Difference between revisions of "Torts notes"
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) |
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 271: | Line 271: | ||
{This is a [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdMlItgXkAMRXdk?format=jpg&name=small three-set Venn Diagram]. What are the three sets? | {This is a [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EdMlItgXkAMRXdk?format=jpg&name=small three-set Venn Diagram]. What are the three sets? | ||
|type="{}"} | |type="{}"} | ||
| − | A dispute about what happened is called a "question of fact." The "finder of fact" answers these questions. The "finder of fact" is the jury in a "jury trial" and the judge in a "bench trial." The { finder of fact } resolves a { question of fact } by determining whether the { evidence } satisfies the { standard of proof }. (Choose among | + | A dispute about what happened is called a "question of fact." The "finder of fact" answers these questions. The "finder of fact" is the jury in a "jury trial" and the judge in a "bench trial." The { finder of fact } resolves a { question of fact } by determining whether the { evidence } satisfies the { standard of proof }. (Choose among finder of fact, question of fact, evidence, and standard of proof.) |
{Confusingly, some "questions of fact" involve opinion. We will talk much more about this when we turn to "reasonableness" -- one of the most important concepts in all of law school! (Have you started your list of themes?) For example, imagine that an elderly shopper breaks her hip when she falls in a supermarket parking lot. Which of these five "questions of fact" are really disputes about the reasonableness of what happened? | {Confusingly, some "questions of fact" involve opinion. We will talk much more about this when we turn to "reasonableness" -- one of the most important concepts in all of law school! (Have you started your list of themes?) For example, imagine that an elderly shopper breaks her hip when she falls in a supermarket parking lot. Which of these five "questions of fact" are really disputes about the reasonableness of what happened? | ||
| Line 290: | Line 290: | ||
</quiz> | </quiz> | ||
=== Other standards === | === Other standards === | ||
| + | We've already discussed standards of proof. Soon we will also discuss other important standards at the trial and appellate levels. Consider, for example: | ||
| + | * What standard should a trial court apply when deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment? | ||
| + | * What standard should an appellate court apply when deciding whether to affirm or reverse a trial court's decision to grant that motion? | ||
== Testing your briefing == | == Testing your briefing == | ||
| + | Except where you are told otherwise, you must answer these questions by referring only to your brief -- not to the case itself. | ||
| + | <quiz display=simple shuffle=none> | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What is the case name? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - 275 U.S. 66 | ||
| + | - Holmes | ||
| + | + Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Goodman | ||
| + | - Supreme Court | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What is the case citation as it should appear on your brief? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + 275 U.S. 66 (1927) (U.S. Supreme Court) (Holmes) | ||
| + | - Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Goodman | ||
| + | - 275 U.S. 66 | ||
| + | - There is no citation | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Which answer best explains why this case is important to what we are studying? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - When the standard is clear it should be laid down once for all by the Courts. | ||
| + | - This case is about contributory negligence. | ||
| + | - Tort law often features motor vehicle crashes. | ||
| + | + This case illustrates facts, evidence, questions of fact, and questions of law. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What kind of court issued this opinion? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - State trial court | ||
| + | - State appeals court | ||
| + | - Federal trial court | ||
| + | + Federal appeals court | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What state's substantive law does the court use? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - Ohio | ||
| + | - Sixth Circuit | ||
| + | - Federal law | ||
| + | + The opinion doesn't actually say, and choice-of-law is a complex topic for next semester's Civil Procedure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What is a basic statement of the facts? | ||
| + | |type="{}"} | ||
| + | The { plaintiff }, Goodman, { died } when he { drove } his { truck } onto a { railroad track } and was { struck } by the { defendant's } { moving train }, which had been { obscured } by a { building }. (Choose among drove, died, obscured, plaintiff, building, railroad track, truck, moving train, struck, defendant's.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | {We will discuss "materiality" soon! For now: Is the fact that the train had been obscured material to this case? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - Yes, because it is true. | ||
