Torts II Exam: Comparative Negligence, Product Liability, Private Nuisance - Model Answers, Exams of Law of Torts

Download Torts II Exam: Comparative Negligence, Product Liability, Private Nuisance - Model Answers and more Exams Law of Torts in PDF only on Docsity! Model Answers Torts II 2002 Model Answers—Torts II Exam Spring 2002 QUESTION 1 A. In a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction Donna is liable to Paul for $30,000. Paul is not liable to Donna. The rule in a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction is that the plaintiff may only recover if his or her own fault is less than (or in some jurisdictions equal to or less than) the fault of the defendant. Also, a plaintiff’s damages are reduced by his or her proportionate fault. In a case, such as this, involving the fault of only a single defendant, recovery is only for the percentage of damages equal to the percentage of fault attributable to the defendant. The best approach in this question is to consider Paul’s injuries to his car and legs separately from his head injuries. The rationale for treating the injuries separately—as if there were two separate collisions—is based on the separate findings of proportionate responsibility. Paul’s failure to wear his seat belt did not cause or contribute in any way to his car damage and leg injuries. Applying this approach we have the following analysis: Paul’s car and leg injuries: Paul’s fault is 25%. Donna’s fault is 75%. Because Paul’s fault is less than Donna’s fault, Paul is entitled to recover. Damage attributed to Donna’s fault: $40,000 x .75= $30,000. Paul’s head injuries: Paul’s fault is 60%. Donna’s fault is 40%. Because Paul’s fault is greater than Donna’s fault, Paul is not entitled to recover. Paul receives $0 for his head injuries. Donna’s injuries: Paul’s fault is 25%. Donna’s fault is 75%. Because Donna’s fault is greater than Paul’s fault, Donna is not entitled to recover. Donna receives $0 for her damages. Result: Donna is liable to Paul for $30,000. Paul is not liable to Donna for any damages. Donna’s insurance company should have to pay Paul (assuming the coverage is applicable). B. In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction Donna is liable to Paul for $54,000, and Paul is liable to Donna for $15,000, assuming there is no set-off rule. In a pure comparative fault jurisdiction, plaintiffs are entitled to their damages reduced by their proportion of fault, or in this case, for the percentage of damages equal to the percentage of fault attributable to the defendant. As noted above, Paul’s head injuries should be considered separately from his car and leg injuries. Applying this approach: Model Answers Torts II 2002 2 Paul’s car and leg injuries: Paul’s fault is 25%. Donna’s fault is 75%. Damage attributed to Donna’s fault: $40,000 x .75= $30,000. Paul’s head injuries: Paul’s fault is 60%. Donna’s fault is 40%. Damages attributed to Donna’s fault: $60,000 x .40= $24,000. Donna’s injuries: Donna’s fault is 75%. Paul’s fault is 25%. Damages attributed to Paul’s fault: $60,000 x .25= $15,000 Result: Paul is entitled to $30,000 for the damage to his car and legs, and $24,000 for his head injury, for a total of $54,000. Donna is entitled to $15,000 for her injuries. Without the set-off rule, Paul’s insurance company would pay Donna $15,000 and Donna’s insurance company would pay Paul’s $54,000. (Assuming insurance coverage of the full amounts.) If the jurisdiction follows a set-off rule, then Paul’s recovery will be reduced by the amount he owes Donna resulting in a payment to Paul of $39,000 and no payment to Donna. The better rule is to reject this set-off approach because it allows victims to go uncompensated and provides a windfall for the insurance companies. Model Answers Torts II 2002 5 mouth was being worked on. Use of the ScrewJet on teeth is not foreseeable. I would find that misuse of the product prevents a finding of legal cause. As a result, Tim does not recover. If Tim were a foreseeable plaintiff, satisfying legal cause, comparative fault would reduce Tim’s damages. Comparative fault applies to strict liability claims. One possible holding would find Tim 50% responsible for allowing the ScrewJet to be used in his month, and defendants 50% responsible based on the design defect. Tim’s damages would be reduced by 50%, and defendants would be jointly and severally liable. Model Answers Torts II 2002 6 QUESTION 4 The plaintiffs do not have a valid public nuisance claim. A public nuisance is an unwarranted interference with public safety, convenience, health, and morals. Generally private individuals do not have standing to bring a public nuisance claim unless they can show special injury different from the injury suffered by the general public. Here, only twenty nearby families are affected by the noise problem, not the general public. The right invaded is the enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property, not a right of the general public. Even if there were a public nuisance, plaintiffs would not have standing because they do not have a special injury. Plaintiffs do have a valid private nuisance claim. A private nuisance is the substantial and unreasonable interference with the quiet peace and enjoyment of another’s real property. To determine whether a substantial and unreasonable interference exists, the court conducts a balancing test. Moving to the nuisance is a factor to consider, but is not a complete defense. The noise created by HNFNH interferes with plaintiffs’ sleep, peace, and conversations. It occurs at all hours of the day and night. Although HNFNH was in the area before the residents (plaintiffs moved to the nuisance), and is not in violation of zoning requirements, the nature of the area is clearly becoming more residential. There are twenty families now living in the area and development is “prolific.” More families are likely to move into the area, and the area is now zoned for single-family residential uses only. HNFNH does serve an important purpose of providing care and housing for hearing impaired senior citizens, but residential use for a neighborhood is also an important use. On balance, I hold that HNFNH is a private nuisance. The court has flexibility in the remedy that it orders in a nuisance case. It may order damages only, an injunction, or some combination of damages and injunctive relief. In an appropriate case, the court can order plaintiffs to bear the cost of remedying the nuisance through relocation or other measures. Whether to grant an injunction is driven by equitable considerations considering the impact of the injunction on the enjoined party and others. HNFNH is a semi-charitable institution and only marginally profitable. It located in the area before plaintiffs moved there. HNFNH could reduce or eliminate the nuisance through proper insulation, but costs of the insulation would be prohibitive to this defendant. If defendant is shut down, its residents will be forced to relocate, involving expense and disruption to the residents. One possible remedy would be to order a limited injunction and deny damages. I would require a reduction in the noise level during the night-time hours, and otherwise allowing HNFNH to continue to operate. I would deny damages in view of the fact that plaintiffs moved to the nuisance.