Torts I
Professor Prince
First Assignment for August 2
First, read my “Introduction to Torts” memo posted on Blackboard. Then read pages 2 – 9, 15 –
48 in the Dobbs, Hayden & Bublick casebook, Torts and Compensation (6th edition). We will begin
with a general introduction to tort law and to its two important goals of (1) compensation for
accidentally-caused injury and (2) deterrence of intentionally-wrongful or careless conduct.
Then we will discuss the attached “First Problem” talking about who should bear responsibility
for Mary’s broken leg. It’s not important for you to know anything at all about negligence law in order
to think about and discuss this problem. At this point, I don’t care what you know or don’t know about
“the law.” But I do want to know what your common sense and your sense of right and wrong tell you
about how to resolve this problem in light of the goals of tort law discussed in Chapter One. When you
read Holden v. Wal-Mart Stores (p. 15), note especially what the court says about the jury’s role
in determining the facts, in this case the fact about how much harm was caused by Ms. Holden’s
fall in Wal-Mart’s parking lot, the fact that she was herself 40% at fault for that fall, and the fact
of how much damage, measured in medical care costs, Holden suffered as a result of that harm.
Could the appellate court also have sustained on appeal a jury finding that, e.g., Holden’s
damages from the fall were $12,000 and that she was 50% negligent? Read the notes on
damages (pp. 16 – 19) carefully.
We will not specifically discuss the materials on pp. 22 – 32 but you should read them carefully
because we will talk throughout the year about the various procedural stages of a torts case. We
will then move on to a discussion of the cases in the casebook, beginning with the Van Camp v.
McAfoos on p. 35. You should brief the cases as part of your preparation for class. Finally, do
not neglect the notes that follow the cases. Read them carefully and try to answer any questions
that they may ask. These primary aim of these notes is to help you understand the broader
implications of the courts’ rulings in the cases and to see how they may apply in other settings.
Once we have discussed a case, I will typically ask questions designed to test the implications of
the result of that case in other settings. The notes and my questions are intended to help you to
understand more exactly the law that is reflected in these case decisions.
First Problem
Nixon's Used Cars had a large car lot adjacent to a busy city thoroughfare. Nixon's usually had
about 100 cars parked in this lot which sloped down toward the street. The lot was not fenced or
otherwise enclosed and Nixon's had had problems in the past with kids sometimes getting into
some of the cars (which Nixon's sales staff sometimes left unlocked) and playing the radios until
the batteries ran down or stealing the cigarette lighters.
One evening last December, an hour after business had closed, one of the cars rolled down the
incline and struck broadside a pickup truck being driven down the adjacent thoroughfare. The
car was one of a model which sold in the thousands. A few owners of that model car have
reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that their cars suddenly and
unexpectedly slip out of gear when parked. The pickup truck turned over when struck and the
contents of its gas tank spilled out. The gasoline flowed across the street and into what was
usually a vacant lot. However, since this was holiday time, the lot was filled with pine trees
being sold by Paul for the Christmas season. Paul had only opened his tree sales lot earlier that
very day.
A block away from these events, Oliver, a visitor from England on a lengthy American business
trip and lonesome for home, set off a skyrocket. Oliver had planned to use the rocket to
celebrate Guy Fawkes Day, a traditional English holiday, but he had been very busy on
November 5th and so still had the rocket some four weeks later.
The rocket ascended into the sky and returned to earth at Paul's tree lot. It landed on the ground
where it ignited the gasoline which in turn ignited a tree and shortly all of the trees were afire.
The burning trees caused dense smoke to seep into an adjacent hotel and awakened Mary, a guest
of the hotel.
Believing the hotel to be on fire, Mary flung open her second floor window. As she did so, a
hotel employee knocked on her door and informed her that the hotel was not on fire and that
guests should stay in their rooms until the ventilation system cleared the air of smoke. Although
Mary heard this message, she still believed that the hotel must be on fire and so she jumped. The
fall did her no harm but the landing broke her leg.
The use of fireworks is not illegal in this jurisdiction.
Should Mary have a claim against Nixon's for her broken leg? What reasons can you think of
that would favor Mary being able to make Nixon’s liable for her injury? What reasons can you
think of why Nixon’s should not be liable to Mary?