DOCSLIB.ORG

Connecticut Judicial Branch Civil Jury Instructions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Connecticut Judicial Branch Civil Jury Instructions This collection of jury instructions was compiled by the Civil Jury Instruction Committee and is intended as a guide for judges and attorneys in constructing charges and requests to charge. The use of these instructions is entirely discretionary and their publication by the Judicial Branch is not a guarantee of their legal sufficiency. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hon. Susan Quinn Cobb, Chairperson Hon. Harry E. Calmar Hon. John L. Cordani Hon. John B. Farley Hon. Matthew E. Frechette Hon. Kimberly A. Knox Hon. John D. Moore Hon. Cesar A. Noble Hon. Sheila A. Ozalis Hon. Andrew W. Roraback Hon. James Sicilian Hon. Barry K. Stevens Hon. Thomas J. Welch Prepared by Judge Support Services, Superior Court Operations © 1999-2021. Connecticut Judicial Branch. All rights reserved. ABOUT THESE INSTRUCTIONS This collection of jury instructions was compiled by the Civil Jury Instruction Committee and is intended as a guide for judges and attorneys in constructing charges and requests to charge. The use of these instructions is entirely discretionary and their publication by the Judicial Branch is not a guarantee of their legal sufficiency. In addition to instructions covering the most commonly encountered civil issues, there is also a section for verdict forms. Commentary Footnotes appear in the body of the instruction to reference case law discussing specific language. The Authority section cites to the primary authorities, including case law, statutes, and treatises, for the proposition(s) stated in the instructions. Some instructions have a Notes section, which provides practice tips for using and adapting the instructions. Revisions The revision date indicates the date the Civil Jury Instructions Committee approved the adoption or substantive revision of an instruction. When a minor stylistic change or an update to the commentary is made, but the substantive body of the instruction remains the same, it will be indicated by a parenthetical date for modification. For example, “Revised to January 1, 2008 (modified June 15, 2008)” means that on June 15, 2008, the instruction or its commentary was modified in some minor way that did not affect the substance of the instruction. Formatting Conventions • Bold-faced titles and subheadings are included to make the instructions easier to read and are not part of the instruction. • Angle brackets and italicized text are used to enclose directives to follow in customizing the charge. E.g., <insert name of person injured>. Angle brackets are also used to refer to other instructions that may contain some additional useful information. E.g., <Insert Legal Cause, Instruction 3.1-1.> • Parentheses are used to indicate that a choice between words or phrases is necessary. This is most commonly used for gender-specific pronouns, e.g., (he/she) or (his/her). It is also used when an instruction offers several terms, not all of which may be applicable to the case. If the choices are lengthy, such that stringing them together in a single parentheses would be cumbersome to read, they are separated into a bulleted list. For example, These damages may consist of <include as applicable:> • direct damages (expectation, reliance), • liquidated damages, • consequential damages, • incidental damages, all of which I will explain in a moment. • Square brackets are used to indicate that a portion of the instruction is optional. It will be preceded by an italicized directive defining the circumstances under which the language would be appropriate, unless it is clear from the language itself. For example, [<If the plaintiff has plead in the alternative:> For you to find for the plaintiff under this legal principle, you must first find that there was no written or oral contract expressed in words and no contract implied by conduct for <insert precise issue>. If you find that there was no contract for <insert precise issue> between the parties, you may consider whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover under promissory estoppel.] Note that square brackets in commentary have their common meaning, i.e., the paraphrasing of small portions of quoted material. RECENT CHANGES June 28, 2021 New Instruction The following new instruction was approved by the committee: 3.4-11 Damages - Future Economic Damages - Medical Expenses Revised Instruction The following instruction was revised by the committee: 3.9-33 Strict Liability of One Who Keeps a Dog The committee removed the statute from the body of the instruction and revised the text of the statute and the notes to the instruction to reflect recent statutory amendments. TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1: Preliminary and Trial Instructions Part 2: General