Text № 9 Liability Resulting from Negligent Conduct
Court cases arising from negligence are by far the most common form of tort suit today. This is perhaps because most automobile suits involve questions of negligence.
The essential prerequisites to a successful negligence suit are these:
* An existing duty to use proper care and attention in a certain situation;
* Conduct which lacks the proper care and diligence that can reasonably be expected under the circumstances;
* A reasonably close relationship between the cause and the effect;
* No defense to the action;
* Damage resulting from the action.
In order to sustain an action a person’s conduct must be negligent. This can be defined as conduct which falls be-low a reasonable standard.
It is important to remember that not every negligent act results in liability. The act must proximately cause the injury. For’ example, «A» negligently drives his car into «B’s» truck, setting off explosives carried inside the truck. The explosion frightens «C», who is six blocks away, causing him to fall down and break his arm. «A» obviously would be liable to «B» for his damages and injuries, but a court or jury may find that «A’s» negligent act was too remote from « C’s» injury to make him liable to «C» for damages.
Whether or not the defendant’s conduct was negligent is an important issue in most negligence suits. For purposes of discussion, negligent conduct will be separated into four general areas:
· Harm caused by a failure to act;
• Harm caused by an instrumentality controlled by another;
• Harm caused by agents or employees.
Harm directly caused by a negligent act. In this area, harm is caused by an affirmative but negligent act. In other words, the individual fails to exercise reasonable care and caution while performing a certain act. For example, a department store delivery man comes to your home to deliver a large package. While carrying it through the front door, he misjudges the distance and breaks the glass in the door. Since his act lacks the reasonable care that can be expected under the circumstances, he is liable for the broken pane.
Another circumstance which can result in liability for negligence is the «misplaced sponge» situation.
Mrs. Jones is to have an operation for an appendectomy. After the operation is completed, the hospital staff discovers that one of the surgical sponges is missing. Subsequent investigation establishes that the sponge was left in Mrs. Jones’s body during the operation. This conduct is negligent. Mrs. Jones may be able to recover from the hospital and possibly from the doctor.
|
|
|
The grounds for recovery in this case stem from society’s belief that it is negligent conduct to surgically operate and leave a sponge in the patient.
An interesting sidelight to this tort action is the question of proof. Because she was unconscious, it would be impossible for the patient to testify positively that a negligent act occurred during the operation. Thus, to allow the patient to recover damages, the law utilizes the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This Latin phrase, literally meaning «the thing-speaks for itself», permits a jury to infer negligence by the circumstances of the situation. Applied to the example it means that sponges are not, in the absence of negligence, left inside patients. Moreover, since no one else had access to the patient’s stomach, it can be inferred that the doctor, the hospital, or both acted negligently in the conduct of the operation. This theory permits the patient to recover for the damages she sustained.
Automobile suits are among the most frequently heard cases in court. Moreover, almost all suits arising from automobile accidents involve questions of negligence. Since paying for property damage and personal injuries can reach astronomical proportions, the question of who is liable for the damages is crucial.
However, an alternative method of compensating auto accident victims has gained publicity and use in recent years, the so-called «no-fault» insurance plan.
In a total no-fault system, each driver would be covered by the same type of policy, so that in an accident each motorist would be paid by his own insurance company for any injuries to himself or passengers, or damage to his own car or other property, without regard to who was responsible for the accident.
While such a system seems to run contrary to the concept of tort liability, its proponents claim some advantages for it. First, they say, settlement of claims is much speedier, since the matter does not have to be adjudicated. For the same reason, legal costs to insurance companies are reduced, resulting in .savings on premium rates being passed to the motorist.
|
|
|
As of January 1, 1974, the majority of states had not enacted no-fault laws, but most were considering the move. In addition, a national no-fault law was being considered by Congress. However, the states which had enacted no-fault laws retained provisions for lawsuits to recover additional damages.
