Defenses

A number of defenses against negligence exist, with varying degrees of acceptance. A list of defenses is shown in Table 12.1 " Defenses against Liability". One is assumption of risk. The doctrine of assumption of riskDoctrine that holds that if the plaintiff knew of the dangers involved in the act that resulted in harm, but chose to act in that fashion nonetheless, the defendant will not be held liable. holds that if the plaintiff knew of the dangers involved in the act that resulted in harm but chose to act in that fashion nonetheless, the defendant will not be held liable. An example would be a bungee cord jumper who is injured from the jump. One could argue that a reasonable person would know that such a jump is very dangerous. If applicable, the assumption of risk defense bars the plaintiff from a successful negligence suit. The doctrine was particularly important in the nineteenth century for lawsuits involving workplace injuries, where employers would defend against liability by claiming that workers knew of job dangers. With workers’ compensation statutes in place today, the use of assumption of risk in this way is of little importance, as you will see in Chapter 1 "The Nature of Risk: Losses and Opportunities". Many states have also abolished the assumption of risk doctrine in automobile liability cases, disallowing the defense that a passenger assumed the risk of loss if the driver was known to be dangerous or the car unsafe.

A second defense found in just a few states is the doctrine of contributory negligenceSituation that disallows any recovery by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is shown to be negligent to any degree in not avoiding the relevant harm., which disallows any recovery by the plaintiff if the plaintiff is shown to be negligent to any degree in not avoiding the relevant harm. Thus, the motorist who was only slightly at fault in causing an accident may recover nothing from the motorist who was primarily at fault. In practice, a judge or jury is unlikely to find a plaintiff slightly at fault where contributory negligence applies. Theoretically, however, the outcome is possible.

The trend today is a shift away from the use of contributory negligence. Instead, most states follow the doctrine of comparative negligence. In comparative negligenceSituation in which the court compares the relative negligence of the parties and apportions recovery on that basis., the court compares the relative negligence of the parties and apportions recovery on that basis. At least two applications of the comparative negligence rule may be administered by the courts. Assume that, in the automobile example, both motorists experienced damages of $100,000, and that one motorist was 1 percent at fault, the other 99 percent at fault. Under the partial comparative negligenceRule under which only the individual less than 50 percent at fault in causing harm receives compensation. rule, only the individual less than 50 percent at fault in causing harm receives compensation. The compensation equals the damages multiplied by the percentage not at fault, or $99,000 ($100,000 × .99) in our example. Under the complete comparative negligenceRule under which both parties share damage in relation to their levels of responsibility for fault. rule, damages are shared by both parties in relation to their levels of responsibility for fault. The motorist who was 1 percent at fault still receives $99,000, but must pay the other motorist $1,000 ($100,000 × .01), resulting in a net compensation of $98,000. Because few instances exist when a party is completely free of negligence, and because society appears to prefer that injured parties be compensated, comparative negligence has won favor over contributory negligence. An important question, though, is how the relative degrees of fault are determined. Generally, a jury is asked to make such an estimate based on the testimony of various experts. Examples of the application of contributory and comparative negligence are shown in Table 12.2 " Contributory and Comparative Negligence".

Last clear chance is a further defense to liability. Under the last clear chanceDoctrine under which a plaintiff who assumed the risk or contributed to an accident through negligence is not barred from recovery if the defendant had the opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so. doctrine, a plaintiff who assumed the risk or contributed to an accident through negligence is not barred from recovery if the defendant had the opportunity to avoid the accident but failed to do so. For instance, the motorist who could have avoided hitting a jaywalker but did not had the last clear chance to prevent the accident. The driver in this circumstance could not limit liability by claiming negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Today, the doctrine has only minor application. It may be used, however, when the defendant employs the defense of contributory negligence against the plaintiff.

Last in this list of defenses is immunity. Where immunityA complete defense against liability because of status as a protected entity, professional, or other party. applies, the defendant has a complete defense against liability merely because of status as a protected entity, professional, or other party. For example, governmental entities in the United States were long protected under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity held that governments could do no wrong and therefore could not be held liable. That doctrine has lost strength in most states, but it still exists to some degree in certain circumstances. Other immunities extend to charitable organizations and family members. Like sovereign immunity, these too have lost most of their shield against liability.

Modifications

Doctrines of defense are used to prevent a successful negligence (and sometimes strict liability) lawsuit. Other legal doctrines modify the law to assist the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Some of these are discussed here and are listed in Table 12.3 " Modifications of Negligence".