| + | + Yes, because it is relevant to whether Goodman should have stopped before entering the crossing. | ||
| + | - No, because it is false. | ||
| + | - No, because it is extraneous. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Are these facts established, assumed to be true, or alleged? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + This is an appeal of a trial court's judgment for the plaintiff, so these facts were presumably established at the trial court level. | ||
| + | - Although these facts are not yet proven, the trial court is treating them as true for the purpose of deciding a motion. | ||
| + | - These facts are merely allegations. The finder of fact must still determine whether they are true. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {How far was the train from the crossing, in feet, when it hit Goodman? | ||
| + | |type="{}"} | ||
| + | { 0 _3 } | ||
| + | |||
| + | {How far was the train from the crossing when Goodman was 20 feet from that crossing? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - 150 feet | ||
| + | - 200 feet | ||
| + | - Holmes does not say | ||
| + | + Holmes does not say, but there are ways to either find or estimate an answer, I have done so, and I am prepared to explain how in class. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Who are the parties? Note: As always, you should look up terms in an opinion that are new to you. | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Goodman is the plaintiff (at trial) and the respondent (in this appeal). Baltimore & O.R. Co. is the defendant (at trial) and the petitioner (in this appeal). | ||
| + | - Baltimore & O.R. Co. is the plaintiff (at trial) and the respondent (in this appeal). Goodman is the defendant (at trial) and the petitioner (in this appeal). | ||
| + | - Goodman is the plaintiff (at trial) and the petitioner (in this appeal). Baltimore & O.R. Co. is the defendant (at trial) and the respondent (in this appeal). | ||
| + | - Baltimore & O.R. Co. is the plaintiff (at trial) and the the petitioner (in this appeal). Goodman is the defendant (at trial) and the respondent (in this appeal). | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Goodman has a claim of negligence (I'm guessing) against Baltimore & O.R. Co. for killing Goodman by unreasonably (I'm guessing) striking Goodman with its train. | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + True | ||
| + | - False | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[File:GoodmanExcerptLabeled.png]] | ||
| + | {Where in this opinion does the court explain the procedural history? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - A | ||
| + | + B | ||
| + | - C | ||
| + | - D | ||
| + | - E | ||
| + | - F | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What is the court now being asked to do? By whom? | ||
| + | |type="{}"} | ||
| + | The { defendant railroad } is asking the { Supreme Court } to { reverse } the { circuit court's affirmation } of the { trial court's judgment }. (Choose among Supreme Court, circuit court's affirmation, defendant railroad, reverse, and trial court's judgment.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | {In this short opinion, this is (arguably) only one issue before the court. However, there are a few ways that we can formulate this issue. As you learn more about standards of review on appeal, this will become clearer. For now, order these formulations of the issue from most to least precise: | ||
| + | A. Was Goodman contributorily negligent for not stopping his truck and looking before driving onto the track? | ||
| + | B. Is Baltimore & O.R. Co. liable for killing Goodman? | ||
| + | C. Did the trial court err in entering judgment for Goodman even though he did not stop his truck and look before driving onto the track? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - A,B,C | ||
| + | - A,C,B | ||
| + | - B,C,A | ||
| + | - B,A,C | ||
| + | + C,A,B | ||
| + | - C,B,A | ||
| + | |||
| + | {As noted, this opinion (arguably) presents only one issue. Which of the following correctly state the court's holding on this issue? In evaluating these answers, consider: | ||
| + | * Is this statement necessary to the outcome of the present case? | ||
| + | * Can this statement be applied as a rule of decision in a future case? | ||
| + | |type="[]"} | ||
| + | + A reasonable driver who cannot otherwise determine whether a train is approaching must stop, get out, and look. | ||
| + | - Goodman was negligent for not getting out of his truck and looking down the track. | ||
| + | - Baltimore & O.R. Co. is not liable to Goodman for his death. | ||
| + | + Before crossing a railroad, a driver is responsible for taking all necessary precautions to ensure their safety. | ||
| + | + A motorist acts unreasonably by relying only on audible warnings of an approaching train. | ||
| + | - If at the last moment Goodman found himself in an emergency it was his own fault that he did not reduce his speed earlier or come to a stop. | ||
