Torts

Key Materials

1. Syllabus
2. Case briefs
3. Practice exams

Introduction

Welcome

Before

1. Read the syllabus.
2. Do something healthy.
3. Tell me about yourself. (Seriously.)
4. Read this practice exam.
5. Take this quiz on this reading.
6. Complete this puzzle.

After

1. After each class you should take a few minutes to reflect on class, identify key takeaways, correct and update the notes you took before class, and incorporate any (brief) notes you took during class. In addition, you will frequently have a post-class reading assignment summarizing and detailing the "black-letter law" that we began to explore in class.
2. Complete this reflection.

Goals

Before

1. Leading causes of death in the United States
2. Historical change in causes of death
3. CDC covid-19 fatality data
4. Motor vehicle crash deaths in the USA
5. Deaths compared to injuries and persons involved
6. Vehicle emissions
7. Economic and Societal Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes (2010): Read through page 21 (PDF page 26)
8. A blank slate
9. Reading and math skills
10. Checking in

After

1. Post-class check-in

Procedure

Before

1. The Legal Process in the United States: A Civil Case
2. Burdens of proof: In Black's Law Dictionary, look up:
   1. Burden of proof
   2. Burden of pleading
   3. Burden of production
   4. Burden of persuasion
3. Standards of proof
4. Preponderance of the evidence
5. Juries
6. More on juries
7. Civil versus criminal
8. "Civil"
9. Evidence
10. Venn diagrams
11. Facts versus law
12. Other standards
13. Briefing cases
14. Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (1927)
15. Testing your briefing

After

1. Mini-outline
2. Briefing cases
3. Discussion forum
4. Retesting your briefing

Culpability

Before

1. Definitions: Use Black's Law Dictionary to look up "Tort."
2. Find, read, and brief Pleasant v. Johnson, 312 N.C. 710 (1985)
   1. Note: Unless I state otherwise, the instructions to "find, read, and brief" apply to every case assigned this semester.
3. Jones v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 120 N.C. App. 591 (1995)
4. Levels of culpability (in tort law)

After

1. Table of Contents in "Understanding Torts"
2. Theories of liability

Elements

Before

1. LSAC Guide to Logical Reasoning Questions
2. LSAC Logical Reasoning Sample Questions
3. Problem-solving test (again)
4. CCC: Necessary conditions

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 6 (2010)
   1. This is short. You may, but need not, read the comment.
2. Elements of negligence

Facts

Before

1. Gadson v. ECO Services (packet)
2. Complaint

After

1. Model complaint
2. CCC: Complaints

Case Law

Before

1. Reread Gadson

After

1. Restatement of the Law - Torts
2. Gadson case briefs

Holdings

Before

1. Jackson v. Price, 288 S.C. 377, 342 S.E.2d 628 (Ct. App. 1986)
2. McAllister v. Graham, 287 S.C. 455, 339 S.E.2d 154 (Ct. App. 1986)
3. Am. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Passmore, 275 S.C. 618, 274 S.E.2d 416 (1981)
4. Nettles v. Your Ice Co., 191 S.C. 429, 4 S.E.2d 797, 801 (1939)

After

1. Holdings: Create a chart showing how Nettles v. Your Ice Co. led to Gadson v. ECO Services. Was this path inevitable?
2. Gadson model case brief

Materiality

Before

1. Hansen v. Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., No. 5100038, 2006 WL 3491639 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 13, 2006)
2. Gagliano v. Gosling, 99-0168 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/1/99), 768 So.2d 47
3. Summary judgment in Gadson

After

1. Gadson questions
2. ECO's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment
3. Looking ahead: This memo addresses a legal theory that the South Carolina Supreme Court and Court of Appeals did not discuss in their opinions. What is it?

