Criminal law concerns itself with "ensuring compliance with the rules and standards essential to preservation of society as a whole". (Adams 519) With each crime, however, there is often harm to a victim. Tort law deals with victim's harm often in terms of liability.
2. What are the conditions for strict liability and negligence?
Strict liability must show, "(1) the defendant did something, (2) the plaintiff was injured, and (3) the injury was caused by what the defendant did." (Adams 520) Liability in negligence is established by plaintiff when he proves all the conditions set by strict liability (see preceding def.) but additionally that, (4) defendant is at fault. Commonly referred as a "breach of duty" (Adams 520), negligence indicates that defendant did not take reasonable steps to care/regard for another's safety, and exposing another to unreasonable risk/harm.
3. What does it mean that an event A caused another event B? Give an example.
This type of causation is similar to a necessary connection, or where event (B) must be preceded by condition (A) for it to occur. A quick example is, (X) If [and only if] Prof. Albrecht gives an assignment on Tort Law, then (Y) I will complete this assignment on Tort Law on my Blog. In this case the event (Y) is caused necessarily by condition (X).
4. What is legal causation? Give an example.
Legal causation deals directly with the degree of defendant liability, after determining the factual causality (see answer 3). This is called proximate cause, or the judgement that draws limits of causal liability within fair boundaries. One can have different interpretations of proximate cause in the same example, but Judge Benjamin Cardozo argues that in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad that the parcel in which contained firecrackers, which set off the loose materials that in turn harmed Mrs. Palsgraf- was not foreseen. The Railroad has a duty not to harm Mrs. Palsgraf in all foreseeable ways. Seen this way, the Railroad is relinquished from proximate causation while still contributing partially to cause in fact.
5. What were the reasons for the court's decision in Lynch vs. Fisher? Do you agree - why or why not?
Lynch would not be injured if not for the initial negligence by Fisher, who parked his truck dangerously on the highway. Though Gunter fired the shot, it was acted in a temporary state insanity that was induced by Fisher's first negligent action. The result for this case is that Fisher is liable. I agree with this ruling because it treats properly the chain of causality in terms of proximate cause. One can easily draw this causal chain to say further back to remove Fisher from responsibility. However, these preceding elements are conditions and not causal factors in the harm inflicted. As far as Law of Torts is concerned, i think it a practical and economical way to rule this case.
6. What were the reasons for the court's decision in Palsgraff vs. LIRR? Do you agree - why or why not?
This case is similar to Lynch v. Fisher, in that it deals with proximate cause. The majority opinion was that Long Island Railroad is not guilty because the harm inflicted was not foreseeable. I disagree with this. Judge Andrews argues an opposing point that, "negligence is not a relationship between a person and those whome he might 'reasonably be expected to injure', but rather to all those whom he 'in fact' injures". (Adams 556) In Lynch v. Fisher, Fisher parked his car on the road negligently without intent to set off a chain of events leading to Gunter shooting Lynch. Yet, he is held liable because he made the first negligent action admist other conditions one can say he was aware of, reasonably. The same rationale should apply to Palsgraff v. LIRR.
Great job with all your answers!
ReplyDelete