Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability, Doc 9

Summary of Key Legal Issues from Hypothetical Tort and Strict Liability Cases The following issues illustrate various aspects of tort law and strict liability as applied to hypothetical cases, shedding light on duty, negligence per se, strict liability, and the concept of intervening causes. 1. Williams v. Cingular Wireless: Negligence and Third-Party Liability o Issue: Williams sued Cingular Wireless, alleging it was negligent for providing a cell phone to Meagher, who used it while driving, leading to an accident. The central question is whether Cingular could reasonably foresee Meagher’s negligent use of the phone while driving, creating a duty of care toward other drivers. o Legal Principle: Negligence claims typically require that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. For a business like Cingular, liability hinges on whether providing a phone inherently creates a foreseeable risk of harm to third parties. o Likely Outcome: Courts often grant dismissal in cases where a product manufacturer or service provider, like Cingular, has no direct involvement in the user’s choices. Thus, the trial court likely ruled correctly in dismissing the negligence claim against Cingular. 2. Baize v. Hargis: Negligence Per Se and Regulatory Violations o Issue: Hargis’s widow claimed Baize was negligent per se for not following safety regulations related to unloading logs. Baize argued that the regulation did not create a private right of action. o Legal Principle: Negligence per se applies when a regulation’s violation directly causes harm to a class of individuals the regulation is intended to protect. Courts must consider whether such safety regulations create a standard of care for private lawsuits or are merely regulatory. o Likely Outcome: If the regulation is found to set a standard for unloading logs, then violating it constitutes negligence per se, as Baize knowingly disregarded the procedure despite prior warnings. This increases Baize’s liability, making the summary judgment for negligence per se likely favorable to the plaintiff. 3. Hresil v. Sears: Duty of Care and Premises Liability o Issue: Hresil slipped on a “gob” on the floor in a nearly empty Sears store, raising the question of whether Sears breached a duty by not promptly cleaning up the hazard. o Legal Principle: Under premises liability, a store must exercise reasonable care to ensure its premises are safe, including promptly addressing hazards. The timing and awareness of the hazard affect whether Sears had a reasonable opportunity to address it. o Likely Outcome: If Sears had reasonable time (10 minutes) to notice and remove the hazard, it may be found negligent for breaching its duty to provide safe premises. However, if 10 minutes is deemed insufficient time to notice the hazard, Sears may not be liable. 4. Delgado v. Trax Bar & Grill: Duty to Prevent Third-Party Criminal Acts o Issue: Trax’s staff observed a brewing confrontation but only asked the Delgados to leave without escorting them. Subsequently, Delgado was attacked in the parking lot. o Legal Principle: Establishments may be liable if they foreseeably fail to prevent third-party harm on their premises. Trax’s failure to escort Delgado after signs of a potential altercation could be seen as negligence if the altercation was reasonably foreseeable. o Likely Outcome: Courts may find Trax partially liable if it was foreseeable that hostility would escalate into a physical altercation, especially given Delgado’s warning and the lack of security measures. 5. Dyer v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc.: Strict Liability for Abnormally Dangerous Activities o Issue: The Dyers sought strict liability for damages caused by Maine Drilling’s blasting activities, challenging Maine’s precedent requiring proof of negligence in blasting cases. o Legal Principle: Strict liability applies to inherently dangerous activities where harm is foreseeable regardless of care. The Restatement (Second) of Torts offers a six-factor test to assess such liability. o Likely Outcome: Maine’s adoption of strict liability for blasting activities aligns with the Restatement’s guidance. Since blasting is inherently hazardous, Maine Drilling could be strictly liable for any harm resulting from its activities without needing to prove negligence.