LAW 1101 TEST 1
Comprehensive Questions and
Solutions Graded A+
Negligence - Answer: Conduct creating an unreasonable risk of harm, determined by
-The probability that harm will occur;
-The seriousness of the resulting harm;
-The social utility of creating the risk; and
-The cost of taking protections that would reduce the risk.
Elements of negligence - Answer: 1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Causation
4. Damages
Breach of duty of care - Answer: Reasonable person standard: the degree of care a theoretical
"reasonable person" would use in similar circumstances.
The general test is objective.
BDC-Children - Answer: •New York rule: subjective factors may be considered where conduct of
a child is in question. Gloshinsky v. Bergen Milk Tr. Co., 279 N.Y. 54 (1938).
•Children under 4 are not liable for negligence as a matter of law. Verni v. Johnson, 295 N.Y. 4.
•May be held to an adult standard if engaged in an adult activity.
,BDC-Physical disability - Answer: reasonable person with like disability
BDC-Mental Deficiency - Answer: No allowance for insanity, intoxication, or other mental defect.
Shea v. Esmay, 264 N.Y.S.2d 181
BDC-Superior skill or knowledge - Answer: •Professionals must exercise the care and skill
possessed by members of their profession.
•Specialist may be liable where a general practitioner isn't. Toth v. Community Hospital of Glen
Cove, 22 N.Y.2d 255.
BDC-Emergencies - Answer: •Become the "circumstances" in the reasonable person standard, if
not caused by Δ. Rowland v. Parks, 2 N.Y.2d 64 (1956).
BDC-Violation of Statute - Answer: •Standard established by legislation.
•Violation of statute which expressly provides for civil liability constitutes negligence per se if
there is a causal connection between violation and injury. Daggett v. Keshner, 7 N.Y.2d 981
(1960).
•Unexcused violation of statute not specifically providing for civil liability is negligence per se if
•П among class protected by statute;
•injury the kind statute sought to prevent; and
•causal connection between violation & injury. Koenig v. Patrick Construction Corp., 298 N.Y.
313 (1948).
•Violation of ordinance or administrative regulation merely some evidence of negligence. Major
v. Waverly & Ogden, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 332.
Duty to act - Answer: -Except in special circumstances, no one is required to aid another in peril.
-One who injures another or places him in peril has an affirmative duty to act.
, -Volunteer who aids another must exercise reasonable care. Zelenko v. Gimbel Bros., 158 Misc.
904, aff'd, 247 App. Div. 867 (1936); Wojcik v. Aluminum Co. of America, 183 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1959)
Good Samaritan Statute - Answer: *Licensed medical professionals who voluntarily and
gratuitously render emergency treatment outside of a medical setting are liable only for their
gross negligence.
*Education Law § 6527 - physicians
nEducation Law § 6611 - dentists
nEducation Law § 6909 - professional nurses and practical nurses
Scope of duty - Answer: -П must be foreseeable. Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road, 248 N.Y. 339
(1928); Williams v. State, 308 N.Y. 548 (1955).
-Rescuer is a foreseeable П. Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N.Y. 176; Carney v. Buyea, 271
App. Div. 338 (1946); Provenso v. Sam, 23 N.Y.2d 256 (1968).
-Danger invites rescue.
Duties to possessors of land - Answer: -Owners or possessors of land must maintain it so that
others do not face unreasonable risk of harm.
Duty to trespassers - Answer: -Trespasser is one who enters or remains upon the land of
another without permission or privilege.
-Generally, no liability to trespassers for negligence.
-Exception: attractive nuisance.
*Attractive nuisance does not apply in N.Y.
-Trespassers are protected from intentional injury.
Duty to Licensees - Answer: -invite one to one's house
-warn of dangerous activities and conditions known to possessor that the licensee is unaware of
and unlikely to discover
Comprehensive Questions and
Solutions Graded A+
Negligence - Answer: Conduct creating an unreasonable risk of harm, determined by
-The probability that harm will occur;
-The seriousness of the resulting harm;
-The social utility of creating the risk; and
-The cost of taking protections that would reduce the risk.
Elements of negligence - Answer: 1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Causation
4. Damages
Breach of duty of care - Answer: Reasonable person standard: the degree of care a theoretical
"reasonable person" would use in similar circumstances.
The general test is objective.
BDC-Children - Answer: •New York rule: subjective factors may be considered where conduct of
a child is in question. Gloshinsky v. Bergen Milk Tr. Co., 279 N.Y. 54 (1938).
•Children under 4 are not liable for negligence as a matter of law. Verni v. Johnson, 295 N.Y. 4.
•May be held to an adult standard if engaged in an adult activity.
,BDC-Physical disability - Answer: reasonable person with like disability
BDC-Mental Deficiency - Answer: No allowance for insanity, intoxication, or other mental defect.
Shea v. Esmay, 264 N.Y.S.2d 181
BDC-Superior skill or knowledge - Answer: •Professionals must exercise the care and skill
possessed by members of their profession.
•Specialist may be liable where a general practitioner isn't. Toth v. Community Hospital of Glen
Cove, 22 N.Y.2d 255.
BDC-Emergencies - Answer: •Become the "circumstances" in the reasonable person standard, if
not caused by Δ. Rowland v. Parks, 2 N.Y.2d 64 (1956).
BDC-Violation of Statute - Answer: •Standard established by legislation.
•Violation of statute which expressly provides for civil liability constitutes negligence per se if
there is a causal connection between violation and injury. Daggett v. Keshner, 7 N.Y.2d 981
(1960).
•Unexcused violation of statute not specifically providing for civil liability is negligence per se if
•П among class protected by statute;
•injury the kind statute sought to prevent; and
•causal connection between violation & injury. Koenig v. Patrick Construction Corp., 298 N.Y.
313 (1948).
•Violation of ordinance or administrative regulation merely some evidence of negligence. Major
v. Waverly & Ogden, Inc., 7 N.Y.2d 332.
Duty to act - Answer: -Except in special circumstances, no one is required to aid another in peril.
-One who injures another or places him in peril has an affirmative duty to act.
, -Volunteer who aids another must exercise reasonable care. Zelenko v. Gimbel Bros., 158 Misc.
904, aff'd, 247 App. Div. 867 (1936); Wojcik v. Aluminum Co. of America, 183 N.Y.S.2d 351 (1959)
Good Samaritan Statute - Answer: *Licensed medical professionals who voluntarily and
gratuitously render emergency treatment outside of a medical setting are liable only for their
gross negligence.
*Education Law § 6527 - physicians
nEducation Law § 6611 - dentists
nEducation Law § 6909 - professional nurses and practical nurses
Scope of duty - Answer: -П must be foreseeable. Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road, 248 N.Y. 339
(1928); Williams v. State, 308 N.Y. 548 (1955).
-Rescuer is a foreseeable П. Wagner v. International Ry. Co., 232 N.Y. 176; Carney v. Buyea, 271
App. Div. 338 (1946); Provenso v. Sam, 23 N.Y.2d 256 (1968).
-Danger invites rescue.
Duties to possessors of land - Answer: -Owners or possessors of land must maintain it so that
others do not face unreasonable risk of harm.
Duty to trespassers - Answer: -Trespasser is one who enters or remains upon the land of
another without permission or privilege.
-Generally, no liability to trespassers for negligence.
-Exception: attractive nuisance.
*Attractive nuisance does not apply in N.Y.
-Trespassers are protected from intentional injury.
Duty to Licensees - Answer: -invite one to one's house
-warn of dangerous activities and conditions known to possessor that the licensee is unaware of
and unlikely to discover
