• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Introduction to Torts

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Introduction to Torts Introduction to Torts Kaplan University Unit 6 February 14, 2012 Part 1: Research Log What primary sources did you use? Fed What secondary sources did your use? American Jurisprudence Law Review Article What search terms did you use for each search? Vicarious liability Employer Car accident Respondeat superior Coming and going rule Frolic Detour Rules What search method did you use (Terms & Connectors, Natural Language, and/or Easy Search)? Advanced search in West Law out Kaplan data base Part 2: Analysis Memorandum TO: Professor FROM: Dawn Coonce DATE: February 14, 2012 RE: AAA Auto Dealers in regards to John Stokley?s negligence Statement of Facts John Stokely is a sales executive for AAA Auto Dealers. He often drives to the manufacturing facility, which is 150 miles from the dealership, to check on new orders. John?s employer reimburses him for gasoline, food, and lodging, and provides John with a dealer car to drive. While driving to the manufacturing plant, John decided to stop by his cousin?s house for dinner. His boss was accompanying him on this particular visit ?to get a decent meal for a change.? While on the way there, John collided with and injured a motorcyclist. ...read more.

Middle

( Baptist, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 162, 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 153.) However, ?exceptions will be made to the ?going and coming? rule where the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer, not common to 436 commute trips by ordinary members of the work force.? ( Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 956, 962, 88 Cal.Rptr. 188, 471 P.2d 988.) When an employee is engaged in a ?special errand? or a ?special mission? for the employer it will negate the ?going and coming rule.? ( Ducey v. Argo Sales Co. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 707, 722, 159 Cal.Rptr. 835, 602 P.2d 755; Trejo v. Maciel (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 487, 495, 48 Cal.Rptr. 765; Sullivan v. Thompson (1939) 30 Cal.App.2d 675, 677?678, 87 P.2d 62.) An employee ?coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer ... is considered to be in the scope of his employment from the time that he starts on the errand until he has returned or until he deviates there from for personal reasons.? ? ( Felix v. ...read more.

Conclusion

Generally, a landowner has a common-law duty to keep his property in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees, and that obligation exists where injury is reasonably foreseeable in light of the hazardous nature of the instrumentalities on the owner?s premises, Plan-Tec, Inc. v. Wiggins, 443 N.E.2d 1212, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). Here, it is undisputed that Smith was a business invitee, and as such, the grocery store owed her ?the highest duty of care . . ., that duty being to exercise reasonable care for the invitee?s protection while she is on the premises.? Rhoades, 839 N.E.2d at 791 (citing Taylor v. Duke, 713 N.E.2d 877, 881 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Premises liability is described as the following: A landowner is liable for harm caused to an invitee by a condition on the land only if the landowner: (1) knows of or through the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition and realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitee; (2) should expect that the invitee will fail to discover or realize the danger or fail to protect against it; and (3) fails to exercise reasonable care in protecting the invitee against the danger. Conclusion: Samantha Smith has a good chance to win a comparative negligence case against the defendant, who is willing to accept partial blame in this case. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Law of Tort section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Law of Tort essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and ...

    4 star(s)

    This is rather different from criminal proceedings in sport, where participants are treated some what differently from the general public with far fewer complaints and lesser sentencing awarded for those incidents that happen on the pitch.

  2. What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible ...

    It is noted that Hart, in arguing for liability for negligence, drew the distinction between those able of observing certain principles and those who did not have that ability. If you do not differentiate, then the schizoid tramp or the inadequate, backward child is judged by the same standards as the prudent individual.codc dcr sedcdcw ordc dck indc fodc dc!

  1. Law of Torts

    a salesperson to give a quote, people who hold licences to sell products and services, such as landladies or landlord. Sawyer v. Simonds (1966) where a duty was found to exist to pub customers, although on the facts reasonable care had been taken to avoid injury to customers from broken glass.

  2. Three liability cases - Claim 1-- Auto Emergency Breakdown Service Claim 2- Santa ...

    order to punish the wrongdoer, while in criminal cases, the range of punishments now includes provision for the wrongdoer to compensate the victim financially (thought this is still not the primary aim of criminal proceedings, and the awards are usually a great deal lower than would be ordered in a tort action).

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work