Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Expert Testimony: Gold Standard - Epidemiological Proof - study of human populations. Finds relative risk: the higher the relative risk, the more likely there is a causal connection between the exposure and the illness/injury. 

Federal Evidence Rule 702 - Factors to consider: 1) whether theory is generally accepted in the scientific community; 2) whether it can be & has been tested; 3) whether potential rate of error is known and acceptable; 4) whether research is independent or research rises out of litigation

Today, Daubert Rule is standard for all expert testimony 

Dillon v. Legg

Facts: Mom and Daughter B watched as Daughter A was run down by a car. Mom was outside zone of danger, Daughter B was inside. 

Factors to Consider for Bystander Emotional Distress: 

1. P must be located near the scene of the accident 

2. P must have observed (see/hear) the accident 

3. P must have close relationship with the victim 

Rule in Iowa: 2nd degree of blood or marriage 

Garratt v. Dailey

Facts: 5-year-old Brian pulled chair out from under P, an older woman. Although Brian didn't intend for P to fall, he may have known to a "substantial certainty" that is would occur. 

Rule of Law: Actor must known with "substantial certainty" that there outcome will occur. Courts are willing to say a child can commit an intentional tort if they are able to form this level of invent.  

Katko v. Briney

Facts: Spring gun in vacant house; shoots trespasser. 

Rule of Law: Deadly force may only be used if the intrusion onto property is a threat of death or GBH to yourself or family. Deadly force never justified to defend property. No Spring Guns! 

Wagon Mound #1

Facts: Oil leaking into water; cotton waste; P's workmen drop molten metal into water; explosion

Rule of Law: Liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences of your negligent act, regardless if they are indirectly or directly caused. 

Wagon Mound #2

Facts: Same facts as Wagon Mound #1; different Plaintiffs (Argued based on Wagon Mound #1)

Rule of Law: Focus on foreseeabilty of risk by ship's engineers using Learned Hand's Risk Benefit Analysis P X L < B. Small burden of not leaking oil vs. large amount of damage it could cause

Palsgraf

Facts: Man with package of fireworks pushed on train; woman hit by scales from explosion

Rule of Law: Unforeseeable plaintiff; Cardozo: duty is foreseeable to people in the foreseeable range of danger based on your negligence. Andrew: when you are neligent, you are negligent to the whole world; direct causation

In re Polemis

Facts: Plank fell into ship via D's workers' negligence; spark causes explosion

Rule of Law: D is responsible for consequences directly traceable to his act of negligence, NOT foreseeability of damages. Domino effect. 

Rowland v. Christian

Facts: P uses bathroom and is injured when cracked handle broke; D knew about the condition and didn't warn P.

Rule of Law: CA court eliminates distinction between licensee and invitee. Now, duty to use reasonable care in all circumstances except trespassers. Makes motion for directed verdict much harder. IA - eliminated terms licensee & invitee

Rylands v. Fletcher

Facts: interconnecting mines flood; abnormally dangerous activity

Rule of Law: If you carry on an activity that is abnormally dangerous to the community, youare responsible for the consequences even if you're not neligent. Most important factor is inability to eliminate the risk by exercising reasonble care (like blasting). P doesn't have to prove negligence; NOT absolute liabilty - risk analysis

Samson v. Riesing

Facts: band mothers make turkey salad; lack of control element - not all D's negligent

Rule of Law: Negligence in the air is not enough; Like Ybarra - no way P would be able to show who was negligent; Different - no special duty. Like Summers - somebody was negligent, but don't know who; Different - not all Ds negligent, most weren't. 

Sindell v. Abbott Labs

Facts:DES, daughter develops cancer from mother taking drug.  

Rule of Law: Different from Summers - Not all Defendants are before the court. 

Market share liabilty - liabilty equivalent to % of market responsible for; didn't work. Now, national market share based on risk creation. 

Summers v. Tice

Facts: P and 2 D were hunting; Both D shoot in direction of P, 1 hits P but don't know which one. 

Rule of Law: Shifts the burden of proof since both D were negligent. We KNOW both people acted negligently - issue is causation. Less controversial than Ybarra 

Tarasoff v. Board of Regents

Facts: D told therapist he was going to kill a woman; professionals took him seriously enough to lock him up, then released; didn't warn woman and D killed her. 

Rule of Law:"particularized foreseeability" and identifiable victim. Because of the relationship between the D and psychiatrist AND the psychiatrist believed the risk was real, the psychiatrist had a duty to warn the woman. Better to give unnecessary warning than to fail giving a warning when necessary. D would argue that the duty had expired because the killing came 2 months after the threat. 

U.S. v. Carroll Towing

Facts: barge left unattended due to negligence of workers

Rule of Law: Learned Hand's Risk Benefit Analysis P X L > B = accident costs outweigh burden of taking precaution. <B burden outweights the accidient. 

Ybarra v. Spangard

Facts: P goes into surgery for appendectemy and comes out with shoulder injury. All doctors claim they did nothing to cause the injury. 

Rule of Law: Special circumstances where the burden of initial explanation shifts to D. Since no one will fess up, ALL are liable. Special duty based on medical setting. 

Summary Judgment 

after hearing all the evidence, the judge rules as a matter of law that the P has not presented enough evidence for the case to go to the jury.     

Motion to Dismiss

  before the trial, D says that even if everything P alleges is true, there is still no cause of action against him. Dismissed as a matter of law

 If Judge dismisses, appellate court must take all the P’s claim as true and determine if P can prove the claims

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict

JNOV

jury brings back verdict for P; D moves for judge to rule in his favor, not taking verdict into account

Motion for New Trial

motion made after jury brings back verdict, often when there’s an issue with jury instructions or amount jury granted. 

Remittitur

a.     motion made by D when he believes the award granted to the P was too high, and asks the judge to reduce

                                               i.     If judge agrees, he will ask the P to accept the lower award.

                                             ii.     If P does NOT accept, judge throws out the verdict and grants a new trial to D.

1.      P will usually agree to remittitur

2.     Unless the jury’s award is extreme and outrageous, a judge will not usually grant a remittitur

Third-Party Complaint

D sues another party, claiming that if he is responsible, then part of the blame (or all of the blame) goes on the third party too. 

Directed Verdict