| + | + A reasonable jury would necessarily conclude that a driver acts unreasonably by proceeding through a blind railroad crossing without getting out to look. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {As a famous justice on the US Supreme Court, Justice Holmes can get away with citing few rules. (You and I can't.) He does cite two previous Supreme Court cases. How does he use these cases in this opinion? | ||
| + | |type="[]"} | ||
| + | - He approvingly cites Flannelly in support of his argument. | ||
| + | + He acknowledges Flannelly is correct but distinguishes it from the present case. | ||
| + | + He approvingly cites Southern Pacific in support of his argument. | ||
| + | - He acknowledges Southern Pacific is correct but distinguishes it from the present case. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {The court decides that Goodman acted unreasonably by entering the railroad crossing when a train was approaching. | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + True | ||
| + | - False | ||
| + | |||
| + | {There are no recorded dissents or concurrences. | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + True | ||
| + | - False | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Who is pleased by this decision? | ||
| + | |type="[]"} | ||
| + | - The plaintiff (Goodman) | ||
| + | + The defendant (Baltimore & O.R. Co.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | {What is the court's judgment? | ||
| + | |type="{}"} | ||
| + | The { Supreme Court } { reverses } the { trial court's } { judgment } for the { plaintiff }. (Choose among judgment, trial court's, reverses, plaintiff, Supreme Court.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Is Goodman pleased? (Also ask yourself why/why not. There are actually several reasons.) | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - Yes | ||
| + | + No | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Is this case now conclusively over? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Yes | ||
| + | - No | ||
| + | |||
| + | {If you didn't already understand them, use a ''legal dictionary'' to look up terms such as administratrix, verdict, judgment, petitioner, respondent, negligence, and standard of conduct? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Yes | ||
| + | - No | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | {Do a lot of historical tort cases involve railroads? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Yes | ||
| + | - No | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Have you reflected on this case and written down your questions? I suggest looking at a blank wall, talking to your pet, or talking to your plant. | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Yes | ||
| + | - No | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Does anything bother you about this case -- and, if not, can you see how this case might bother someone? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Yes | ||
| + | - No | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Which of the following is an incorrect statement? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - This case arguably advances the safety rationale of tort law by encouraging motorists to cross railroads very carefully. | ||
| + | - This case arguably undermines the safety rationale of tort law by not encouraging railways to cross roads very carefully. | ||
| + | - This case arguably undermines the safety rationale of tort law by not encouraging railways to grade-separate their crossings. | ||
| + | - This case arguably advances the safety rationale of tort law by establishing clear expectations for drivers and railroads. | ||
| + | + This case arguably advances the compensation goal of tort law by making it easier for people who are killed by speeding trains to recover. | ||
| + | - This case arguably undermines the compensation rationale of tort law by placing the full financial burden of injury on unlucky individuals rather than on large companies that can spread the cost to all their customers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {This opinion arguably reflects a certain bias. (How would you describe this bias?) Would this case likely be decided the same way today? | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | - Yes | ||
| + | + No | ||
| + | |||
| + | {Is this case relevant to what we are studying? (And how?) | ||
| + | |type="()"} | ||
| + | + Yes | ||
| + | - No | ||
| + | |||
| + | </quiz> | ||
Revision as of 08:44, 24 February 2021
Reading comprehension
Reading and math skills
Procedure
Burdens of proof
In Black's Law Dictionary, look up:
- Burden of proof
- Burden of pleading
- Burden of production
- Burden of persuasion
Standards of proof
Black's Law Dictionary defines "standard of proof" as "[t]he degree or level of proof demanded in a specific case, such as 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 'by a preponderance of the evidence'; a rule about the quality of the evidence that a party must bring forward to prevail."
