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). The nature of the relationship determines the nature of the duty owed.
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. 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||Duty Arising from and Limited by Special Relationships|
|1.1||Show/Hide More||Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California--"The Psychiatrist's Failure to Warn the Murder Victim"|
|1.2||Show/Hide More||Broadbent v. Broadbent--"The Elimination of Parental Immunity Case"|
|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 Properly 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||Controlling the Intoxicated|
|2.1||Show/Hide More||Kelly v. Gwinnell--"The Don't let Friends Drink and Drive Case"|
|2.2||Show/Hide More||Charles v. Seigfried--"The Tragic Fate of the Minor Guest"|
July 24, 2017
Harvard Law School, Berkman Center
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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.