This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Thank you.
At common law, a person does not generally have an affirmative duty to control the conduct of another. An exception to this rule exists when a special relationship between parties is sufficient to establish a duty of care. Such a duty can be symmetrical (husband-wife) or asymmetrical (adult-minor, doctor-patient), and the nature of the relationship determines the nature of the duty owed. The special relationship can be with either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled (where the plaintiff would be an injured party not in a special relationship with the defendant) or a foreseeable victim (and future plaintiff) of that conduct.
“Tarasoff” lays out the doctrine and arguments for and against the rule. “Broadbent” focuses on whether parents have a duty to protect their children from hurting themselves. “Hawkins” shows the bounds of a doctor’s duty to her patient, including the recurring theme of foreseeability of harm to a known plaintiff. “Cuppy” illustrates the special relationship analysis for finding a duty to control. The contrasting approaches in “Charles” and “Kelly” show the majority and minority (New Jersey) rules for social host liability. “Einhorn” discusses the landlord-tenant relationship and the limits of the duty within it. The extent to which the owner-invitee relationship requires protecting invitees from third party criminal acts is explored in “Boyd”.EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (2/2 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/2 playlist item notes are private)
|1||Show/Hide More||XII.A. More Special Relationships|
|1.1||Show/Hide More||Broadbent v. Broadbent--"The Elimination of Parental Immunity Case"|
|1.2||Show/Hide More||Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California--"The Psychiatrist's Failure to Warn the Murder Victim"|
|1.3||Show/Hide More||Hawkins v. Pizarro--"The Failure to Correctly Report Hepatitis C Test Results"|
|1.4||Show/Hide More||Einhorn v. Seeley--"The Locksmith's Failure to Property Install a Lock"|
|1.5||Show/Hide More||Boyd v. Racine Currency Exchange--"The Non-compliant Bank Teller and the Murdered Hostage"|
|2||Show/Hide More||XII.B. Controlling the Intoxicated|
|2.1||Show/Hide More||Charles v. Seigfried--"The Majority Rule for Social Host Liability"|
|2.2||Show/Hide More||Kelly v. Gwinnell--"The New Jersey (Minority) Rule for Social Host Liability"|
September 18, 2015
Harvard Law School
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at email@example.com. Thank you.