Affirmative Obligations To Act: 1. Duty To Warn / Duty To Rescue
Affirmative Obligations To Act: 1. Duty To Warn / Duty To Rescue
Affirmative Obligations To Act: 1. Duty To Warn / Duty To Rescue
Foreseeability
Tarasoff uses the same seven considerations as Randi W.
Foreseeability is the most important consideration.
Defendants owes a duty of care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to all risks
Implied
An implied private right of action when the statute is silent
but a private right of action may be fairly applied.
A minor who is injured as a result of alcohol intoxication has a cause of action against the social
host who supplied the alcohol.
Social hosts have a duty to not knowingly and intentionally serve minor alcohol.
Social hosts do not owe a duty of care when a minor is injured as a result of alcohol intoxication
when social hosts observe the minor drinking but the minor brought his own alcohol.
2. Negligent Entrustment
a. Vince v. Wilson Driver of car causes accident. Grandmother who funded purchase of car and seller of
car and company president owe duty to person injured in accident because they provided the car to
someone who they knew to be an incompetent driver.
Negligent Entrustment
Negligent Entrustment - Liability arises out of the combined negligence of both the negligence in entrusting the chattel to an
incompetent driver and of the other in its operation.
Restatement: One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has
reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of
physical harm to himself and others who the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for
physical harm resulting to them. Applies to anyone who supplies a chattel for the use of another.
Some courts limit the liability in negligent entrustment to situations where the defendant is the owner or has the right to control
the instrumentality entrusted. This is not consistent with the Restatement rule.
Cases which restrict the rule to situations where the defendant is the owner of or has right to control have been severely
criticized because it is the negligence in entrusting which creates the unreasonable risk; and this is none the less when
the goods are conveyed.
Licensees
Trespassers
*Public Invitees
Majority Rule (Restatement 332)
Minority Rule
b. Heins v. Webster County Plaintiff visited defendants hospital and fell. Court abolished categories of
licensee and invitee but kept trespass category.
Hines Court Rule
Owners and occupiers have a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of all
lawful visitors. (This abolishes the classes of invitee and licensee)
c. Posecai v. Wal---Mart Stores, Inc. Plaintiff robbed at gunpoint in Sams Club parking lot. Court found
store owed no duty to protect customer (invitee) from crime when taking burden on defendant into
account.
Four Approaches to Duty of Landowners to Protect From Third Party Criminal Acts
Specific Harm Rule
Note:
Intrafamily Duties
Broadbent v. Broadbent
Governmental Entities