Vicarious Liability

Before

1. Snee v. Trice, 2 S.C.L. 345 (S.C. Const. App. 1802)
   1. What does the court mean by "other salutary checks"?
2. Puryear v. Thompson, 24 Tenn. 397 (1844)
   1. Is this "good law"?
3. Doe v. Uber Techs., Inc., 184 F. Supp. 3d 774 (N.D. Cal. 2016)
4. Gadson
5. Automated driving case study

After

1. Instructions
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 57 (2010)
   1. Again, you need read only the rule itself
   2. What are the exceptions? (In law, definitions and cross-references are essential reading.)
3. Labour law
4. Law school fundraising
5. "Discuss"
6. Your assignment
7. Restatement (Third) of Agency §§ 2.04 & 7.07
   1. So far you have read sections from the most recent version of the restatement for the law of torts. There are also a series of restatements for the law of agency.
   2. Read both the rule and the comment for Restatement (Third) of Agency § 2.04 and at least the rule for Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07. (You might also find comment b helpful.)
8. Introduction summary: This completes the final class of our Torts introduction. Before we turn to negligence, I encourage you to organize and reflect on our material to date. As always, Blackboard's resources are available to you.

Negligence: Duty

Generally

Before

1. MacPherson v. Buick Motor, 217 N.Y. 382 (1916)
2. E. River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986)
3. Duty rules from the introduction: Consider all the cases we have read so far in this course. Did the defendants have a duty? How would you formulate these duties?

After

1. Making sense of duty

Affirmative Acts That Cause Physical Harm

Before

1. Artiglio v. Corning Inc., 18 Cal.4th 604 (Cal. 1998)
2. Kubert v. Best, 432 N.J. Super. 495 (N.J. App. Div. 2013)
3. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 7 (2010)
   1. This is short. You may, but need not, read the comment.

After

1. Looking ahead
2. CCC team reports

Duty to Act Affirmatively

Before

1. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3d 425 (Cal. 1976)
2. Nash v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, 51 A.D.3d 337 (2008)
   1. This opinion briefly references the court's earlier rejection of the Port Authority's claim of governmental immunity. The New York Court of Appeals (the state's high court) ultimately agreed with the Port Authority and accordingly reversed this opinion. In In re World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig. , 17 N.Y.3d 428 (2011).
   2. This opinion also discusses apportionment. Don't worry if this part of the opinion is particularly confusing. Apportionment is a difficult topic that we will discuss near the end of the course.

After

1. Law school hypo answer and assessment
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 37 (2010)
   1. What are the specific "affirmative duties provided in §§ 38-44?"

Pure Emotional Harm

Before

1. Mower v. Baird, 422 P.3d 837 (Utah 2018)
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 47 (2010)
3. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 48 (2010)

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §§ 45-48 (2010)
2. Understanding Torts § 10.01

Pure Economic Harm

Before

1. People Exp. Airlines, Inc. v. Consol. Rail Corp., 100 N.J. 246 (1985)
2. Huggins v. Citibank, N.A., 355 S.C. 329 (2003)

After

1. Understanding Torts § 10.04

Statutory Duties

Before

1. Ball v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Co., 35 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (M.D. Fla. 1999)
2. Betts v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 558 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2009)
3. Crosby v. Glasscock Trucking Co., 340 S.C. 626 (2000)
4. 42 U.S.C. § 1983

After

1. Understanding Torts §§ 10.02-10.03
   1. Which are statutory duties? Which are common law duties?

Premises Liability

Before

1. Am. Ind. Life v. Ruvalcaba, 64 S.W.3d 126 (Tex. App. 2002)
2. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968)
3. CCC: Rowland arguments

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §§ 51-52 (2010)
2. Trespasser liability
3. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-3-10 through 27-3-60
4. Understanding Torts §§ 9.01-05

Summary

Before

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Duty Rules
2. Role of special relationships in duty
3. Practice question

After

1. Model answer
2. Peer assessment

Negligence: Breach

Reasonable Care

Before

1. Sullivan v. Jefferson Ave. Ry. Co., 133 Mo. 1, 34 S.W. 566 (1896)
2. Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (1927) (again)
3. Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 98 (1934)
4. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 8 (2010)