Instructions Part 3: Torts Part 4: Contracts Part 5: Miscellaneous Actions Part 6: Verdict Forms – Samples Prepared by Judge Support Services, Superior Court Operations © 1999-2021. Connecticut Judicial Branch. All rights reserved. PART 1: PRELIMINARY AND TRIAL INSTRUCTIONS 1.1 BEFORE THE START OF EVIDENCE 1.2 DURING EVIDENCE 1.1 BEFORE THE START OF EVIDENCE 1.1-1 Obligation of Juror's Oath 1.1-2 Description of the Order of the Trial 1.1-3 No Deliberations until Completion of Evidence and Charge 1.1-4 Note-Taking 1.1-5 Questions by Jurors 1.1-6 Limitation on Contact with Jurors 1.1-7 Schedule of the Trial 1.1-8 Communications with the Court 1.1-9 Deaf or Hearing Impaired Jurors: Interpreter 1.1-10 Replacement of Regular Juror with Alternate Juror 1.1-11 Use of Interpreter at Trial 1.1.12 Self Representation 1.1-1 Obligation of Juror's Oath Revised to October 11, 2013 A few moments ago you took an oath that will govern your conduct as jurors between the time you took that oath and the time that you are discharged by me after you have rendered a verdict in this case. That oath and the rules of court obligate you to do certain things and to avoid other things. These are called the Rules of Juror Conduct. You were given a copy when you were selected as a juror. Because they are so important, I want to review those with you again. First, you must decide this case based only on the evidence presented here in court and on the law as I will explain it to you. Second, do not make up your minds about what your verdict will be until after you have heard all the evidence, the closing arguments of the attorneys and my instructions on the law, and, after that, you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence. Keep an open mind until that time. There are some rules that flow from these obligations, and I'll go over them now. You may not perform any investigations or research or experiments of any kind on your own, either individually or as a group. Do not consult any dictionaries for the meaning of words or any encyclopedias for general information on the subjects of this trial. Do not look anything up on the Internet concerning information about the case or any of the people involved, including the parties, the witnesses, the lawyers, or the judge. Do not get copies of any statutes that may be referred to in court. Do not go to the scenes where any of the events that are the subject of this trial took place or use Internet maps or Google Earth or any other program or device to search for or view any place discussed during the case. Why? Because the parties have a right to have the case decided only on evidence they know about and that has been introduced here in court. If you do some research or investigation or experiment that we don't know about, then your verdict may be influenced by information that has not been tested by the oath to tell the truth and by cross-examination. The same thing is true of any media reports you may come across about the case or anybody connected with the case. If you do come across any reports in the newspaper or a magazine, on TV, or any Internet site or "blog," you may not read or watch them because they may refer to information not introduced here in court or they may contain inaccurate information. You may not discuss the case with anyone else, including anyone involved with this case until the trial is over, and you have been discharged as jurors. "Anyone else" includes members of your family, your friends, your coworkers; if you wish, you may tell them you are serving as a juror, but you may not tell them anything else about the case until it is over, and I have discharged you. You may not talk to any of the court personnel, such as marshals and clerks, about the case. Why is that? Because they haven't heard the evidence you have heard, and in discussing the case with them, you may be influenced in your verdict by their opinions, and that would not be fair to the parties, and it may result in a verdict that is not based on the evidence and the law. You may not communicate to anyone any information about the case. This includes communication by any means, such as text messages, email, Internet chat rooms, blogs, and social websites like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, or Twitter. The parties are entitled to a fair trial, rendered by an impartial jury, and you must conduct yourself so as to maintain the integrity of the trial process. When you have rendered a verdict and been dismissed by the court, you will be free to discuss the case with anyone you wish, though remember that you are not required to. Until then you must be focused solely on the evidence presented in the courtroom and your obligations to the fairness of the proceeding.
Recommended publications
  • Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: a Comparison of Legislative Approaches Within the European Union

