Garners Essay Exam Cheat Sheet

1. Reasonable Person (his characters are never the reasonable person)

a. Cases fleshing out what constitutes a RP
i. Vaughn v. Menlove
b. Age
i. Roberts v. Ring
c. Occupation
d. *RP is decided by the jury, so be sure to argue BOTH ways the
person may be viewed and why
2. Someone is gonna physically fuck a bunch of shit up
a. Are they liable?
i. Scott v. Shepard: D liable for all acts which result from the
beginning action UNLESS unforeseeable (then it is a SSC
and the chain of events original D is responsible for stops)
ii. Ryans v. NY: D liable only for forseeable harm
b. Did they act like a RP SSC? (see above)
c. Did they have a duty?
i. YES Neg.
ii. NO IT
d. Did they violate a statute? Neg. per se.
e. Did it involve ultrahazardous conditions or animals? Strict Liability
3. Someone will be physically injured
a. Did they assume the risk?
i. Murphy v. Steeplechase, Knight v. Jewett risks must be
obvious, & P. must be knowledgable of the risk voluntarily
assumed risk
ii. YES assumed risk: Flopper case then they are SOL
iii. NO didnt assume risk: then other party is liable for their
injuries (could be assault, a & b, etc)
b. Were they defending themselves against someone else? A & B
c. Were they just being stupid? (goes back to RP)
d. Were they engaged in an illegal activity when the injury occurred?
i. YES:
4. The injured person will need medical attention:
a. Duty to Rescue
i. Special Relationship?
ii. Eckert v. Long Island not neg. for attempting to rescue
someone as long as its not rash decision

5.

6.
7.

8.

iii. Wagner v. International danger invites rescue. Neg party

liable for all subsequent rescue attempts
b. Possible False Imprisonment (ambulance, hot air balloon)
i. Cases fleshing out what constitutes FI
ii. However, if part of rescue, NOT FI b/c protecting from injury
(Sindle v. N.Y. Transit)
c. Consent?
d. Standard of Care
i. typically unlicensed, so know Brown v. Shyne
ii. Occupation
iii. Custom
e. Liability if they screw up the medical care (which they probably
will)
There will be property damage
a. Did they steal something (car) and then it got damaged, but it was
arguably out of necessity?
i. Trespass to Chattel
1. RST sec. 218
2. Intel (requires damage to the thing)
ii. Conversion
1. Poggi v. Scott
iii. Necessity is a defense to IT
1. Ploof v. Putnam necessity is a D to IT (private)
2. Vincent v. Lake Erie make whole (public)
b. Was it due to an ultrahazardous condition? Strict Liability
There will be something that was manufactured defectively (bad shrimp,
windshield, cars without backup cameras)
People coming onto other peoples land
a. Invitees
i. Duties owed to invitees
b. lessees
c. Trespassing!
i. What constitutes a trespass?
ii. Duties owed to Trespassers
1. Buch v. Armory cant be rough with trespassers
Dangerous materials & its effects on land
a. Cyanmid
b. Kingston v. Chicago
c. Summers v. Tice

9. Damages!
a. Contribution
10.
Employer/ Employee
a. On the job injury
i. WC
ii. frolic
b. Vicarious liability