After

1. Previous cases

The Reasonable Person

Before

1. New York City's Death Avenue
2. More photos of Death Avenue
3. The reasonable person
4. Creasy v. Rusk, 730 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. 2000)
   1. You need not read the "concurrence in part."
5. Mowrey v. Cent. City R. Co., 51 N.Y. 666 (1873)
6. Bjorndal v. Weitman, 344 Or. 470 (2008)
7. Weitz v. Baurkot, 267 Pa. Super. 471 (1979)
8. The OODA loop

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §§ 9-12 (2010)
2. Understanding Torts §§ 3.01-3.06

B vs. PL

Before

1. How much is your life worth? Come up with (1) a methodology and (2) an answer.
2. US v. Carroll Towing, 159 F.2d 169 (1947)
3. Viar v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 162 N.C. App. 362 (2004)
4. Viar v. N. Carolina Dep't of Transp., 359 N.C. 400 (2005)
5. The Death of Cynthia Nicole Wiggins
6. 20 years later
7. The Kirki disaster
8. "The Front Fell Off" (spoof)

After

1. Understanding Torts §§ 4.01-4.02

Statutory Standards

Before

1. Sibert-Dean v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 721 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2013)
2. Covid and ALEC
3. Bissinger v. New Country Buffet, No. M2011-02183-COA-R9CV, 2014 WL 2568413 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 6, 2014)

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm §§ 14-16 (2010)
2. Understanding Torts §§ 6.01-6.07

Custom

Before

1. The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932)
2. Trimarco v. Klein Ct. of App. of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98 (1982)
3. Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002)
4. Bridge

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 13 (2010)
2. Understanding Torts §§ 4.03-4.04

Professional Standards

Before

1. Calcagno v. Emery, No. A11-1212, 2012 WL 1813389 (Minn. Ct. App. May 21, 2012)
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 12 (2010)

After

1. Understanding Torts §§ 7.01-7.04
2. Efficacy of a Physician's Words of Empathy: An Overview of State Apology Laws
3. Legal Pitfalls of Medical Apology Laws
4. Learning how to say "I'm sorry"

Proving Breach

Before

1. McKeough v. Rogak, 288 A.D.2d 196 (2001)
2. Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 N.Y.2d 489 (1997)
3. Settlement Between the City of Baltimore and the Family of Freddie Gray

After

1. Survey on course activities
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Phys. & Emot. Harm § 17 (2012)
3. Understanding Torts §§ 5.01-5.04

Summary

Before

1. Review your practice exam
2. CCC: Discussion
3. Hazing hypo

After

1. Hazing hypo assessments

Negligence: Factual Cause

The Tests

Before

1. Caruso v. Cutone, 93 Mass.App.Ct. 1118, 2018 WL 3287247 (2018)
   1. Note: This is an "unpublished" case that you cannot find by the Mass.App.Ct. citation alone.
2. The but-for test
3. Clark v. Leisure Vehicles, 88 Wis. 2d 766 (Ct. App. 1979)
4. Factual cause
5. "Negligence"
6. More language
7. Brown ex rel. Brown v. Park Nicollet Clinic HealthSystem Minnesota, No. C0-00-1525, 2001 WL 506722 (Minn. Ct. App. May 15, 2001)
8. Maday v. Yellow Taxi Co. of Minneapolis, 311 N.W.2d 849 (Minn. 1981)
9. More factual cause

After

1. Restatement (Third) of Torts §§ 26-27
2. Understanding Torts §§ 11.01-03
3. Cause-in-fact for informed consent
4. Understanding Torts § 7.03
   1. Although you have previously read this section, you may wish to review it now that we have shifted from breach to factual cause.
5. Understanding Torts §§ 13.01-02

Uncertainty (Part One)