    Protecting Women from the New Crime of Stalking: a Comparison of Legislative Approaches Within the European Union

    PROTECTING WOMEN FROM THE NEW CRIME OF STALKING: A COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION DAPHNE PROJECT 05-1/125/W PROTECTING WOMEN FROM THE NEW CRIME OF STALKING: A COMPARISON OF LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION FINAL REPORT EXECUTED BY UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA MODENA GROUP ON STALKING IN COOPERATION WITH University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Psychology (The Netherlands) Catholic University of Leuven, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology (Belgium) Barnet, Enfield & Haringey, Mental Health Nhs Trust, North London Forensic Service (UK) University of Maribor, Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security (Slovenia) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Department de Ciència Politica i de Dret Pùblic (Spain) National Bureau of Investigation of Vantaa, Süomi (Finland) Technical University of Darmstadt, Centre of Forensic Psychology (Germany) FOR THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WITH FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE DAPHNE II PROGRAMME EUROPEAN COMMISSION-DIRECTORATE GENERAL JUSTICE AND HOME AFFAIRS APRIL 2007 ii This study is the result of a European project supported by the European Commission- Directorate General Justice and Home Affairs. The report was completed in April 2007 (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) Paper copies can be obtained through: [email protected] A pdf version of the report is available on the website http://stalking.medlegmo.unimo.it The contents of this report represent the views of its authors and not necessarily those of the European Commission. iii Table
  • The Morality of Strict Liability

    The Morality of Strict Liability

    THE MORALITY OF STRICT TORT LIABILITY JULES L. COLEMAN* Accidents occur; personal property is damaged and sometimes is lost altogether. Accident victims are likely to suffer anything from mere bruises and headaches to temporary or permanent disability to death. The personal and social costs of accidents are staggering. Yet the question of who should bear these costs has turned the heads of few philosophers and has occasioned surprisingly little philo- sophic discussion. Perhaps that is because the answer has seemed so obvious; accident costs, at least the nontrivial ones, ought to be borne by those at fault in causing them.' The requirement of fault at one time appeared to be so deeply rooted in the concept of per- sonal responsibility that in the famous Ives2 case, Judge Werner was moved to argue that liability without fault was not only immoral, but also an unconstitutional violation of due process of law. Al- * Ph.D., The Rockefeller University; M.S.L., Yale Law School. Associate Professor of Philosophy, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The author wishes to acknowledge the enormous impact that Joel Feinberg and Guido Calabresi have had on the philosophic and legal ideas set forth in this Article, and to express appreciation to Mitchell Polinsky, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Prichard for their valuable assistance. This Article constitutes part of the author's forthcoming book, RESPONSIBIITY AND Loss ALLOCATION OF THE LAW OF TORTS (Ed.). 1. The term "fault" takes on different shades of meaning, depending upon the legal context in which it is used. For example, the liability of an intentional or reckless tortfeasor is determined differently from that of a negligent tortfeasor.
  • The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin & Rabin's Tort Law And

    The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin & Rabin's Tort Law And

    CASEBOOK REVIEW The Wide World of Torts: Reviewing Franklin & Rabin's Tort Law and Alternatives Bernard W. Bell* Tort Law and Alternatives authored by Stanford Law School pro- fessors Marc Franklin and Robert Rabin, and recently released in its Seventh Edition, continues to serve as an excellent casebook.' To paraphrase the introduction to the American Broadcasting Company's popular sports anthology, the Wide World of Sports, the casebook spans the country2 to bring students the constant variety of tort litiga- tion.3 Tort law is, in a sense, very traditional-late 19th and early 20th century caselaw provides much of its foundation and many of the ba- sic doctrines have long been settled. At the same time, tort law un- dergoes continuous metamorphosis. Franklin and Rabin have man- aged to maintain a good balance between the old chestnuts, such as * Professor, Rutgers Law School (Newark). I attended Stanford Law School (Class of 1981) and was a student in Marc Franklin's Torts class. 1. MARC A. FRANKLIN & ROBERT L. RABIN, TORT LAW AND ALTERNATIVES: CASES AND MATERIALS (7th ed. 2001). 2. In earlier editions of the casebook, the authors predominantly used cases from New York and California state courts. With each edition, the authors have progressively added geographic variety so that the principal cases increasingly come from jurisdictions other than New York and California. In the seventh edition, the authors have added cases from jurisdictions whose cases were not represented among those featured as principal cases in the sixth edition. Id. at 18 (Utah), 24 (Texas), 95 (Florida), 110 (Rhode Island), 186 (Washington), 198 (Nebraska), 207 (Louisiana), 215 (Arizona), 359 (New Mexico), 399, 917 (Iowa), 452 (Oklahoma), 476 (South Carolina), 632 (New Hampshire), 876 (North Dakota).
  • Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons Or Abused Children? Marc A

    Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons Or Abused Children? Marc A

    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 40 | Number 4 Article 3 1-1-2000 Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children? Marc A. Franklin Matthew loP eger Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Marc A. Franklin and Matthew Ploeger, Symposium, Of Rescue and Report: Should Tort Law Impose a Duty to Help Endangered Persons or Abused Children?, 40 Santa Clara L. Rev. 991 (2000). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss4/3 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OF RESCUE AND REPORT: SHOULD TORT LAW IMPOSE A DUTY TO HELP ENDANGERED PERSONS OR ABUSED CHILDREN? Marc A. Franklin* & Matthew Ploeger** I. INTRODUCTION This essay explores whether a civil duty to rescue' should be imposed on a person who has the apparent ability to save another person or to prevent that person from entering a po- sition of peril.2 It also examines the related question of * Frederick I. Richman Professor, Stanford Law School. LL.B., Cornell Law School; A.B., Cornell University. A version of this essay was presented at the Santa Clara Law Review Symposium, Law, Ethics, and the Good Samari- tan, held at Santa Clara University School of Law on March 24, 2000.
  • Unrealized Torts

    Unrealized Torts

    Fordham Law School FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History Faculty Scholarship 2002 Unrealized Torts Benjamin C. Zipursky Fordham University School of Law, [email protected] John C.P. Goldberg Harvard Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Benjamin C. Zipursky and John C.P. Goldberg, Unrealized Torts, 88 Va. L. Rev. 1625 (2002) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/834 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 88 DECEMBER2002 NUMBER 8 ARTICLES UNREALIZED TORTS John C.P. Goldberg*& Benjamin C. Zipursky** INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1626 I. REALIZED WRONGS .................................................................. 1636 A . Crime versus Tort ................................................................ 1636 B. Tort as Civil Recourse ......................................................... 1641 II. WHEN IS HEIGHTENED RISK A COGNIZABLE INJURY? . ..... 1650 III. RISK OF FUTURE INJURY AND THE LAW OF EMOTIONAL D ISTRESS ....................................................................................
  • Loss of Consortium Damages

    Loss of Consortium Damages

    If you have questions or would like further information regarding Loss of Consortium, 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 please contact: www.querrey.com® Chuck Blackman 312-540-7682 © 2011 Querrey & Harrow, Ltd. All rights reserved. [email protected] ILLINOIS LAW MANUAL CHAPTER XIV DAMAGES C. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM In Illinois, under certain circumstances, an Reiss, 92 Ill. App. 3d 200 (1980); Medley v. injured person’s spouse is entitled to damages for Strong, 200 Ill. App. 3d 488 (1990). “loss of consortium.” I.P.I. 32.04 (2000). Loss of consortium has been defined to include the However, where two persons have a valid support, society, companionship, and sexual marriage under the laws of the state in which they relationship that a husband or wife has been are domiciled, they may still be entitled to a loss deprived of to date, and which he or she is of consortium claim. (People who are domiciled reasonably certain to be deprived of in the future, in Illinois and have crossed state lines for the due to the claimed injury to or death of a spouse. purpose of getting married may not be entitled to Schrock v. Shoemaker, 159 Ill. 2d 533 (1994); recover.) Allen v. Storer, 235 Ill. App. 3d 5 Elliott v. Willis, 92 Ill. 2d 530 (1982); Dini v. (1992). Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406 (1960). The tort of loss of consortium is an action based on an injury to the In a wrongful death action, the surviving personal relationship established by the marriage spouse can recover damages for loss of contract.
  • Sniadach, the Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B