Rules of negligence hold that an injured person has the burden of proof; that is, he or she must prove the defendant’s negligence in order to receive compensation. Courts adhere to these rules unless reasons exist to modify them. In some situations, for example, the plaintiff cannot possibly prove negligence. The court may then apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquiturDoctrine that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. (“the thing speaks for itself”), which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. The defendant must prove innocence. The doctrine may be used upon proof that the situation causing injury was in the defendant’s exclusive control, and that the accident was one that ordinarily would not happen in the absence of negligence. Thus, the event “speaks for itself.”

Illustrations of appropriate uses of res ipsa loquitur may be taken from medical or dental treatment. Consider the plaintiff who visited a dentist for the extraction of wisdom teeth and was given a general anesthetic for the operation. Any negligence that may have occurred during the extraction could not be proved by the plaintiff, who could not possibly have observed the negligent act. If, upon waking, the plaintiff has a broken jaw, res ipsa loquitur might be employed.

Doctrines with similar purposes to res ipsa loquitur may be available when a particular defendant cannot be identified. Someone may be able to prove by a preponderance of evidence, for example, that a certain drug caused an adverse reaction, but that person may be unable to prove which company manufactured the particular bottle consumed. Courts may shift the burden of proof to the defendants in such a circumstance.Two such theories are called enterprise liability and market share liability. Both rely on the plaintiff’s inability to prove which of several possible companies manufactured the particular product causing injury when each company makes the same type of product. Under either theory, the plaintiff may successfully sue a “substantial” share of the market without proving that any one of the defendants manufactured the actual product that caused the harm for which compensation is sought.

Liability may also be strict (or, less often, absolute) rather than based on negligence. That is, if you have property or engage in an activity that is considered ultra-dangerous to others, you may become liable on the basis of strict liabilityLiability without regard to fault. without regard to fault. In some states, for example, the law holds owners or operators of aircraft liable with respect to damage caused to persons or property on the ground, regardless of the reasonableness of the owner’s or operator’s actions. Similarly, if you dam a creek on your property to build a lake, you will be liable in most situations for injury or damage caused if the dam collapses and floods the area below. In product liability, discussed later in this chapter, a manufacturer may be liable for harm caused by use of its product, even if the manufacturer was reasonable in producing it. Thus, the manufacturer is strictly liable.

In some jurisdictions, the owner of a dangerous animal is liable by statute for any harm or damage caused by the animal. Such liability is a matter of law. If you own a pet lion, you may become liable for damages regardless of how careful you are. Similarly, the responsibility your employer has in the event you are injured or contract an occupational disease is based on the principle of liability without fault.Workers’ compensation is discussed in Chapter 1 "The Nature of Risk: Losses and Opportunities". Both situations involve strict liability.

In addition, liability may be vicarious. That is, the vicarious liabilitySituation in which the liability of one person may be based on the tort of another. of one person may be based on the tort of another, particularly in an agency relationship. An employer, for example, may be liable for damages caused by the negligence of an employee who is on duty. Such an agency relationship may result in vicarious liability for the principal (employer) if the agent (employee) commits a tort while acting as an agent. The principal need not be negligent to be liable under vicarious liability. The employee who negligently fails to warn the public of slippery floors while waxing them, for instance, may cause his or her employer to be liable to anyone injured by falling. Vicarious liability will not, however, shield the wrongdoer from liability. It merely adds a second potentially liable party. The employer and employee in this case may both be liable. Recall the case of vanishing premiums described in Chapter 9 "Fundamental Doctrines Affecting Insurance Contracts". Insurers were found to have liability because of the actions of their agents.

A controversial modification to negligence is the use of the joint and several liability doctrine. Joint and several liabilitySituation that exists when a plaintiff is permitted to sue any of several defendants individually for the full harm incurred. exists when the plaintiff is permitted to sue any of several defendants individually for the full harm incurred. Alternatively, the plaintiff may sue all or a portion of the group together. Under this application, a defendant may be only slightly at fault for the occurrence of the harm, but totally responsible for paying for it. The classic example comes from a case in which a Disney World patron was injured on a bumper car ride.Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood, 489 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. Appl. 1986), upheld by the Florida Supreme Court (515 So. 2d 198, 1987). The plaintiff was found 14 percent contributory at fault; another park patron was found 85 percent at fault; Disney was found 1 percent at fault. Because of the use of the joint and several liability doctrine, Disney was required to pay 86 percent of the damages (the percentage that the plaintiff was not at fault). Note that this case is an exceptional use of joint and several liability, not the common use of the doctrine.