The law imposes a duty on the automobile operator to drive with a reasonable amount of care and in a manner which does not interfere with the rights of others. If the driver’s conduct does not measure up to this reasonable standard, it will be labeled as negligent. The driver will be liable for any injuries resulting from his conduct. For example, while driving along the highway, «A» falls asleep at the wheel. His car crosses the median and collides with «B» who was driving in a reasonable manner. Based on these facts, «A» is liable to «B» for any personal injuries and any property damage to «B’s» car. That is the simple situation. In an actual case, the individual laws of a particular state may prescribe additional rules.
Harm caused by a failure to act. A person may be liable for injuries due to negligence when he has a duty to act and fails to do so.
In the early development of law, the courts distinguished between nonfeasance and misfeasance. Individuals had no duty to protect or aid others, but if they so attempted and failed, they were liable for misfeasance. More recently, courts have imposed upon individuals the duty to act when they are in a special relation to the victim. For example, an individual is not required by law to save a person who is drowning in a public waterhole. However, if the pool is located on his property, the landowner is obliged to make a reasonable attempt to save a person who appears to be drowning.
The law also specifies that common carriers, such as railroad and airline personnel, innkeepers and hotel managers, have a duty to act in situations involving members of the public. For example, a railroad has a duty to aid any passengers who become ill. If the railroad does not offer ist help, it will be held liable for damages by aggravation of the illness. Under the same principle, innkeepers have a duty to respond to the emergencies of their guests.
|
|
|
The law does not always require individuals to help one another. However, if a person tries to help someone in a perilous situation and, in the process, commits a negligent act, he is liable for the resulting aggravation of the injury.
Harm caused by an instrumentality controlled by another. Under this broad rule an individual in control of a machine or instrumentality is liable for damages to any person injured by that instrumentality. If an elevator cable broke because of negligent inspection and caused injuries to the passengers, the owner of the store and/or the elevator inspection company would be liable for the resulting injuries.
In another example, a bottling company would be liable to the individual consumer if its bottling machine processed a full bottle which contained some harmful foreign matter. Since the company is in control of the machine, and since it is impossible for the foreign matter to come from another source, the company is liable for damages incurred by the consumer.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission issues safety standards for the performance, composition, contents, design, construction, finish, and packaging of consumer products. The commission also has the power to ban hazardous products.
A person injured because a manufacturer violated a consumer product safety rule mac bring suit in the United States District Court and recover damages sustained and, in some cases, attorney fees.
Harm caused by agents or employees. Employers are responsible for negligent acts committed by their employees or agents. Suppose Acme Gravel Company delivers a load of crushed stone to Mr. Olson’s driveway. While completing the delivery, the truck driver negligently backs into Mr. Olson’s boat. Acme, which has control over and is responsible for its driver, would be liable to Mr. Olson for the damage to the boat.
For the employer to be liable, the employee must have caused the damage while doing his job. Suppose the truck driver in the above example, instead of to drive across town to see his girl friend. If he had an accident on the way, his employer most likely would not be liable.
|
|
|
Defenses. There are several defenses which are applicable to all three areas of negligent conduct. Each of these either erases or lessens the amount of liability. Essentially, there are four doctrines which constitute a complete or partial defense to liability for damages caused by negligent conduct:
• Contributory negligence;
• Assumption of the risk;
• Last clear chance;
• Comparative negligence.
Under the theory of contributory negligence, if the person bringing suit for negligence damages has acted negligently himself, he is precluded from any recovery. This rule applies in almost all states. It is illustrated by an example below.
Assume the following facts in this situation: Although it is a rainy night, Mr. Jones is not watching the road carefully. As a result he crosses the median strip of the highway and crashes head-on into Mr. Smith’s car. However, Mr. Smith did not have his headlights or windshield wipers on, nor was he paying attention to the traffic. Thereafter, Mr. Smith sues Mr. Jones on the theory that Jones acted negligently when he crossed the median. According to Smith this act resulted in his personal injury and harm to his property. At the trial, Mr. Jones defends himself on the theory that Mr. Smith was contributorily negligent. In other words, Smith’s failure to pay attention and to turn on his wipers and headlights was unreasonable under the circumstances and therefore contributed to the accident. Under this set of facts, the theory of contributory negligence could be applied successfully.
Under the laws of most states, the existence of contributory negligence bars any recovery. This rule is based on the theory that a person should not be permitted to recover in a lawsuit when his own conduct partially contributed to the injury.