    Sniadach, the Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B

    Boston College Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Issue 3 Number 3 2-1-1973 Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism? Julian B. McDonnell Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Julian B. McDonnell, Sniadach, The Replevin Cases and Self-Help Repossession -- Due Process Tokenism?, 14 B.C.L. Rev. 437 (1973), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol14/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SNIADACH, THE REPLEVIN CASES AND SELF-HELP REPOSSESSION-DUE PROCESS TOKENISM? JULIAN B. MCDONNELL* Last term, a divided United States Supreme Court invalidated the replevin statutes of Pennsylvania and Florida. In Fuentes v. Shevinl and Parham v. Cortese' (the Replevin Cases), the Court held these statutes unconstitutional insofar as they authorized repossession of collateral through state officials before the debtor was notified of the attempted repossession and accorded an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the creditor's claim. The Replevin Cases involved typical consumer purchases of household pods,' and accordingly raised new questions about the basic relationship between secured creditors and consumer debtors—a relationship upon which our consumer credit economy is based. Creditors have traditionally regarded the right to immediate repossession of collateral after determining the debtor to be in default as the essence of personal property security arrange- ments,' and their standard-form security agreements typically spell out this right.
  • Slip and Fall.Pdf

    Slip and Fall.Pdf

    Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road • Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 [email protected] Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name____________________________________ Atty ID number for Pennsylvania:______________________ Name of Course You Just Watched_____________________ ! ! Please Circle the Appropriate Answer !Instructors: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent !Materials: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent CLE Rating: Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent ! Required: When you hear the bell sound, write down the secret word that appears on your screen on this form. ! Word #1 was: _____________ Word #2 was: __________________ ! Word #3 was: _____________ Word #4 was: __________________ ! What did you like most about the seminar? ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ! What criticisms, if any, do you have? ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ! I Certify that I watched, in its entirety, the above-listed CLE Course Signature ___________________________________ Date ________ Garden State CLE, 21 Winthrop Rd., Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 – 609-895-0046 – fax 609-895-1899 GARDEN STATE CLE LESSON PLAN A 1.0 credit course FREE DOWNLOAD LESSON PLAN AND EVALUATION WATCH OUT: REPRESENTING A SLIP AND FALL CLIENT Featuring Robert Ramsey Garden State CLE Senior Instructor And Robert W. Rubinstein Certified Civil Trial Attorney Program
  • Damien A. Macias V. Summit Management, No

    Damien A. Macias V. Summit Management, No

    Damien A. Macias v. Summit Management, No. 1130, Sept. Term, 2018 Opinion by Leahy, J. Motion for Summary Judgment > Scope of Review Maryland premises-liability law allows disposition on summary judgment when the pertinent historical facts are not in dispute. See Hansberger v. Smith, 229 Md. App. 1, 13, 21-24 (2016); see also Richardson v. Nwadiuko, 184 Md. App. 481, 483-84 (2009). Negligence > Premises Liability >Foreseeability Foreseeability—the principal consideration in actionable negligence—is not confined to the proximate cause analysis. See Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc. v. Partlow, 460 Md. 607, 633-34 (2018); Valentine v. On Target, Inc., 112 Md. App. 679, 683-84 (1996), aff'd, 353 Md. 544 (1999). Negligence > Premises Liability >Duty The status of an entrant, and the legal duty owed thereto, are questions of law informed by the historical facts of the case. See Troxel v. Iguana Cantina, LLC, 201 Md. App. 476, 495 (2011). Negligence > Duty to Invitees > Condominium Associations Condominium unit owners and their guests occupy the legal status of invitee when they are in the common areas of the complex over which the condominium association maintains control. Barring any agreements or waivers to the contrary, the condominium association is bound to exercise “reasonable and ordinary care” to keep the premises safe for the invitee and to “protect the invitee from injury caused by an unreasonable risk which the invitee, by exercising ordinary care for his [or her] own safety, will not discover.” See Bramble v. Thompson, 264 Md. 518, 521 (1972). Negligence > Premises Liability >Legal Status An entrant’s legal status is not static and may change through the passage of time or through a change in location.
  • State of Delaware Retail Compendium of Law

