COURSE OUTLINE: SUBJECT Page 1

UNIT
A. CHAPTER
1. DOCTRINE
Case
Synopsis
Outline Section Tag Date pp. Text_Reference
Schuster - Decedant
City of Ne !or" N!#D
$uttons - deed property to school %oard& $arry $utton - son'heir& (ac)*ains -
inter*ediary oner+s
Trial ,udge said Defendant cousin as not lia%le unless s'he in-ited .agner+s rescue.
/ppellate court re-ersed herein.
0. 1icro%us passengers sue *fg. for in,uries alleging design defect.
Consu*er conte*plation extended to %ystanders2
Court loo"s at to tests3 4. Consu*er 5xpectation Test 6yields no co*pensation and is
thus re,ected %y the court hich notes that it ould *ean *fg.+s ere
exe*pt the *ore ostensi%ly dangerous the product as7& 8. 9nstead court
ta"es *iddle ground approach and uses C':-/ ith #laintiff ha-ing %urden
of proof. Court loo"s at a ; part test to deter*ine usefulness of the
product3<)4. =sefulness and desira%ility of the product - utility %oth
to user and society as a hole<)8. >i"elihood that it ill cause
in,ury'seriousness of that in,ury<)?. /-aila%ility of a su%stitute
product<)@. 1fg.+s a%ility to eli*inate unsafe characteristics ithout
i*pairing usefullness or *a"ing it too expensi-e<)A. =ser+s a%ility to
a-oid danger %y exercising care<)B. =ser+s anticipated aareness of
danger - either %ecause of general "noledge of o%-ious condition or
%ecause of arnings<);. Ceasi%ility of *fg. to spread loss
#laintiff as aarded D81 for in,uries suffered hen his car s"idded sideays and
rapped around a pole. Cir*er side fra*e ould ha-e lessened the
in,uries. 5-en though the car+s design co*plied ith National set
standards this did not excuse *fg. fro* lia%ility.
Court notes that this result in inconsistent -erdicts across the country as different
,uries deli%erate on si*ilar facts.<)Different outco*es are neither
Efair nor efficientE Since it has %een alloed %y congressF ,ust don+t
change it again.
9ndi-iduals safety on the highay is *ore i*portant to the state than the i*pro-e*ent
of one piece of land.
/. TORTS3 .rongful or unreasona%le acts 6or o*issions7 that cause har* to another
person in so*e ay& hether physical or financial.<) 9NT5NT9ON/> -s.
=N9NT5NT9ON/> TORTS3<)=nintentional Torts include negligence and strict
lia%ility<)Distinguishing Characteristics3 rongs against indi-iduals&
no prior relationship necessary& *ost ti*es no prior
relationship.<)C/CTS3 Contracts can esta%lish prior agree*ents. Tort la
regulates and go-erns ho e can act upon each other and the
conse)uences of acting upon each other.<)Torts ansers the )uestion3 .ho
%ears the %urden of the losses associated ith the action'actor2 i.e.
There is a car accident and Crost hits $a**ontree ho looses DAFGGG. .ho
pays2<)Option H 4 /ctor'.rongdoer #ays - $a-e Crost pay.<)Option H 8
0icti* #ays - 9f Crost is not negligentF then $a**ontree pays.<)Option H
COURSE OUTLINE: SUBJECT Page 2
? Re*ote /ctor - 1anufacturer of CrostIs car pays.<)Option H @ Social
Security - Jo-ern*ent pays.<)1/9N K=5ST9ON3 $o ill losses %e
allocated2 9t could %e a closed syste*F i.e. pri-ate la syste* - losses
re*ain here and ith ho* they fall& or alternati-ely it could %e a
social insurance syste* - here e-eryone is co*pensated all the ti*e. No
lia%ility is an untena%le option %ecause it conflicts ith the interest
of in,ury pre-ention and fairness. / social insurance syste* is too
expensi-e. Thus Tort >a is the choice to help us fashion a syste* of
deter*ining allocation of losses in cases of unintentional har*.<)<):.
T.O C/T5JOR95S OC =N9NT5NT9ON/> TORTS3 N5J>9J5NC5 /ND STR9CT >9/:9>9T!
6ultrahaLardous products7<)$o court doctrinally places case ill
deter*ine ho e thin" a%out the case.<)4. Cunda*ental issue in torts is
hether to put a case in the Negligence %ox or the Strict >ia%ility
%ox.<)8. /s to this issueF there ha-e %een %ig shifts historically as
seen in $/11ONTR55 and :95R1/N.<)1/9N JO/>S OC TORT >/.3<)4.
Co*pensation for har*'in,ury<)8. #re-enting future har*s of greater
nu*%ers and'or se-erity.<)?. Redistri%ution<)@. Dislocation<)A.
