This podcast covers the affirmative duty implications of negligent entrustment, and the start of the discussion of the duty of landowners and occupiers.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1285345155.13.mp3]


This is the podcast for class on September 20, 2010.  Cases discussed were Uhr, Strauss v. Belle Realty, and Reynolds v. Hicks. 


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1285006107.11.mp3]


Here are some interesting background facts on the Tarasoff case.

The Tarasoff case is perhaps inextricably linked to Berkeley in the 1960’s, and life around the University of California campus. The campus was justifiably famous for being a world-class intellectual center and was attracting students from all over the globe. Tatiana Tarasoff and Prosenjit Poddar were two such students. She was born of Russian parents who had emigrated to Brazil, while he was from a small Bengali village and was a member of an “untouchable” caste. He came to Berkeley to study naval architecture, having always attended schools where no dating or other social interchange between the sexes was permitted. The freewheeling atmosphere that prevailed in Berkeley at that time must have been totally alien to him.

They met at a dance at the International House, and he was apparently immediately smitten. She was friendly with him, but they were never actually romantically involved. When he found out that she was romantically involved with other men, his obsession and jealosy grew. He told friends and coworkers of his desire to kill Tatiana. It was at this time that he started seeing a psychiatrist at Cowell Hospital, the UC medical center.

Strangely enough Poddar had developed a friendship of sorts with Tatiana’s brother, who was knew of Poddar’s obsession, and may have had some sense of the danger, although he testified that he never believed that Poddar would kill his sister. The two young men were even rooming together at the time of the killing, the brother having told Poddar where Tatiana was on the day she was killed. Poddar went to her house, they argued, he shot her with a pellet gun and then stabbed her 17 times with a kitchen knife.

Adapted from Shuck and Givilber, Torts Stories, Foundation Press 2003

Cases discussed in Class #7, September 15, 2010 were Farwell v. Keaton, Moch, Randi v. Muroc, and Tarasof.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1284576375.5.mp3]


This podcast discusses our transition away from the element of breach and into the threshhold question of the existance of an affirmative duty of care.  To illustrate this concept of affirmative duty to aid another, we started with the Harper v. Herman case.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1284403157.3.mp3]


For this class, we discussed Negri, Gordon, Byrne v. Boadle, MacDougald v. Perry, and Ybarra v. Spangard.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1284045216.2.mp3]


In this class we discussed the roles of the judge and jury in deciding the standard of care, and the use of custom and statutes.  Cases discussed are Akins, Andrews, Trimarco, T.J. Hooper, Martin v. Herzog, and Tedla v. Ellmann.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1283376942.14.mp3]


In this class we discuss the standard of care for a negligence action.  Cases discussed are U.S. v. Carroll Towing, Bethel, Goodman, and Pokora.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/08/1283200291.2.mp3]


The facts of Carroll Towing are surprisingly complicated. In total there were 4 different corporate defendants, plus the federal government. While the docks of lower Manhattan are today relatively quiet, at the time of this case, which was 5 months before the Allies invaded Europe on D-Day, they were crowded and congested beyond limits, with boatloads of material waiting to be shipped and ships waiting to be transported across the ocean. Barges were attached to other barges in a “string” because there was no available space on the piers. In order to remove (or “drill out”) one of the 5 barges that had been attached to the Anna C. the ropes that had held her to the pier had to be reattached by the crew of The Carroll. It was during this process that the Anna C and her string of barges broke loose and collided with a ship, puncturing the Anna C and eventually causing her sinking. Tugboats were around that could have pumped water from the Anna C and prevented her from sinking, but no one was aboard her to alert them of the need for help.

And where was the captain of the Anna C (the “bargee”)? He originally testified that he was on board at all time, and only ‘fessed up to being AWOL when crew members from The Carroll testified that no one was aboard. His absence made the issue of negligence more difficult. If he had been onboard and simply failed to do anything to save the Anna C, he was surely negligent. His absence, however, created the issue that is at the heart of this case…Was the failure to have a bargee on board contributory negligence on the part of the owners of the Anna C?

Adapted from Gilles, Torts Stories, Foundation Press, 2003

In this podcast is Class #2 August 25.  Cases discussed are Roessler v. Novak, Brown v. Kendall, and Adams v. Bullock.


Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts3b2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/08/1282765803.9.mp3]


« Previous PageNext Page »

Secret Link