    State of Delaware Retail Compendium of Law

    STATE OF DELAWARE RETAIL COMPENDIUM OF LAW Updated in 2017 by Cooch and Taylor 1000 N. West St., 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 984-3800 www.coochtaylor.com 2017 USLAW Retail Compendium of Law TABLE OF CONTENTS The Delaware State Court System ............................................................................... 2-3 Trial Courts ................................................................................................................................................. 2-3 The Justice of the Peace Court .................................................................................................................. 2 The Court of Common Pleas ..................................................................................................................... 2 The Superior Court .................................................................................................................................... 2 The Family Court ....................................................................................................................................... 3 The Chancery Court ................................................................................................................................... 3 Appellate Court ............................................................................................................................................. 3 The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware ........................................................................................... 3 General
  • Proximate Cause Risks That Make Defendant Negligent Other Risks

    Proximate Cause Risks That Make Defendant Negligent Other Risks

    Negligence – Prima Facie Case • D owed P a Legal Duty • Breach of Duty • Actual Damages • Factual Cause • Proximate Cause Risks that Make Defendant Negligent Other Risks A ? B ? Harm ? D ? C Determining Breach of Duty 1) Would reasonable person have foreseen a risk of harm [to someone]? – If no, then not negligent – If yes, move on to #2 2) Would reasonable person have taken steps to avoid or minimize the risk (identified in #1)? – If no, then not negligent – If yes, then negligent Element Modern Framework (Thompson) Palsgraff (Cardozo) D owes everyone, including P, a D owes P a duty only if: D’s Duty duty of ordinary care conduct creates an unreasonable, foreseeable risk to P • D’s conduct creates a reasonably • D failed to act as a reasonable Breach of foreseeable risk of harm and prudent person would • Reasonable and prudent person Duty would seek to minimize or eliminate this risk • D failed to do so Proximate • D’s conduct creates a N/A Cause foreseeable risk to P • A reasonable and prudent person would seek to minimize or eliminate the risk to P Proximate Cause – Scope of Risk Harm w/in scope of risk if: Reasonable person in similar circumstances would have 1) foreseen harm or risk (a) of same general type, and (b) to the general class of persons that includes the P; and 2) Taken greater precautions to avoid it than D took Multifactor Test (Palsgraf dissent) Proximate cause determined by balancing multiple factors: • Foreseeability of harm to P • Rough sense justice • D’s conduct a substantial factor in causing P’s harm • Natural
  • Torts—Contributory Negligence—The Rescue Doctrine, Hammonds V

    Torts—Contributory Negligence—The Rescue Doctrine, Hammonds V

    Washington University Law Review Volume 1955 Issue 4 January 1955 Torts—Contributory Negligence—The Rescue Doctrine, Hammonds v. Haven, 280 S.W.2d 814 (Mo. 1955) Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Torts—Contributory Negligence—The Rescue Doctrine, Hammonds v. Haven, 280 S.W.2d 814 (Mo. 1955), 1955 WASH. U. L. Q. 427 (1955). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol1955/iss4/9 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS COMMENTS TORTS-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-THE RESCUE DOCTRINE Hammonds v. Haven, 280 S.W.2d 814 (Mo. 1955) While driving along a state highway on a dark, rainy evening plain- tiff encountered a tree, blown down during a rainstorm, which ob- structed the road. Parking his car beside the road, plaintiff prepared to warn approaching motorists of the danger. After failing in his at- tempts to warn one oncoming motorist from a position adjacent to the highway,1 plaintiff, upon sighting defendant approaching at a high rate of speed, stationed himself in the center of the road and, lacking other ready means of signaling, attempted to warn defendant by wav- ing his arms. As defendant neared the fallen tree plaintiff leaped to- ward the side of the road but was struck by defendant as the latter swerved to avoid a collision.