DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the Differences Between Premises Liability And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the Differences Between Premises Liability And UnderstandingUnderstanding thethe DifferencesDifferences BetweenBetween PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability andand NegligenceNegligence Kirsten A. Davenport Joanna M. Tollenaere Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: 214 -712 -9500 Telecopy: 214 -712 -9540 Email: [email protected] [email protected] FirstFirst ofof all...all... TheThe failurefailure toto exerciseexercise suchsuch carecare asas anan ordinarilyordinarily prudentprudent personperson wouldwould havehave exercisedexercised underunder thethe samesame oror similarsimilar circumstances.circumstances. NegligenceNegligence isis ““accidentalaccidental ”” asas distinguisheddistinguished fromfrom intentionalintentional torts.torts. 2 NegligenceNegligence TheThe elementselements ofof aa causecause ofof actionaction forfor negligencenegligence areare thethe following:following: 1.1. TheThe defendantdefendant owedowed aa legallegal dutyduty toto thethe plaintiff;plaintiff; 2.2. TheThe defendantdefendant breachedbreached thethe duty;duty; andand 3.3. TheThe breachbreach proximatelyproximately causedcaused thethe plaintiff'splaintiff's injury.injury. 3 UnderstandingUnderstanding eacheach element...element... 1.1. TheThe defendantdefendant owedowed aa legallegal dutyduty toto thethe plaintiffplaintiff WhyWhy isis thethe existenceexistence ofof aa legallegal dutyduty important?important? WithoutWithout aa legallegal duty,duty, aa defendantdefendant cannotcannot bebe heldheld liableliable inin tort.tort. 4 2.2. TheThe defendantdefendant breachedbreached thethe duty...duty... AA legallegal dutyduty isis breachedbreached whenwhen aa defendantdefendant doesdoes notnot meetmeet thethe requiredrequired standardstandard ofof care.care. 3.3. TheThe breachbreach proximatelyproximately causedcaused thethe plaintiff'splaintiff's injury.injury. InIn otherother words,words, thethe plaintiffplaintiff ’’ss injuryinjury couldcould notnot havehave occurredoccurred butbut forfor thethe defendantdefendant ’’ss negligence.negligence. 5 PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability What is Premises Liability? Premises liability is the body of law that sets guidelines involving the duties owed by land owners or occupiers to protect individuals who enter land from injury. It is also a form of an ordinary negligence claim that controls the manner of recovery for injuries that are sustained by an individual as a result of a CONDITION of the property, as opposed to recovering for injuries that are sustained as a result of a NEGLIGENT ACTIVITY on the property. result of a NEGLIGENT ACTIVITY on the property.6 TheThe additionaladditional requirementsrequirements ofof aa premisespremises liabilityliability causecause ofof actionaction workwork inin thethe defensedefense favor,favor, asas theythey makemake aa premisespremises actionaction moremore difficultdifficult toto proveprove andand easiereasier toto defenddefend thanthan anan ordinaryordinary --negligencenegligence action.action. 7 StatusStatus ofof Plaintiff...Plaintiff... InviteeInvitee -- isis aa personperson whowho entersenters thethe premisespremises withwith thethe possessor'spossessor's expressexpress oror impliedimplied knowledgeknowledge andand forfor thethe parties'parties' mutualmutual benefit.benefit. Examples:Examples: businessbusiness patrons,patrons, membersmembers ofof aa club,club, tenants,tenants, employees,employees, etc.etc. 8 LicenseeLicensee –– iiss aa personperson whowho entersenters thethe propertyproperty ofof anotheranother merelymerely byby expressexpress oror impliedimplied permissionpermission 9 TrespasserTrespasser –– isis aa personperson whowho entersenters aa propertyproperty ofof anotheranother withoutwithout permission,permission, lawfullawful authority,authority, right,right, invitationinvitation (either(either expressexpress oror implied),implied), andand notnot toto performperform aa dutyduty forfor thethe owner/occupier,owner/occupier, but,but, entersenters forfor hishis ownown purposes,purposes, convenience,convenience, pleasure,pleasure, withoutwithout anyany inducement,inducement, enticement,enticement, oror impliedimplied assuranceassurance ofof safetysafety fromfrom thethe owner.owner. 