Chapter III Duty A. Introduction

1
Chapter III Duty A. Introduction
The prima facie case in negligence Duty Breach
Causation Damages
2
Chapter III Duty A. Introduction
DUTY Is there an obligation to use reasonable
care? BREACH Under the circumstances, did the
actor behave reasonably?
Question of law, judge decides based on
precedent.
General or Categorical rules
Question of fact, jury decides
Fact-specific
3
Duty
37. Subject to 39-45, an actor whose conduct
has not created a risk of physical harm to
another has no duty of care to the other.
4
Chapter III Duty
There may be an affirmative duty to act to
prevent harm or rescue IF You are in a special
relationship From Harper, p. 135 common
carrier, innkeeper, possessor of land open to
the public, custody deprived of normal
opportunities for self-protection Prosser, n.2
plaintiff vulnerable and dependent on D, who
holds power over ps welfare. Economic
advantage to the defendant. Farwell companions
on a social venture, with an implicit
understanding that assistance will be rendered.
5
Chapter III Duty

• There may be liability if you take charge of one
  who is helpless, and
• Fail to exercise reasonable care to secure the
  others safety while they are in your charge OR
• Discontinue aid or protection if by doing so you
  leave the other in a worse position than when you
  took charge of him.
• Restatement (Second) 324 (note 4 p. 144)
• How does this compare to the rule in Farwell?

6
Chapter III B. Obligations to others
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (p. 130)
Buick fails to inspect the car
Duty? Yes, even tho the negligence is inadequate
inspection BECAUSE it is foreseeable that injury
will result!
K
Driver of car, Pedestrian
Dealer
7
Chapter III (B) Obligations to others
Moch v. Rensselaer Water Co. (p. 143)
Water Co. Fails to provide water pressure
K
Duty ?
No, even though it is foreseeable!
Warehouse that burned down
City
8
Chapter III (B) Obligations to others
Hypothetical
Builder installs sprinkler system with inadequate
pressure to put out fires
K Duty?
Duty ?
Visitor in building
Owner of building
9
Chapter III Duty A. Introduction

• The prima facie case in negligence
• Duty
• Pure bystanders duty to warn / protect /
  rescue?
• Some act or relationship is it enough to
  create a duty to act / rescue?
• Does that duty extend to everyone who might be
  hurt?
• Breach
• Causation
• Damages

10
Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unif. School Dist
School district defendants
Negligent misrepresentation
Duty?
Plaintiffs school
Relies to hire
Employee
Plaintiff student
injures
11
Duty The California Approach
P. 150 In this state, the general rule is that
all persons have a duty to use ordinary care to
prevent others from being injured as the result
of their conduct. Everyone is responsible, not
only for the result of his willful acts, but also
for an injury occasioned to another by his want
of ordinary care or skill in the management of
his property or person, except so far as the
latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary
care, brought the injury upon himself. Cal. Civ.
Code section 1714
12
Chapter III Duty The Rowland test (p. 150)
We depart from this fundamental principle only
upon the balancing of a number of
considerations 1) foreseeability of harm to the
plaintiff 2) degree of certainty that the
plaintiff suffered injury 3) closeness of
connection between the defendants conduct and
the injury suffered 4) moral blame attached to
the defendants conduct 5) the policy of
preventing future harm 6) the extent of the
burden to the defendant and consequences to the
community of imposing a duty 7) the
availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance
13
Chapter III Duty Ballard (p. 150)
a courts task in determining duty is not to
decide whether a particular plaintiffs injury
was reasonably foreseeable in light of a
particular defendants conduct, but rather to
evaluate more generally whether the category of
negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely
to result in the kind of harm experienced that
liability may appropriately be imposed on the
negligent party.
14
Tarasoff v. Regents, p. 157
Therapist
Duty to warn?
Third Party
Patient
injures
15
Tarasoff v. Regents, p. 157
Therapist
Duty to warn? YES
Special Relationship
Third Party
Patient
injures
16
Assignments

Thursday 157 175 Friday Professor Weithorn,
Room H Tuesday 175-183 Wednesday 183-194 Thursda
y 195-211