Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability, Doc 10

1. Pfenning v. Whitey’s and Others Cassie Pfenning, injured by a golf ball while driving a beverage cart during a golf outing, filed a negligence lawsuit against Whitey’s (the event sponsor), Elks Country Club (the course owner), her grandfather, and golfer Joseph Lineman. Each defendant requested summary judgment on grounds of lack of duty or inherent risk, and the trial court granted it, arguing that golf inherently involves risks for both participants and bystanders. This case focuses on duty and breach within recreational activity contexts. 2. Delgado v. Trax Delgado was assaulted in the parking lot of Trax, a bar that had a policy of dispersing groups but failed to enforce it here. Delgado sued Trax for negligence, arguing foreseeability due to the gathering of men in the parking lot. The California Court of Appeal overturned an initial jury decision favoring Delgado, citing insufficient foreseeability since similar incidents hadn’t occurred before, implying Trax had no duty to employ extra security. Delgado appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of California. 3. Archuleta v. St. Mark’s Hospital After experiencing complications post-surgery by Dr. Halversen, Tina Archuleta sued St. Mark’s for negligent credentialing, among other things. The hospital contended that Utah law doesn’t recognize negligent credentialing as a valid claim, and the trial court agreed, dismissing it. Archuleta appealed, questioning if Utah should allow such claims when a hospital fails to exercise due care in verifying physician qualifications. 4. Jones v. Kappa Alpha (KA) Fraternity Jason Jones sued KA fraternity for negligent hazing, citing physical and emotional harm from various hazing activities. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Jones assumed the risk by participating in hazing, knowing the activities' risks. This case discusses assumption of risk in negligence per se claims within a hazing context. 5. Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Davenport was injured due to a faulty floodlight at Cotton Hope Plantation. The trial court directed a verdict against him, arguing he assumed the risk of using unlit stairs. South Carolina’s appellate court reversed, asserting assumption of risk should be evaluated under comparative negligence rather than as a full defense. Cotton Hope appealed to the state Supreme Court, which would need to clarify assumption of risk in light of comparative negligence rules. 6. Hanford Nuclear Reservation Lawsuit Following health issues allegedly caused by radioactive emissions at Hanford, affected individuals sued under the Price-Anderson Act (PAA). Key issues include determining if strict liability applies to nuclear incidents under state laws adopted by PAA, considering Hanford’s unique role in military production and government indemnification policies for private contractors. 7. Texas City Disaster Liability In a massive explosion of ammonium nitrate on the SS Grandchamp, the U.S. government sought compensation for payouts it made. The defendants argued ammonium nitrate was not known to explode under such conditions. This case examines liability for transporting hazardous materials and whether strict liability applies if the dangers were partially unknown. 8. Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid After a railcar leaked toxic acrylonitrile, Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad (IHB) sued American Cyanamid under strict liability to recover cleanup costs. IHB’s claim revolved around the inherent risks of transporting hazardous chemicals. The trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of strict liability highlights the standards for holding shippers liable for hazardous materials. 9. Kiesau v. Buchanan County Kiesau, a deputy sheriff, sued her employer Buchanan County for negligent supervision and retention after her colleague Bantz altered a photograph of her in a compromising way and distributed it. Evidence showed the sheriff was aware of Bantz’s problematic behavior but took no action. The trial court dismissed Kiesau’s claims, and she appealed, focusing on whether the employer’s inaction created liability for employee misconduct. 10. Schecter v. Merchants Home Delivery, Inc. and Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing and Heating, Inc. In Schecter, the court examined negligent hiring when an employee committed a harmful act, while Raleigh involved similar considerations in determining a company’s duty to vet its employees. The prompt suggests a comparison of these cases, exploring whether the courts used consistent reasoning on employer duty and liability. These cases involve a wide array of legal issues, including the boundaries of assumption of risk, strict liability in hazardous activities, the duty of care in credentialing and supervision, and liability under statutory frameworks like the Price-Anderson Act. Each outcome hinges on specific factual contexts and interpretations of state and federal laws related to negligence and duty.