Employer and employee are considered a single D and jury assign doesn’t percentage fault, parties themselves will allocate amounts Cases and Issues (Vicarious Liability) Employee works at retirement home is drunk, slaps elderly resident. Employer Rodebush: liable. Employer was camp counselor who made sexual advances to camper. Fahrendorff: Employer liable. Employee (bar tender) eye. Employer is liable. Riviello: accidentally stabbed customer’s Employee at convention after events in evening. Drove drunk and struck another, Fruit: causing injury. Employer is liable. Strict Liability Common law strict liability PFC – Foreseeable significant risk Activity creates foreseeable, highly significant risk of physical harm even if everyone exercises reasonable care (unavoidably risky) Activity is not common/normal Actual harm Factual cause Proximate cause different/narrower than negligence – Limited to foreseeable risks that make activity abnormally dangerous (result from blasting causes to eat her liter woman’s cat no S.L, not the foreseeable harm) – Unforeseeable intervening actor/event breaks causal chain (majority rule) no prox cause then no S.L. – Ex) D stores explosives in warehouse, someone tampers w explosives as act of revenge, no S.L, intervening act breaks causal chain Common law strict liability Defenses – P or others contribute to activity (R. 3rd) not followed in some juris. – contributory negligence, avoidable if P used reasonable care P’s Traditional rule not a defense – Modern rule apply comparative fault rules (R. 3rd) – implied assumption of risk: P’s Traditional rule complete defense – Modern rule apply comparative fault rules – Policy: if you engage in highly-risky activity, that activity should pay its own way
Employer and employee are considered a single D and jury doesn’t assign percentage fault, parties themselves will allocate amounts Cases and Issues (Vicarious Liability) Rodebush: Employee works at retirement home is drunk, slaps elderly resident. Employer liable. Fahrendorff: Employer was camp counselor who made sexual advances to camper. Employer liable. Riviello: Employee (bar tender) accidentally stabbed customer’s eye. Employer is liable. Fruit: Employee at convention after events in evening. Drove drunk and struck another, causing injury. Employer is liable. Strict Liability Common law strict liability – PFC Foreseeable significant risk Activity creates foreseeable, highly significant risk of physical harm even if everyone exercises reasonable care (unavoidably risky) Activity is not common/normal Actual harm Factual cause Proximate cause – different/narrower than negligence Limited to foreseeable risks that make activity abnormally dangerous (result from blasting causes woman’s cat to eat her liter – no S.L, not the foreseeable harm) Unforeseeable intervening actor/event breaks causal chain (majority rule) – no prox cause then no S.L. Ex) D stores explosives in warehouse, someone tampers w explosives as act of revenge, no S.L, intervening act breaks causal chain Common law strict liability – Defenses P or others contribute to activity (R. 3rd) – not followed in some juris. P’s contributory negligence, avoidable if P used reasonable care Traditional rule – not a defense Modern rule – apply comparative fault rules (R. 3rd) P’s implied assumption of risk: Traditional rule – complete defense Modern rule – apply comparative fault rules Policy: if you engage in highly-risky activity, that activity should pay its own way