DUTY MASTER SHEET
Label
Doctor (general practitioner)
Attorney
Owner to trespasser
Lessor to Lessee
Duty
Zone of Danger: A doctor who possesses
expertise regarding health necessarily puts one
in zone of danger if they do not give all
necessary advice to a patient who needs to make
a concrete decision regarding their own health.
Relationship: A general practitioner usually has
his/her patients records available to him or her
so they have cultivated a relationship that makes
this doctor to be best fit to give the patient
advice on any procedures related to their health.
Public Policy: Doctors are in unique positions to
gave patients advice on their health and
procedures related there on out so as a matter of
policy, we should hold them accountable.
Zone of danger: [depends on scenario]
Relationship: Attorney has duty to act in an
ethical manner that reflects his expertise in the
law and has duty to act on behalf of the client.
They are required to use superior judgment and
exercise skill of the profession of law.
Public Policy: The social utility of skilled
professionals rests on their ability to use their
skillset in an effective manner for their clients.
Zone of Danger: Once defendant noticed
trespasser, defendant knew that plaintiff could be
put in foreseeable harm so therefore defendants
actions directly put trespasser in zone of danger
and exposed him/her to unreasonable risk of
harm.
Relationship: Defendant, once notices or knows
this trespasser is constant, is in best position to
prevent harm potentially done to trespasser
because trespasser presumably would not know
the land and risks associated with a land as well
as the owner of the land.
Zone of Danger: If the lessor is negligent in
conducting repairs or does not undisclosed
dangerous conditions known to lessor, then s/he
puts the lessee directly in dangerous premises
where high harm can occur to the lessee.
Relationship/Public Policy: In both these
Breach Extra Notes/Responses
Zone of danger: A reasonable doctor would not In responding, doctors can argue that they
put their patient in a zone of danger by either followed the custom and that shows the
doing the act needed to prevent unreasonable maximum burden doctors can meet.
risk of harm or give the patient necessary advice In response: You should argue that this custom
if that advice would have made the patient make is unreasonable and bad for public utility of
a different decision in regards to the procedure. doctors if it puts more people in dangerous than
Doctor breached his duty because he exposed protects them.
his patient to unreasonable risk of harm because
the probability of harm is usually high and the
harm itself could be death or paralysis,
something that affects the rest of our life, and
the burden to give information in regards to all
risks of procedure is reasonably low. A doctor
acts unreasonably when he does
Relationship/Public Policy: Same as above. But
also discuss social utility: Burden is not just cost
to the doctor of his time and resources but utility
to public is high for specialized practitioners
advice.
Relationship: His act was unreasonable because Defense: Attorney would argue the same as
the probability of harm resulting from his lack of doctor: (1) he followed custom OR (2) burden to
professionalism is likely considering someone do whatever he had to do was high (3) oR
who does not know the law at all is relying on BOTH
him and that harm could be large and have a
deep effect whereas the burden to take ethical
responsibility and exercise expert knowledge,
which is the job as an attorney, is pretty low. You
went to law school for exactly that reason.
Public Policy: A reasonable attorney would also
owe a duty because his job rests on using his
expertise and being ethical.
Zone of Danger: Defendant acted unreasonably Defense: Trespasser was either flagrant
because the burden to let trespasser know that trespasser or trespassed for the first time so the
danger is there is low compared to the defendant did not know that someone was going
probability that the trespasser would face a to have the exposed risk of harm.
significant act of harm that would be caused. A Public Policy: Holding this defendant liable
reasonable defendant would have warned the would create a larger/broader duty for owners of
trespasser of danger. land to trespassers everywhere that would
Relationship: significantly burden them.
Zone of Danger: Lessor acted like an Defense: The burden to not do repairs
unreasonable lessor in exposing the lessee to negligently is very high and costly. The
unreasonable risk of harm but not notifying the defendant did it to the maximum ability he had
lessee to dangerous conditions of the property to fix whatever needed fixing. If you increase
that existed. The probability and type of harm the burden to this extent, that will further deter
that would occur is high considering the lessor lessors from fixing anything at all and that will
1

Bad guy, defendant, and plaintiff scenario #1:
Manufacturer or Retailer to Public
situations, only the lessor is in a position where s/he
can let the lessee know of potential problems. If
s/he waits for the lessee to discover it on their
own then the harm has probably already
occurred. The lessor is also letting the lessee
move into their premises so lessor has
responsibility of giving the lessee premises that
are either free of dangerous unreasonable living
conditions or at least notifying these conditions
to the lessee, letting the lessee make an informed
decision.
Zone of Danger: Because defendant had
particularized foreseeability of knowing that the
harm would result to plaintiff, but being
negligent, he put the plaintiff in a direct zone of
danger where he exposed the plaintiff to an
unreasonable risk of harm.
Relationship/Public Policy: Relationship is
what its [insert relationship] and is of the nature
such that [description]. If people are in the
same dwelling: the relationship between those
people showed that they either had foreseeability
of the harm or should have had foreseeability of
the harm.
Zone of Danger: If a product is defective or
manufactured incorrectly, it might not work
properly for its intended and foreseeable uses
and can cause great harm to the person using,
putting them directly in the zone of danger
created by manufacturing or design defect of the
product.
Relationship:
Public Policy: Manufacturer is in best position
to catch a design or manufacturing defect
because people who buy it will not have
expertise to detect the product for deformities
they will just assume it is good to work how it is
intended when they buy it.
knew about the conditions. The burden of letting be to the detriment of the lessee because lessees
the lessee know is low considering s/he just has might not have the contacts or necessary skills to
to notify the lessee. fix whatever needs fixing in the apartment.
(2) Lessor acted like an unreasonable lesser in Defense #2: Lessor followed customs of how to
negligently doing repairs in the property he fix different things that needed fixing. The
leased to the lessee. A reasonable lessor would custom is followed because that is the middle
have known that the harm would have been life ground between still doing something for the
threatening and probability of doing the repairs lessee but not being overburdened to the extent
incorrectly would increase and cause harm. The that it would detriment the rental economy. So
burden of doing the repairs correctly is minimal there is no breach because a reasonable person
compared to the harm occurred. would have followed this standard instead of the
Relationship/Public Policy: Lessor acted BPL standard outlined in the duty argument.
unreasonably because the burden of either doing
repairs well or telling lessee of disclosed
dangerous conditions is low compared to
probability of harm occurring or the impact of
the actual harm that occurred.
Zone of Danger: Defendant was unreasonable
because a reasonable defendant would have
taken the precaution necessary since burden to
take that precaution was low and the probability
and harm occurring was high.
Relationship/Public Policy: Defendant was
unreasonable because a reasonable defendant
would have used their relationship to prevent the
harm which was drastic since probability of
harm was high and the burden was low.
Both Args: Manufacturer or acted unreasonably
because a reasonable defendant would have
conducted a inspection and found either the
manufacturing defect or if they tested the
product before shipping it out to retailers and
other buyers they would have realized that an
entire line of products is messed up. The burden
of doing that is relatively low compared to
probability of harm occurring and the gravity of
harm that might occur as a result of the
manufacture or design defects at the hand of the
manufacturer.
2
3