Before

1. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80 (1948)
2. Reading Thomas v. Mallet
3. Thomas ex rel. Gramling v. Mallett, 285 Wis.2d 236 (2005)
   1. This is a very long opinion by our standards -- and yet a relatively short opinion compared to many others involving "toxic torts."
4. 2008 Wisconsin Supreme Court Election
5. Wisconsin Statutes Section 895.046 (Remedies against manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and promoters of products)

After

1. Understanding Torts § 11.04[A]-[B]
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts § 28

Uncertainty (Part Two)

Before

1. Ehlinger by Ehlinger v. Sipes, 155 Wis. 2d 1 (1990)
2. Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169 (1987)

After

1. Understanding Torts § 11.04[C]

Uncertainty (Part Three)

Before

1. Butler v. Union Carbide Corp., 310 Ga. App. 21 (2011)
2. Good luck on your LRAW memos!

After

1. Understanding Torts § 11.04[D]-[E]
2. So Awkward! What to Do When a Justice Butchers a Pronunciation From the Bench?

=== Summary Before

1. Historical Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2. Scientists Can Now Blame Individual Natural Disasters on Climate Change
3. CCC: Preparation for in-class exercise

After

1. Court opinion: How would you, as a judge, answer today's question? Write an individual one-paragraph judicial opinion.

Negligence: Scope of Liability

Palsgraf v. LIRR

Before

1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
2. Sunday, August 24, 1924
3. The rest of the story
4. Michael I. Krauss, Palsgraf: The Rest of the Story (book review), 9 Green Bag 2d 309 (2006)
5. Kim Lane Scheppele, Cultures of Facts, 1 Perspectives on Politics 363-68 (June 2003)
6. Roberts v. Benoit, 605 So. 2d 1032 (La. 1991), on reh'g (May 28, 1992)
7. Juisti v. Hyatt Hotel Corp. of Maryland, 94 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1996)

After

1. There is no formal after-class assignment today.

Foreseeability

Before

1. Schafer v. Hoffman, 831 P.2d 897 (Colo. 1992)
2. Worsham v. Nix, 83 P.3d 879 (Ct. Civ. App. Okla. 2003)
3. Dupray v. JAI Dining Servs. (Phoenix), Inc., 245 Ariz. 578 (Ct. App. 2018)
4. Brewster v. Prince Apartments, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 611 (1999)

After

1. Understanding Torts Chapter 12
2. Restatement (Third) of Torts Chapter 6 (§§ 29-36)

Summary

Before

1. CCC: Exercise on scope of liability

After

1. Hypo evaluation
2. Legal Policy Arguments (Post 1 of 2) — Tying Abstract Arguments to Concrete Ones
3. Legal Policy Arguments (Post 2 of 2) — Morality, Efficiency, and Questions to Ask Yourself
4. Logical Fallacies

Negligence: Damages

Types of Damages

Before

1. Duty and damages
2. Marsch v. Am. Elec. Power Co., 207 W. Va. 174 (1999)
3. Spires v. Oxford Mining Co., 2018-Ohio-2769
4. Spires v. Oxford Mining Co., 2018-Ohio-2769

After

1. Slides from today's class
2. Understanding Torts Chapter 14
3. Looking ahead

Negligence: Affirmative Defenses

Contributory Negligence, Comparative Fault, and Assumption of Risk

Before After

Statutes of Limitation and Repose

Before After

Immunities

Before After

The Doctrinal Messiness of Rescue

Before After

Negligence: Awards

Making the Plaintiff Whole

Before After

Discrimination

Before After

Initial Apportionment

Before After

Contribution, Indemnification, and Settlement

Before After

Seatbelt Exercise

Before After

Other Torts

Intentional Torts

Before After

Trespass, Nuisance, and Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Before After

Products Liability

Before After

Privacy and Reputational Torts

Before After

Conclusion

Practice Exam

Before After

Insurance, Bankruptcy, and Inability to Collect

Before After

Alternatives

Before After

Q&A and Sendoff

Before After