SUMMARY OF LAST CLASS
PARTIES IN PRIVITY: 1. GRIMES: DUTY EXCEEDS CONTRACT TERMS (?) 2. SOUTHWESTERN: NO DUTY WHERE ECONOMIC LOSS PARTIES NOT IN PRIVITY WINTERBOTTOM: THE STARTING PLACE
SUMMARY (CONT.)
THE NEW YORK TRIO: 1. MOCH 2. STRAUSS 3. PALKA THE PALKA FACTORS: REVIEW AGAIN
PALKA IN CONTRAST TO MOCH
1. REASONABLY INTERCONNECTED
AND ANTICIPATED RELATIONSHIPS 2. PARTICULARITY OF ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY 3. DISPLACEMENT AND SUBSTITUTION OF A SAFETY FUNCTION 4. SET OF REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS
TORT AND CONTRACT: A SUMMARY
3 KEY VARIABLES 1. MISFEASANCE/NONFEASANCE 2. PRIVITY OR NON-PRIVITY 3. PHYSICAL OR ECONOMIC HARM PARTIES IN PRIVITY 1. IF MISFEASANCE: NO PROBLEM 2. IF NONFEASANCE: DUTY IF FORESEEABLE HARM TO P
TORT AND CONTRACT SUMMARY (MORE)
PARTIES NOT IN PRIVITY 1. IF PHYSICAL HARM AND MISFEASANCE: LIABILITY LIKELY BUT: CONCERN OVER WIDESPREAD LIABILITY (MOCH?) 2. IF PHYSICAL HARM AND NONFEASANCE: DIFFICULT AREA
TORT AND CONTRACT SUMMARY (EVEN MORE)
KEY FACTORS: 1. D’S INTENT IN K TO PROTECT THIRD PARTIES 2. SCOPE OF LIABILITY COMPARE MOCH WITH LANDLORD 3.PALKA FACTORS ECONOMIC LOSSES THORNE STILL GOOD GENERALLY
ACTION AS A PROMISE
EXAMPLE: FLORENCE (518) PROMISE PLUS RELIANCE CREATION OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP COMPARE: KIRCHER (519) ACTION AS A PROMISE: WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE DUTY? LIMITED OR GENERAL?
DUTY TO PROTECT THIRD PERSONS: IN GENERAL
THE ISSUE: DUTY OWED TO PROTECT P BECAUSE OF EITHER: 1. D’S RELATIONSHIP TO P 2. D’S RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PARTY 3. PREVIOUSLY COVERED RELATIONSHIPS IF NO REL.: THEN NONFEASANCE RULE
THIRD PARTY DUTY
THE LANDLORD EXAMPLE: POSECAI (524) FOUR BASIC APPROACHES 1. SPECIFIC HARM 2. PRIOR SIMILAR INCIDENTS 3. TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES 4. BALANCING RELATIONSHIP TO BREACH
MORE LANDLORDS AND A POSSIBLE EXPANSION
PARISH (530) THE SOCIAL GUEST RULE APPLIED TO THIRD PARTIES
BUT: DID TRUMAN “CREATE” THE RISK?