1 / 11

REVIEW

REVIEW. INFORMED CONSENT SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE CAUSATION EXCEPTIONS: EMERGENCY, PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE, THERAPEUTIC PRIVILEGE TRUMAN : THE “NON-BATTERY” SCENARIO. REVIEW (CONT.). DAMAGE REQUIRED (NO NOMINAL DAMAGE) KINDS OF DAMAGE ACTUAL CAUSE: THE “BUT FOR” TEST

felcia
Download Presentation

REVIEW

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. REVIEW INFORMED CONSENT SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE CAUSATION EXCEPTIONS: EMERGENCY, PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE, THERAPEUTIC PRIVILEGE TRUMAN: THE “NON-BATTERY” SCENARIO

  2. REVIEW (CONT.) DAMAGE REQUIRED (NO NOMINAL DAMAGE) KINDS OF DAMAGE ACTUAL CAUSE: THE “BUT FOR” TEST THE “2-DEFENDANT” SCENARIOS—SEE NEXT PAGE

  3. PROBLEMS WITH THE “BUT FOR” TEST: 2 OR MORE Ds TWO-DEFENDANT LIABILITY 1. SITUATION 1: INDIVISIBLE INJURY 2. SITUATION II: D1 SETS STAGE FOR D2 JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY 3. SEPARATE INJURIES: 2 BICYCLISTS 4. CAUSING PART OF THE INJURY 5. LIABILITY WITHOUT “BUT FOR” CAUSATION RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/CONCERT OF ACTION

  4. MORE PROBLEMS WITH ACTUAL CAUSE LANDERS: WHAT DID EACH D CAUSE? IS THE INJURY INDIVISIBLE? LANDERS TWIN FIRES: ANDERSON THE PROBLEM: APPLY “BUT FOR” TEST THE SOLUTION: THE “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST

  5. THE SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST APPLIED TO LANDERS WHAT IF THE WATER OF D1 ENTERED FIRST? CALIFORNIA RULE HYPO: POLICE INJURY CASE

  6. CAUSATION OR DAMAGE? DILLON WHAT INJURY DID D CAUSE? PRACTICALITIES OF USING DILLON WHAT IF P WOULD HAVE REGAINED BALANCE? NEGLIGENCE REDUX: WHAT WAS THE NEGLIGENT ACT?

  7. MORE TWO-D CAUSATION PROBLEMS SUMMERS: APPLYING THE ACTUAL CAUSE RULES CONCERT OF ACTION? THE SOLUTION: ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY RATIONALE P. 224 NOTES 2 AND 3 DOE: COMPARE TO SUMMERS

  8. MULTI-D CAUSATION PROBLEMS HYMOWITZ THE CAUSATION PROBLEM THE MARKET SHARE THEORY RATIONALE PROBLEMS: 1. WHAT MARKET? 2. ORPHAN SHARES? 3. DISPROVING CAUSATION?

  9. MARKET SHARE IN ACTION I 4 PS EACH SUFFER $100,000 DAMAGE EACH BOUGHT FROM SEPARATE D FOUR DS: EACH WITH 25% OF THE MARKET IF PS CAN EACH RECOVER: HOW MUCH DOES EACH D PAY?

  10. MARKET SHARE IN ACTION I(CONT.) UNDER TRADITIONAL RULES, HOW MUCH DOES EACH D PAY? D1 D2 D3 D4 P1 100,000 0 0 0 P2 0 100,000 0 0 P3 0 0 100,000 0 P4 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

  11. MARKET SHARE IN ACTION II UNDER MARKET SHARE, HOW MUCH DOES EACH D PAY? D1 D2 D3 D4 P1 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 P2 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 P3 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 P4 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

More Related