Preponderance of the evidence standard
In most (but not all) contexts, the standard of proof in a tort action is "a preponderance of the evidence." In an 1895 case, the South Carolina Supreme Court approved of the following jury instructions given by the circuit court judge to the jury in a civil case:
I charge you that should you not be satisfied by the preponderance of the evidence that the defense of the defendant is sustained, then you will have to consider the case as made out by the plaintiff; and then upon him will fall the burden of proof to make out his case by the same standard, the preponderance of the evidence. By that is meant, Mr. Foreman and gentlemen, the greater weight of the testimony on the issues involved. No court can provide a jury with scales on which to weigh the evidence; but a jury of twelve intelligent men, who have a knowledge of human nature, and, from their observation of life, understand the rules of common sense, are in possession of the best scales on which to weigh evidence. When a jury comes to the conclusion that a defendant has brought forward evidence that satisfies them that, more likely than not, such and such was the case, then they may say he has established his defense by the preponderance of the evidence; or when the plaintiff satisfies the jury by competent evidence that it is more likely than not that such and such was the case, not absolutely proved, not absolutely true, because neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is called upon to establish his complaint or make out his defense beyond a reasonable doubt, but, by the preponderance of the evidence, that it is more likely than not that such and such was the case, then you may safely say that the defense has been made out by the preponderance of the evidence, or that the complaint has been established by the preponderance of the evidence.”
Groesbeck v. Marshall, 44 S.C. 538, 22 S.E. 743 (1895).
This remains an accurate statement of the law today, with one exception.
Juries
A jury in 1895 would most likely have excluded African Americans as well. (South Carolina adopted its infamous Jim Crow constitution that same year.) Unrepresentative juries are still a problem today. For a perspective on juries in criminal cases, see Emily Paavola and Linsey Vann, A Jury of Your Peers? Not Always in South Carolina (2016)
Civil versus criminal
In a criminal case, a government prosecutes a defendant for a criminal act.
In a civil case, a plaintiff sues a defendant for violating a private right.
"Civil"
As you know, civil law is broader than just tort law. And "civil law" also has a different meaning that's especially important in Louisiana, Quebec, and countries outside the former British Commonwealth. If you're interested, it's a great question for office hours!
We'll see similar linguistic issues arise repeatedly during the semester: Seemingly simple words often have multiple meanings that may diverge, overlap, and differ from common understandings. Pay attention to this as you read and write throughout your career.
In fact, you might even consider starting a list now. If you do, here's another important term to add: "holding." We'll discuss it soon.
Evidence
Satisfying the burden of proof requires evidence. Consider these model jury instructions:
Evidence can come in many forms. It can be testimony about what someone saw or heard or smelled. It can be an exhibit admitted into evidence. It can be someone’s opinion.
Direct evidence can prove a fact by itself. For example, if a witness testifies she saw a jet plane flying across the sky, that testimony is direct evidence that a plane flew across the sky.
Some evidence proves a fact indirectly. For example, a witness testifies that he saw only the white trail that jet planes often leave. This indirect evidence is sometimes referred to as 'circumstantial evidence.' In either instance, the witness's testimony is evidence that a jet plane flew across the sky.
As far as the law is concerned, it makes no difference whether evidence is direct or indirect. You may choose to believe or disbelieve either kind. Whether it is direct or indirect, you should give every piece of evidence whatever weight you think it deserves.
The "facts" in a courtroom can differ from the "facts" on the ground:
Why might this be?
Venn diagrams
We will be using many stylized Venn and Euler Diagrams!
Facts versus law
Other standards
We've already discussed standards of proof. Soon we will also discuss other important standards at the trial and appellate levels. Consider, for example:
- What standard should a trial court apply when deciding whether to grant a motion for summary judgment?
- What standard should an appellate court apply when deciding whether to affirm or reverse a trial court's decision to grant that motion?
Testing your briefing
Except where you are told otherwise, you must answer these questions by referring only to your brief -- not to the case itself.