The defense of contributory negligence cannot be applied to an intentional tort. For example, if «A» commits a battery upon «B», «A» cannot defend by alleging that «B’s» conduct negligently helped to bring about the act.
On the other hand, if the plaintiff is suing under the theory that the other person, was acting recklessly, a more serious offense, then a defense of contributory negligence would not preclude his recovery. Suppose in our earlier example that Mr. Jones was drunk while driving. This is a strong indication of reckless conduct. The fact that Mr. Smith was contributorily negligent would not prevent him from recovering for the reckless conduct or gross negligence of Mr. Jones.
Assumption of the risk means that a person, with full knowledge of the risk of possible harm, voluntarily under-takes a course of action that might cause him injury. If he is later injured by that action, he cannot recover be-cause he knew the risks of injury, yet agreed to take his own chances. One of the most common applications of this defense occurs in connection with sports events.
In another case, suppose Baker offers Dan a ride in his hot rod but tells him that one tire is extremely weak and may blow out very soon. If, knowing this risk, Dan accepts the ride, he will have assumed any risk of injury. The tire does in fact blow, the car rolls over, and both persons are injured. Dan will be unable to recover from Baker because, knowing the danger of a blowout, hi fully consented to the ride.
Although conduct which constitutes contributory negligence and conduct which is called assumption of the risk are similar, they are unusually distinguishable. Contributory negligence seldom involves a knowledge of any particular risk; it is merely negligent conduct. However, when a per-son assumes the risk, he has a good idea of the type of danger he is courting. Also, some actions that involve assumption of risk conduct may not involve negligence. Attending a baseball game is an example.
Because many people were dissatisfied with the harsh rulings that often resulted in cases involving contributory negligence, the rule has been modified to include the doctrine of last clear chance. Under this theory, the last person who could avoid the injury or damage is liable. This doctrine covers essentially two situations. In the first, the plain-tiff, because of some negligent conduct on his part, places himself in a helpless condition. The defendant notices this situation in time to avoid it, fails to avoid it, and causes injury to the plaintiff. Despite the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, courts permit him to recover under the theory that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. Suppose Williams is riding his bicycle through a busy intersection. He falls, due to his own negligence, and the bike lands on him. Townsend, who is driving toward the intersection, sees Williams lying helpless in the street, yet runs over him. Since Townsend could have avoided the accident, Williams is permitted to recover from Town-send under the theory of last clear chance.
The second situation involves an «inattentive plaintiff». In this case the victim is able to escape. The defendant, aware of the danger and able to avoid the plaintiff, still injures him. The defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the doctrine of last clear chance. To illustrate, Jones stops his car on a railroad trestle to observe the view. He does not see a train coming from the opposite direction. The railroad engineer, negligently thinking that Jones will move on, does not blow his whistle. Furthermore, instead of stopping the train, the engineer proceeds through the crossing and injures Jones. Although Jones was negligent in his failure to pay proper attention, he will be permitted to recover from the railroad because the engineer had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
The doctrine of comparative negligence is similar in origin to the doctrine of last clear chance. It also was developed to alleviate court rulings against an injured party who negligently contributed to his own injury. Generally provided by statute, this doctrine seeks to apportion the recovery of money in accordance with the degree to which each party was negligent. For example, if «A’s» negligence is found to be twice «B’s» negligence, «B» would recover two-thirds of the damages he suffered. This doctrine exists in only a handful of states, including Nebraska, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Arkansas, and Illinois. The doctrine works as follows:
«A» is injured in an accident with «B». «B» is sued by «A». The jury determines that «A’s» damages total $100,000 and that «B’s» negligence accounted for two-thirds of the damages. Accordingly, «A» would recover $67,000 from «B».
Tasks for the text:
1. Read the title of the text and say what the text is about.
2. Divide the text into some parts and name each part.
3. Make up the plan of the text.
4. Find the sentences in each part which contain the main idea.
5. Say what new facts and information you have found out from the text.
6. Give a brief summary of the text.
Дата добавления: 2018-04-15; просмотров: 946; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!