10 ElementsElements TheThe elementselements ofof aa causecause ofof actionaction forfor premisespremises liabilityliability broughtbrought byby anan inviteeinvitee areare thethe following:following: 1.1. TheThe PlaintiffPlaintiff waswas anan invitee;invitee; 2.2. TheThe defendantdefendant waswas aa possessorpossessor ofof thethe premises;premises; 3.3. AA conditioncondition onon thethe premisespremises posedposed anan unreasonableunreasonable riskrisk ofof harm;harm; 11 4.4. TheThe defendantdefendant knewknew oror reasonablyreasonably shouldshould havehave knownknown ofof thethe danger;danger; 5.5. TheThe defendantdefendant breachedbreached itsits dutyduty ofof ordinaryordinary carecare byby bothboth (1)(1) failingfailing toto adequatelyadequately warnwarn thethe plaintiffplaintiff ofof thethe condition,condition, andand (2)(2) failingfailing toto makemake thethe conditioncondition reasonablyreasonably safe;safe; andand 12 6.6. TheThe defendantdefendant ’’ss breachbreach proximatelyproximately causedcaused thethe plaintiffplaintiff ’’ss injury.injury. 13 StatusStatus ofof DefendantDefendant WhatWhat isis aa ““possessor?possessor? ”” AA defendantdefendant isis aa ““possessorpossessor ”” ifif itit exercisesexercises controlcontrol overover thethe premises.premises. 14 KeetchKeetch v.v. KrogerKroger Co.Co. Facts...Facts... Ms.Ms. KeetchKeetch waswas inin aa KrogerKroger storestore buyingbuying bread.bread. WhileWhile walkingwalking towardtoward thethe checkoutcheckout counter,counter, sheshe crossedcrossed thethe floralfloral department.department. SheShe slippedslipped andand fell.fell. 15 ToTo recoverrecover onon aa negligentnegligent activityactivity theorytheory ...... thethe personperson mustmust havehave beenbeen injuredinjured byby oror asas aa contemporaneouscontemporaneous resultresult ofof thethe activityactivity itselfitself ratherrather thanthan byby aa conditioncondition createdcreated byby thethe activity.activity. TheThe mainmain difference...difference... ConditionCondition ofof thethe premisespremises v.v. negligentnegligent activityactivity 17 PremisesPremises LiabilityLiability RecentRecent CasesCases Del Lago Ptnrs. v. Smith , 2010 Tex. LEXIS 284 (Tex. 2010) PropertyProperty ownersowners hadhad aa dutyduty toto protectprotect barbar patronpatron becausebecause thethe ownersowners hadhad actualactual andand directdirect knowledgeknowledge thatthat aa violentviolent brawlbrawl waswas imminentimminent betweenbetween drunkdrunk persons.persons. OwnersOwners werewere awareaware ofof anan unreasonableunreasonable riskrisk ofof harmharm atat thethe barbar thatthat nightnight 19 City of Waco v. Kirwan , 298 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2009) CityCity diddid notnot oweowe aa dutyduty toto protectprotect oror warnwarn againstagainst thethe dangersdangers ofof naturalnatural conditions.conditions. SupremeSupreme courtcourt refusedrefused toto requirerequire aa landownerlandowner whowho postedposted aa signsign warningwarning ofof aa naturalnatural conditioncondition toto detaildetail eacheach possiblepossible dangerousdangerous scenarioscenario concerningconcerning thatthat condition.condition. 20 Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp ., 2009 Tex. LEXIS 636 (Tex. 2009) HealthHealth carecare liabilityliability claimsclaims dismisseddismissed PremisesPremises liabilityliability claimsclaims allowedallowed toto proceedproceed 21 Dallas Homes for Jewish Aged, Inc. v. Leeds, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2793 (Tex. App. Dallas Apr. 14, 2010) NursingNursing homehome residentresident trippedtripped overover wireswires inin hishis roomroom duringduring thethe middlemiddle ofof thethe nightnight whenwhen hehe gotgot upup toto gogo toto thethe bathroombathroom PlaintiffPlaintiff notnot requiredrequired toto filefile anan expertexpert reportreport becausebecause thethe claimclaim waswas aa premisespremises liabilityliability claim,claim, andand notnot aa healthhealth carecare liabilityliability claim.claim. 22 Maldonado v. D.R. Horton, Inc ., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 2482 (Tex. App. Beaumont Apr. 8, 2010) PropertyProperty ownersowners hadhad nono liabilityliability underunder Tex.Tex. Civ.Civ. Prac.Prac. && Rem.Rem. CodeCode Ann.Ann. §§§§ 95.002,95.002, 95.00395.003 (2005)(2005) becausebecause thethe contractcontract diddid notnot givegive aa rightright ofof controlcontrol toto thethe propertyproperty ownersowners 23 Leon County v. Donahoe , 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 1006 (Tex. App. Waco Feb. 10, 2010) EvidenceEvidence ofof thethe countycounty custodian'scustodian's actualactual knowledgeknowledge sufficedsufficed toto satisfysatisfy thethe governmentalgovernmental unit'sunit's actualactual knowledgeknowledge ofof thethe allegedalleged premisespremises defect.defect. 24 Silas v. St. Luke's Episcopal Props. Corp ., 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 481 (Tex. App. Houston 14th Dist. Jan. 28, 2010) PlaintiffPlaintiff broughtbrought aa negligencenegligence claimclaim againstagainst buildingbuilding ownerowner andand thethe lesseelessee underunder thethe doctrinedoctrine ofof resres ipsaipsa loquiturloquitur AlthoughAlthough thethe doctrinedoctrine ofof resres ipsaipsa loquiturloquitur permitspermits aa triertrier ofof factfact toto basebase anan inferenceinference ofof negligencenegligence onon circumstantialcircumstantial evidenceevidence ofof negligence,negligence, itit diddid notnot permitpermit