/d*inistrati-e Costs/. TORTS3 .rongful or unreasona%le acts 6or
o*issions7 that cause har* to another person in so*e ay& hether
physical or financial.<) 9NT5NT9ON/> -s. =N9NT5NT9ON/>
TORTS3<)=nintentional Torts include negligence and strict
lia%ility<)Distinguishing Characteristics3 rongs against indi-iduals&
no prior relationship necessary& *ost ti*es no prior
relationship.<)C/CTS3 Contracts can esta%lish prior agree*ents. Tort la
regulates and go-erns ho e can act upon each other and the
conse)uences of acting upon each other.<)Torts ansers the )uestion3 .ho
%ears the %urden of the losses associated ith the action'actor2 i.e.
There is a car accident and Crost hits $a**ontree ho looses DAFGGG. .ho
pays2<)Option H 4 /ctor'.rongdoer #ays - $a-e Crost pay.<)Option H 8
0icti* #ays - 9f Crost is not negligentF then $a**ontree pays.<)Option H
? Re*ote /ctor - 1anufacturer of CrostIs car pays.<)Option H @ Social
Security - Jo-ern*ent pays.<)1/9N K=5ST9ON3 $o ill losses %e
allocated2 9t could %e a closed syste*F i.e. pri-ate la syste* - losses
re*ain here and ith ho* they fall& or alternati-ely it could %e a
social insurance syste* - here e-eryone is co*pensated all the ti*e. No
lia%ility is an untena%le option %ecause it conflicts ith the interest
of in,ury pre-ention and fairness. / social insurance syste* is too
expensi-e. Thus Tort >a is the choice to help us fashion a syste* of
deter*ining allocation of losses in cases of unintentional har*.<)<):.
T.O C/T5JOR95S OC =N9NT5NT9ON/> TORTS3 N5J>9J5NC5 /ND STR9CT >9/:9>9T!
6ultrahaLardous products7<)$o court doctrinally places case ill
deter*ine ho e thin" a%out the case.<)4. Cunda*ental issue in torts is
hether to put a case in the Negligence %ox or the Strict >ia%ility
%ox.<)8. /s to this issueF there ha-e %een %ig shifts historically as
seen in $/11ONTR55 and :95R1/N.<)1/9N JO/>S OC TORT >/.3<)4.
Co*pensation for har*'in,ury<)8. #re-enting future har*s of greater
nu*%ers and'or se-erity.<)?. Redistri%ution<)@. Dislocation<)A.
/d*inistrati-e Costs/. TORTS3 .rongful or unreasona%le acts 6or
o*issions7 that cause har* to another person in so*e ay& hether
physical or financial.<) 9NT5NT9ON/> -s. =N9NT5NT9ON/>
TORTS3<)=nintentional Torts include negligence and strict
lia%ility<)Distinguishing Characteristics3 rongs against indi-iduals&
no prior relationship necessary& *ost ti*es no prior
relationship.<)C/CTS3 Contracts can esta%lish prior agree*ents. Tort la
regulates and go-erns ho e can act upon each other and the
conse)uences of acting upon each other.<)Torts ansers the )uestion3 .ho
%ears the %urden of the losses associated ith the action'actor2 i.e.
COURSE OUTLINE: SUBJECT Page 3
There is a car accident and Crost hits $a**ontree ho looses DAFGGG. .ho
pays2<)Option H 4 /ctor'.rongdoer #ays - $a-e Crost pay.<)Option H 8
0icti* #ays - 9f Crost is not negligentF then $a**ontree pays.<)Option H
? Re*ote /ctor - 1anufacturer of CrostIs car pays.<)Option H @ Social
Security - Jo-ern*ent pays.<)1/9N K=5ST9ON3 $o ill losses %e
allocated2 9t could %e a closed syste*F i.e. pri-ate la syste* - losses
re*ain here and ith ho* they fall& or alternati-ely it could %e a
social insurance syste* - here e-eryone is co*pensated all the ti*e. No
lia%ility is an untena%le option %ecause it conflicts ith the interest
of in,ury pre-ention and fairness. / social insurance syste* is too
expensi-e. Thus Tort >a is the choice to help us fashion a syste* of
deter*ining allocation of losses in cases of unintentional har*.<)<):.
T.O C/T5JOR95S OC =N9NT5NT9ON/> TORTS3 N5J>9J5NC5 /ND STR9CT >9/:9>9T!
6ultrahaLardous products7<)$o court doctrinally places case ill
deter*ine ho e thin" a%out the case.<)4. Cunda*ental issue in torts is
hether to put a case in the Negligence %ox or the Strict >ia%ility
%ox.<)8. /s to this issueF there ha-e %een %ig shifts historically as
seen in $/11ONTR55 and :95R1/N.<)1/9N JO/>S OC TORT >/.3<)4.
Co*pensation for har*'in,ury<)8. #re-enting future har*s of greater
nu*%ers and'or se-erity.<)?. Redistri%ution<)@. Dislocation<)A.
/d*inistrati-e Costs