Torts - Negligence and Others

• (1) Duty on part of D to conform to a specific standard of conduct
• (2) breach of duty
• (3) actual and proximate cause
• (4) damages 

Duty of care owned to forseeable plaintiffs. Reasonable person standard

• A breach imposed by statute, ordinance, or admin rule may be considered IF:
• (1) P is class of persons intended to be protected by statute and
• (2) the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm to the plaintiff suffered

Commercial host is held to a high degree of care and will be liable for strict neglignce

• Invitee - response to invitation by landowner
• (1) warn of dangerous condition known to the owner that create un unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee and that the invitee is unlikely to discover
• (2) excercise rasonable care in the conduct of the active operations on the propert
• (3) make reasonable inspecitions to discover nonobvious dangerous conditions and make them safe

• Licensee - enters land with permission, express or implied, for his or her own purpose rather than possessor benefite.
• (1) duty to warn licensee of known dangerous condition which creates unreasonable risk of harm
• (2) licensee is unaware and unlikely to discover

• Trespasser 
• (1) no duty to warn of known or unknown dangers
• (2) but can't have traps 

Injury would not have occured "but for" the act.

Generally liable for all harmful results that are normal incidents of and withinin the increased risk caused by the acts.

Uninterupted chain of events from the negligent act, D is liable for all foreseeable harms that result, regardless of unusual manner or timing.

Master/employer will be vicariously liable for torts commited by employee if tort occured in scope of employment.

Employee also liable for own negligence even if employer liable under respondeat superior

Can be compensatyed for medical expenses, lost earning, limited amounts of pain and suffering, compensation for impaired future earnings

• Accidnet causing injury is the type that would not normally
• (1) occur unless someone was negligent
• (2) evidence of the instrumentalitiy causing the injury was in the exclusive control of the D
• (3) the P was free from fault 

Pure Comparative fault - negligent P may still revocer, but damages will be reduces by the percentage of hjis fault

• Two or more actors cause indivisibile injury,
• Liable to the P for the entire damage incurred.

Each D liable for entire amount (no contributory fault of P) 

Allow defendant who paid more of their share a claim against other parties of excess (based on comparative fault of each defendant)

P engages in activity with knowledge of the risks

A manufacturer is strictly liable if (1) the product was not safe in its construction and the defect proximately caused the harm (manufacture or design); OR (2) the product was not reasonably safe because it did not confrom to express or implied warranties, and the breach of the warranty caused the harm

ALSO liable under negligence

• Not strictly liable unless:
• (1) product sold under seller's name
• (2) seller is a controlled subsidiary of manufacturer
• (3) Seller provides specifications for product
• (4) no solvent manufacturer under WA jurisidiction

Otherwise negligence 

• (1) Unfair or deceptive act or practice
• (2) in trade or commerce
• (3) which affects the public interest
• (4) injury to the P in her business or property
• (5) a causal link between the unfair or deceptive act and the injury suffered

Strict liability for injuries caused by wild animals