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol
    Recreational Access to Agricultural Land: Insurance Issues Martha L. Noble* I. Introduction In the United States, a growing urban and suburban population is seeking rural recreational opportunities.^ At the same time, many families involved in traditional agriculture want to diversify and increase the sources of income from their land.^ Both the federal and state govern- ments actively encourage agriculturists to enter land in conservation programs and to increase wildlife habitats on their land.^ In addition, * Staff Attorney, National Center for Agricultural Law Research and Information (NCALRI); Assistant Research Professor, School of Law, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. This material is based upon work supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Library under Agreement No. 59-32 U4-8- 13. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this pubUcation are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the USDA or the NCALRI. 1. See generally Langner, Demand for Outdoor Recreation in the United States: Implications for Private Landowners in the Eastern U.S., in Proceedings from the Conference on: Income Opportuntties for the Prt/ate Landowner Through Man- agement OF Natural Resources and Recreational Access 186 (1990) [hereinafter Pro- ceedings] . 2. A survey of New York State Cooperative Extension county agents and regional specialists indicated that an estimated 700 farm famiUes in the state had actually attempted to develop alternative rural enterprises. An estimated 1,700 farm families were considering starting alternative enterprises or diversifying their farms. Many alternatives involved recreational access to the land, including the addition of pick-your-own fruit and vegetable operations, petting zoos, bed and breakfast facilities, and the provision of campgrounds, ski trails, farm tours, and hay rides on farm property.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015
    © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015 Everence Stewardship University Session A3 J. Doe v. Church Presented by GKH Attorney Peter J. Kraybill March 7, 2015 © Gibbel Kraybill & Hess LLP 2015 J. Doe v. Church Churches are not as “special” to outsiders, whether those outsiders are • cyber squatters • copyright holders • banks or • slip-and-fall victims Churches often will be treated as equal to businesses or other “legal entities” for purposes of • contract law • trademarks • copyrights and • negligence, among others. How can churches be protective and proactive when engaging with the world? Legal Threats State action versus Private action (government enforcement compared to civil litigation) State Action What about the government going after a church? US Constitution - Bill of Rights - First Amendment - Freedom of Religion - "Free exercise” clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof… http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause Free Exercise Clause The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The clause protects not just those beliefs but actions taken for those beliefs. Specifically, this allows religious exemption from at least some generally applicable laws, i.e. violation of laws is permitted, as long as that violation was for religious reasons. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause Extra credit: Famous example of the Amish using the Free Exercise Clause? Wisconsin v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Slip and Fall of the California Legislature in the Classification of Personal Injury Damages at Divorce and Death
    Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Publications Faculty Scholarship Summer 2009 The liS p and Fall of the California Legislature in the Classification of Personal Injury Damages At Divorce and Death Helen Y. Chang Golden Gate University - San Francisco, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/pubs Part of the Family Law Commons Recommended Citation 1 Estate Plan. & Comm. Prop. L. J. 345 (2009). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at GGU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Publications by an authorized administrator of GGU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SLIP AND FALL OF THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES AT DIVORCE AND DEATH by Helen Y. Chang* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 345 II. CALIFORNIA'S HISTORICAL TREATMENT OF PERSONAL INJURY D AM AGES .......................................................................................... 347 A. No-Fault Divorce and the Principleof Equality ...................... 351 B. Problems with the CurrentCalifornia Law .............................. 354 1. The Cause ofAction 'Arises'PerFamily Code Section 2 603 ...................................................................................355 2. Division of PersonalInjury Damages at Divorce.............. 358 3. The Classification of PersonalInjury Damages
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Landowners' Duty to Guests of Invitees and Tenants: Vogt
    South Carolina Law Review Volume 57 Issue 2 Article 6 Winter 2005 Landowners' Duty to Guests of Invitees and Tenants: Vogt. v. Murraywood Swim & (and) Racquet Club and Goode v. St. Stephens United Methodist Church Matthew D. Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Lincoln, Matthew D. (2005) "Landowners' Duty to Guests of Invitees and Tenants: Vogt. v. Murraywood Swim & (and) Racquet Club and Goode v. St. Stephens United Methodist Church," South Carolina Law Review: Vol. 57 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/sclr/vol57/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you by the Law Reviews and Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in South Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lincoln: Landowners' Duty to Guests of Invitees and Tenants: Vogt. v. Murr LANDOWNERS' DUTY TO GUESTS OF INVITEES AND TENANTS: VOGT V. MURRAYWOOD SWIM & RACQUET CLUB AND GOODE V. ST. STEPHENS UNITED METHODIST CHURCH I. SOUTH CAROLINA ENCOUNTERS THE GUEST ISSUE South Carolina follows traditional premises liability law and defines the duty of care owed by the owner or controller of the premises by reference to categories of entrants, such as invitee and licensee.' A current issue in South Carolina courts is the classification of, and the duty of care owed to, guests of invitees or tenants vis-i-vis the landowner. The issue has presented itself in two scenarios: first, when the guest of a private club member is injured on the club's premises; and second, when the guest of a tenant is injured in the common area of the leased premises.
    [Show full text]
  • Premises Liability - Defense Perspective
    PREMISES LIABILITY - DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE Carol Ann Murphy HARRISBURG OFFICE CENTRAL PA OFFICE 3510 Trindle Road MARGOLIS P.O. Box 628 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Hollidaysburg, PA 16648 717-975-8114 EDELSTEIN 814-695-5064 Carol Ann Murphy, Esquire PITTSBURGH OFFICE The Curtis Center, Suite 400E SOUTH JERSEY OFFICE 525 William Penn Place 100 Century Parkway Suite 3300 170 South independence Mall West Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3337 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 412-281-4256 215-931-5881 856-727-6000 FAX (215) 922-1772 WESTERN PA OFFICE: NORTH JERSEY OFFICE [email protected] 983 Third Street Connell Corporate Center Beaver, PA 15009 400 Connell Drive 724-774-6000 Suite 5400 Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922 SCRANTON OFFICE 908-790-1401 220 Penn Avenue Suite 305 DELAWARE OFFICE: Scranton, PA 18503 750 Shipyard Drive 570-342-4231 Suite 102 Wilmington, DE 19806 302-888-1112 www.margolisedelstein.com PREMISES LIABILITY - DEFENSE PERSPECTIVE In evaluating a case from a defense perspective one must review several issues in determining whether the potential for liability exists. I. STATUS OF CLAIMANT In reviewing a premises liability case, one must determine the status of the claimant. That is, under Pennsylvania law, the determination of the duty of possessor of land toward a third party entering the land depends on whether the entrant is a trespasser, licensee or invitee. Updyke v. BP Oil Company, 717 A.2d 546, 548 (Pa. Super. 1998). A. Trespassers The Restatement (Second) of Torts defined a trespasser as "a person who enters or remains upon land in the possession of another without the privilege to do so created by the possessor's consent or otherwise." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 329.
