Torts II 1997 Answer Key

  ___ 5 Hugh/Thelma v. Medea  prof. malpractice (need expert test. re mediation techniques)

___ 10 is mediator prof.? (varying degrees, no exam, prof org SPIDR but volun, eclectic training) Kerkman; Medea has MSW, not mediation-specific, her prior work was volunteer

___ 5 std of care for mediator (national std., specialty? Vergara Hall); prob. reas. soc. worker

___ 5 straight negl. D, B, C, D

___ 5 special (fiduciary) relationship = higher duty? Arato

___ 5 Medea defends using Tarasoff duty to warn spec identifiable victim (Thelma), but was H’s comment a threat? (never said he intended to cause her to stop breathing)

___ 5 Pearman/Thelma v. MSG negl. hiring, training, supervision (v. established rules)

___ 10 MSG resp sup (actual agency); course and scope Riviello: outside time and space -- mtgs             at her home; not authorized; did MSG know Buskers were clients?; was Medea perf. er’s work, Gatzke, or showing off (frolic for pers. gain)? dev. normal work?

___ 5 ostensible agency (creates appearance of agency) holding out by MSG: access to forms, let Medea take new client calls) Jackson v. Power

___ 5 Medea not I.C., but trainee; subject to rules, uses std form contract Leaf River

___ 5 MSG v. Medea indemnity; misapprop. commercial value (letterhead)

___ 5 did Hugh/Thelma assume risk of improper mediation?

___ 10 Hugh/Thelma v. Medea/MSG  negligence (breach of confidences) duty based on contract (no physical risks Mobil; not contemplated risks Coyle; duty reas. care or strict?); Hugh has no damages; under K, Medea could make necessary disclosures

___ 5 Pearman/Gerda v. Medea/MSG contract (not 3rd party beneficiaries); risk creation

___ 5 Thelma v. Medea NIED re disclosure of info about Hugh Hedlund; threat phys. impact; depression, nightmares, wt. loss Ford v. Aldi

___ 5 Hugh/Thelma intrusion on seclusion (mediation w/o authorization is intrusive) Birnbaum  

___ 5 Thelma v. Hugh slander (“evil, greedy” -- just name-calling during divorce); privileged statement during mediation?

___ 10 Hugh v. Medea slander “he’s the kind of guy” (private/private -- std. negl.), publication, reputation, falsity?; opinion but prof. op.; damages (not crime involving moral turpitude)?

Dunn & Bradstreet

___ 5 Hugh v. Thelma slander republication “threat,” but priv. to report suspected crime; prob. no interspousal immunity

___ 5 Hugh v. Medea false light (not public; T made it public)

___ 5 Hugh v. Medea public disclosure of private facts (not public); reck. disregard re embar.

___ 5 privileged disclosure from mediator to one of mediation parties; public interest priv.

___ 5 Pearman v. Thelma (battery, possible assault re second shot); T v. P (trespass but priv?)

 

___ 10 Pearman v. Thelma negl.: invitee duty of reas. care v. trespass (no notice) duty no reckless inj; licensee; P contrib. neg. (MJ encounter); negl. under ord. care std. Rowland

___ 5 firefighter’s rule defense Anicet assumed risk, but shooting sep. & indep. & unusual peril Phillip Morris

 ___ 10 Thelma/Pearman v. Jackson negl. failure to warn (T told Diz getting gun) Tarasoff; aff. action; beginning rescue, leaving in worse condition 324, Krieg; DeLong special rel.; shift end, phone-in all clear DeShaney (did nothing) v. Kircher reliance

___ 5 immunity (discretionary acts or operational mistakes, leaving work not policy judgment Dube)

___ 5 immunity Riss  public duty (no liab. for failure to protect v. responded to call)

___ 5 Pearman/Thelma v. Diz P. Atcher negl. based on aff. action, DeLong (promise to send someone over, no one contacts Thelma); nonfeasance v. began rescue effort (tried to reach, but lines dead v. should have sent officer)

___ 5 T contrib. negl. hanging up & shooting first, questioning later

___ 5 immunity: dispatching ministerial unless resource issue Lockett; ee, not officer James 

___ 10 Gerda v. Thelma bystander NIED: no impact; not zone of danger; present? via phone under Dillon & Thing, but no awareness until after thought shots were lightening; live-in not family member; Molien unlikely, since no info conveyed; severe ED; preexist mental instab Miley, but no forewarn Rest.

___ 5 Pearman v. Thelma NIED

___ 5 no loss of consortium since live-in Boucher but stable signif. relationship

___ 5 Organization

___ 10 Innovative arguments/thorough analysis

_________

 

Total 220