L.S. Ayres & Co. v Hicks
Failure to Act Relevant Facts: John Hicks, the appellee, a six year old boy, visited the appellant's department store in company with his mother, who was engaged in shopping. While descending from the third floor on an escalator, the appellee fell at the second floor landing and some fingers of both his hands were caught in the moving parts of the escalator at the place where it disappears into the floor. the escalator on which appellee was injured was equipped with switch buttons at each floor landing by which it could be stopped in about 2 1/2 steps; that appellant had clerks working within 50 feet of the place where appellee was injured, all of whom had not been instructed how to stop the escalator; Legal Issue(s): Whether ? Court’s Holding: Procedure: Personal injury action by John Hicks, by Wendell Hicks, his next friend, against L. S. Ayres & Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and the cause was transferred to the Supreme Court Judgment reversed with directions. Law or Rule(s): Under some circumstances, moral and humanitarian considerations may require one to render assistance to another who has been injured, even though the injury was not due to negligence on his part and may have been caused by the negligence of the injured person. Failure to render assistance in such a situation may constitute actionable negligence if the injury is aggravated through lack of due care Court Rationale: The appellee was an invitee and he received his initial injury in using an instrumentality provided by the appellant and under its control, this was a sufficient relationship to impose a duty upon the appellant. Appellant can only be charged with failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid aggravation. The measure of that duty is not unlike that imposed by the rule of the last clear chance or doctrine of discovered peril . The jury should have been limited and restricted in assessing the damages to the injuries that were the proximate result of the appellant's actionable negligence. those injuries which occurred as a result of their failure to adhere to the duty and which breach aggravated the injury. Defendant’s Argument: There could have been no incidental duty on the appellant to anticipate an accident, to instruct its employees, or to keep someone in attendance when the machine was in operation. Last Chance- To invoke the application of the last clear chance as it has been defined in this state, the defendant must have had knowledge of the plaintiff's situation of peril and
of his helpless condition and, thereafter, have failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid harming him. J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H. Facts: Two young girls had been caring for horses belonging to D’s husband on his farm for a significant time period. It was found that he’d been sexually abusing them for approximately one year. The man was convicted of the sex crimes and imprisoned for 18 months. The girls, along with their parents, brought an action against the abuser’s wife contending that she was negligent in preventing the sex acts through failure to act as she should have known of her husband’s propensities. D argues: She owed no duty to Ps. The injuries incurred by the P’s were inflicted by a third party over whom she exercised no control. She argued that her husband was the sole source of culpability. P argues: The wife should have been aware of husband’s propensities. The further argue she contributed to proximate cause. Issue: If the wife in this case suspects her husband of sexual abuse, does she have a duty to act upon this suspicion to avoid negligence liability? Does her failure to act constitute proximate cause? Possibly…In the present case the facts should be examined in discovery. Procedure: TC entered a summary judgment on behalf of D. The appellate division reversed and remanded for discovery. In a unanimous opinion, Supreme CT of NJ affirmed the appellate court. Law: The ability to foresee a potential injury to a P is the determining factor in determining whether duty should be imposed. Rationale: The scope of the duty is determined by the totality of circumstances. Whether or not failure to act falls within this scope is up to the jury to decide.
Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California
Failure to Act Relevant Facts: On October 27, 1969, Prosenjit Poddar killed Tatiana Tarasoff. Plaintiffs, Tatiana's parents, allege that two months earlier Poddar confided his intention to kill Tatiana to Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist employed by the Cowell Memorial Hospital at the University of California at Berkeley. They allege that on Moore's request, the campus police briefly detained Poddar, but released him when he appeared rational.
They further claim that Dr. Harvey Powelson, Moore's superior, then directed that no further action be taken to detain Poddar. No one warned plaintiffs of Tatiana's peril. Legal Issue(s): Whether when df therapists failure to warn plaintiffs--Tatiana's parents-of the danger to Tatiana was a breach of duty to safeguard their patient and the public ? Court’s Holding: The therapist owes a legal duty not only to his patient, but also to his patient's would-be victim and is subject in both respects to scrutiny by judge and jury.' Procedure: Action against university regents, psychotherapists employed by university hospital and campus police trial ct. sustained df demurrers without leave to amend, and pl appealed. Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings. Law or Rule(s): a duty of care may arise from either '(a) a special relation . . . between the actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the third person's conduct, or (b) a special relation . . . between the actor and the other which gives to the other a right of protection.' Court Rationale: Df therapists cannot escape liability merely because Tatiana herself was not their patient. When a therapist determines, or pursuant to the standards of his profession should determine, that his patient presents a serious danger of violence to another, he incurs an obligation to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim against such danger. The discharge of this duty may require the therapist to take one or more of various steps, depending upon the nature of the case. Thus it may call for him to warn the intended victim or others likely to apprise the victim of the danger, to notify the police, or to take whatever other steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances. Plaintiff’s Argument: Tatiana's death proximately resulted from defendants' negligent failure to warn Tatiana or others likely to apprise her of her danger. Defendant’s Argument: The circumstances of the present case they owed no duty of care to Tatiana or her parents and that, in the absence of such duty, they were free to act in careless disregard of Tatiana's life and safety. Obviously we do not require that the therapist, in making that determination, render a perfect performance; the therapist need only exercise 'that reasonable degree of skill, knowledge, and care ordinarily possessed and exercised by members of (that professional specialty) under similar circumstances. Daily v. LaCroix Limits on Duty of Care - Mental Disturbance and Resulting Injury Relevant Facts: Df was driving down a HWY when his car left the road, traveled 63 feet in the air for 209 ft beyond the road, snapping a utility pole off. The lines broke, and
caused a great electrical explosion to pl property. Estelle suffered from emotional disturbance, and neurosis, while Timothy suffered similarly. Legal Issue(s): Whether a person can recover for mental disturbance caused by df’s neg. without an accompanying physical injury ? Court’s Holding: Under certain conditions, this isn’t one of them. Court Rationale: Although the mother happened upon the accident where her son was mortally wounded, she was not within the zone of immediacy. When the accident occurred she was not present. Without an accompanying physical injury or her presence when the negligent act caused the physical injury to her son, there is no recovery for mental disturbance.