t know how or why

Breach of Duty

• Res Ipsa Loquitur “The thing speaks for itself”

• Even though you can’t prove who breached a duty, or what the specific breach was, the thing would not have happened without someone being negligent

Res Ipsa Loquitur

• (1) the event that injured the plaintiff is one that does not happen except through negligence;

• (2) the instrument that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant; and

• (3) the plaintiff did not cause her own injuries.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

• The event that injured the plaintiff is one that does not happen except through negligence

• Barrels don’t just randomly fall out of windows. Acme had a duty to ensure that the barrels don’t fall. They could only fall if someone was negligent in their duties

• The fact of the barrel falling is prima facie evidence of negligence

Res Ipsa Loquitur

• The instrument that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant

• The barrels were under the exclusive control of Acme and Acme’s employees, they fell directly out of Acme’s warehouse

Res Ipsa Loquitur

• The plaintiff did not cause her own injuries

• Ralph and Ed were both hit by the barrel, they didn’t cause the barrel to hit them

Cause

• The barrel hit them, it caused the injuries• But for Acme’s negligence, the barrel would

not have fallen and would not have hit Ralph and Ed

• Foreseeable?• It is foreseeable that someone could be

walking along the outside of the warehouse

Damages

• Both Ralph and Ed were injured and suffered damages of different degrees

• The damages were caused by the injuries that were caused by the falling barrel

Byrne v. Boadle

• Byrne v. Boadle Citation: Court of Exchequer, 1863, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299

• This is case that established the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

• A barrel of flour fell out of a window and hit plaintiff on head, no witnesses as to how flour fell, or who pushed it

This Week’s Assignments:

Discussion Posts

Seminar (You are already here)

Quiz