    [Show full text]
  • Employer Liability for Employee Actions: Derivative Negligence Claims in New Mexico Timothy C. Holm Matthew W. Park Modrall, Sp
    Employer Liability for Employee Actions: Derivative Negligence Claims in New Mexico Timothy C. Holm Matthew W. Park Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. Post Office Box 2168 Bank of America Centre 500 Fourth Street NW, Suite 1000 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103-2168 Telephone: 505.848.1800 Email: [email protected] Every employer is concerned about potential liability for the tortious actions of its employees. Simply stated: Where does an employer’s responsibility for its employee’s actions end, the employee’s personal responsibility begin, and to what extent does accountability overlap? This article is intended to detail the various derivative negligence claims recognized in New Mexico that may impute liability to an employer for its employee’s actions, the elements of each claim, and possible defenses. This subject matter is of particular importance to New Mexico employers generally and transportation employers specifically. A. Elements of Proof for the Derivative Negligent Claim of Negligent Entrustment, Hiring/Retention and Supervision In New Mexico, there are four distinct theories by which an employer might be held to have derivative or dependent liability for the conduct of an employee.1 The definition of derivative or dependent liability is that the employer can be held liable for the fault of the employee in causing to a third party. 1. Respondeat Superior a. What are the elements necessary to establish liability under a theory of Respondeat Superior? An employer is responsible for injury to a third party when its employee commits negligence while acting within the course and scope of his or employment. See McCauley v.
    [Show full text]
  • SCC File No. 39108 in the SUPREME COURT of CANADA (ON APPEAL from the COURT of APPEAL for BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: CITY OF
    SCC File No. 39108 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: CITY OF NELSON APPLICANT (Respondent) AND: TARYN JOY MARCHI RESPONDENT (Appellant) ______________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OF ARUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT (Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada) ______________________________________________ DAROUX LAW CORPORATION MICHAEL J. SOBKIN 1590 Bay Avenue 33 Somerset Street West Trail, B.C. V1R 4B3 Ottawa, ON K2P 0J8 Tel: (250) 368-8233 Tel: (613) 282-1712 Fax: (800) 218-3140 Fax: (613) 288-2896 Danielle K. Daroux Michael J. Sobkin Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Taryn Joy Marchi Agent for Counsel for the Respondent MURPHY BATTISTA LLP #2020 - 650 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4N7 Tel: (604) 683-9621 Fax: (604) 683-5084 Joseph E. Murphy, Q.C. Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Respondent, Taryn Joy Marchi ALLEN / MCMILLAN LITIGATION COUNSEL #1550 – 1185 West Georgia Street Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4E6 Tel: (604) 569-2652 Fax: (604) 628-3832 Greg J. Allen Tele: (604) 282-3982 / Email: [email protected] Liam Babbitt Tel: (604) 282-3988 / Email: [email protected] Counsel for the Applicant, City of Nelson 1 PART I – OVERVIEW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. Overview 1. The applicant City of Nelson (“City”) submits that leave should be granted because there is lingering confusion as to the difference between policy and operational decisions in cases of public authority liability in tort. It cites four decisions in support of this proposition. None of those cases demonstrate any confusion on the part of the lower courts.
    [Show full text]
  • When the Bough Breaks: a Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. V. Ligon Daniel W
    Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 55 January 1999 When the Bough Breaks: A Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon Daniel W. Champney Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel W. Champney, When the Bough Breaks: A Proposal for Georgia Slip and Fall Law After Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 55 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 073 (1999) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol55/iss1/5 This Note 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 Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHEN THE BOUGH BREAKS: A PROPOSAL FOR GEORGIA SLIP AND FALL LAW AFTER ALTERMAN FOODS, INC. V LIGON INTRODUCTION Before the Georgia Supreme Court's recent decision in Robinson v. Kroger Co.' ("Robinson"), the authors of a yearly survey of Georgia tort law succinctly described the status of the subset of commercial premises liability law known as slip-and-fal 2 cases by stating: "Something is fundamentally wrong with the appellate standard of review for slip and fall cases in Georgia.",3 The problems 1. 493 S.E.2d 403 (Ga. 1997) (reexamining Georgia's slip-and-fall law for the first time since Barentine v. Kroger Co., 443 S.E.2d 485 (Ga.
    [Show full text]