Duty of care-Questions and Answers Graded A+

Duty of care-Questions and Answers Graded A+ duty of care - ANSWER-a legally imposed standard of care by statute or contract; an obligation privity of contract - ANSWER-The premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such privity of contract - ANSWER-when two people have a legal contract, they have a duty of care toward each other i. Special Relationships: Common Carriers, Innkeepers, Teachers, Businesses ii. Negligent Injury by ∆: If ∆causes injury through negligence, he has a duty to aid iii. "Hit and Run Driver": Failure to stop & render aid constitutes negligence as a matter of law iv. Doctors: A duty doesnʼt exist to doctors offering their aid at scene of an emergency - ANSWER-examples of privity of contract misfeasance, nonfeasance, malfeasance, election and gravamen - ANSWER-ways to breach duty of care misfeasance - ANSWER-the willful inappropriate action or intentional incorrect action or advice; if you are contacted to do something and you do it incorrectly or give intentionally incorrect advice, you are liable nonfeasance - ANSWER-the failure to act where action is required - willfully or in neglect; you will be liable if you have a special duty that creates the duty to act; ex start to help a person who is drowning and then you stop and leave them in worse condition malfeasance - ANSWER-hostile, aggressive action taken to injure client's interests election and gravamen - ANSWER-some courts allow the P to choose which action he wants to take while other courts will determine the gist of the action A person may not sue another on a non-public contract when he/she is not privy to the contract. No privity of contract here between πand ∆. Where a party has undertaken a public duty, he is liable, even though injury to others may have arisen from negligence of his servant. Contract cannot turn into a tort action unless there has been a public duty undertaken. - ANSWER-Case: D manufacturer of coaches entered into contract with Postmaster General to keep mail coaches in safe condition. P driver sued D for injuires sustained when coach broke down; D was found not liable