Negligence Without Fault: Trends Toward and Enterprise Liability for Insurable Loss
()
About this ebook
Related to Negligence Without Fault
Related ebooks
Mass Torts in a World of Settlement Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Getting Incentives Right: Improving Torts, Contracts, and Restitution Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Law of Torts: A Concise Treatise on the Civil Liability at Common Law and Under Modern Statutes for Actionable Wrongs to Person Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEnsuring Corporate Misconduct: How Liability Insurance Undermines Shareholder Litigation Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLegal Concepts of Insurance Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Mitigation Doctrine: A Proposal for its Regulation in Brazil Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAntitrust Law, Second Edition Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Obamacare on Trial Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsEthics and Responsibilities for Florida Adjusters Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Antitrust Religion Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsTort Reform: A Study in Frustration Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Punitive Imagination: Law, Justice, and Responsibility Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsChanging the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Guiding Rights: Trademarks, Copyright and the Internet Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsNonprofit Animal Law: Second Edition Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLaw and the Insurance Contract Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The War Crime of Child Soldier Recruitment Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsCorporate Crime and Punishment: The Crisis of Underenforcement Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsBar Review Companion: Remedial Law: Anvil Law Books Series, #2 Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Harvard Law Review: Volume 129, Number 7 - May 2016 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsAdministrative Law: The Informal Process Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Common Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFirst Demand Guarantees: The relevance of Fraud and Illegality in the English and Italian Jurisdictions Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPiercing the Corporate Veil: A Comprehensive Guide for Attorneys Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPoverty: Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure: Lysander Spooner Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsPoverty - Its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFire & Smoke: Government, Lawsuits, and the Rule of Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsSummary of Noise: by Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein - A Flaw in Human Judgment - A Comprehensive Summary Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Supreme Court Review, 2022 Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsOut of Bounds and Out of Control: Regulatory Enforcement at the EPA Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratings
Law For You
Law For Dummies Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Everything Guide To Being A Paralegal: Winning Secrets to a Successful Career! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The Source: The Secrets of the Universe, the Science of the Brain Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Win Your Case: How to Present, Persuade, and Prevail--Every Place, Every Time Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Verbal Judo, Second Edition: The Gentle Art of Persuasion Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Legal Words You Should Know: Over 1,000 Essential Terms to Understand Contracts, Wills, and the Legal System Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Wills and Trusts Kit For Dummies Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Estate & Trust Administration For Dummies Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsLegal Writing in Plain English: A Text with Exercises Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5How to Think Like a Lawyer--and Why: A Common-Sense Guide to Everyday Dilemmas Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5The Everything Executor and Trustee Book: A Step-by-Step Guide to Estate and Trust Administration Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5Win In Court Every Time Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Criminal Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Devil's Advocates: Greatest Closing Arguments in Criminal Law Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/58 Living Trust Forms: Legal Self-Help Guide Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Know Your Rights: A Survival Guide for Non-Lawyers Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsDivorcing a Narcissist: The Lure, the Loss and the Law Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsFamily Trusts: A Guide for Beneficiaries, Trustees, Trust Protectors, and Trust Creators Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5The ZERO Percent: Secrets of the United States, the Power of Trust, Nationality, Banking and ZERO TAXES! Rating: 5 out of 5 stars5/5Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5How To Become a Mobile Notary: Generate Income - A Side Hustle Series Rating: 0 out of 5 stars0 ratingsThe Common Law Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5Legal Demand Letters: A+ Guides to Writing, #10 Rating: 3 out of 5 stars3/5
Reviews for Negligence Without Fault
0 ratings0 reviews
Book preview
Negligence Without Fault - Albert A. Ehrenzweig
NEGLIGENCE
WITHOUT
FAULT
ALBERT A. EHRENZWEIG
Professor of Law, University of California
Berkeley
Trends toward an
Enterprise Liability for Insurable Loss
Negligence
Without Fault
BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS
1951
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS BERKELEY AND LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON, ENGLAND
COPYRIGHT, I95I, BY
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
TO MY FATHER
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
§ 1. INTRODUCTION
§ 2 I. PREINDUSTRIAL PERIOD
§ 9. 1. NEGLIGENCE
RESTATED
§ 16. 2. ENTERPRISE LIABILITIES FOR NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT ¡FAULT.
§ 17 I. THE SCOPE OF LIABILITY
§18. 2. THE PLAINTIFF’S CHOICE
§ 23 4. FAULT AND NON-FAULT NEGLIGENCE IN THE LAWS OF TORTS AND CRIMES
TABLE OF CASES
INDEX
§ 1.
INTRODUCTION
Four children chasing a kite drowned in a frozen pond.1 Damages were sought from a railroad company by whose admitted negligence water had been diverted to form the fatal pond. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied liability because a prudent man in the defendant’s place could not have anticipated and foreseen this unfortunate happening
and because there was no breach of duty to the children.
2 Jury verdict, majority opinion, and dissent reflect the uncertainty and hesitation prevailing in the allocation of the losses caused by the hazards of modern mechanical enterprise.
To create a balance between social and individual interests in this field has been the task and toil of the courts. Every year thousands of accidents foreseeably resulting from hazardous activities, seem to demand full liability to the innocent victim. But the law, for the sake of social gain and progress, has limited that liability to one for a negligence
measured by proximate causation
and duty of care.
On the other hand, so greatly have these tests been blunted in their application to enterprise-defendants that their results are little short of unanimity for the injured party.
3 Jury verdicts are permitted to stand though supported by no more evidence than that of some kind of formal fault; plaintiffs are assisted by fictions and presumptions (§4); and liability insurance, devised for the injurer’s protection, has widely been adapted to secure the recovery of the injured (886, 11). The Supreme Court itself, having greatly extended the negligence liability of Federal Employers
(§ 4), has been accused by a dissenting Justice of leaving the fault principle without much practical meaning.4 A new law of enterprise liability is in the making. To analyze this process in legal history, present theory and future probabilities both in legislative and judicial law making, is the purpose of this study.
The term negligence
implies blame for neglect.
The attempt will be made to show how and why the courts have come to make this concept with its inherent censure (§ § 2, 17) the basis and measure of compensation for harm caused by lawful activities (§ § 3-8); and what this has done to the concept and law of negligence (§§ 9-11). A negligence verdict condemning the substandard conduct of a drunken driver does not mean the same thing as a negligence verdict distributing losses caused by the lawful operation of a railroad corporation (§ 12). The resulting equivocations in the negligence rule may often have proved valuable in promoting sound compromise between competing policies. But if these equivocations are to continue as a vehicle of progress, they must be analyzed and recognized as such lest they hamper the organic growth of the law (88 12-17).
Many crosscurrents and transitions make impossible an exhaustive classification of the liabilities now included in the negligence
rule. But certain groups of those liabilities, being clearly related to strict
liabilities (§§ 13-15), permit and indeed require a separate analysis and nomenclature. These groups of liabilities, after a brief discussion of their history and present crisis (88 5-8)5 will be analyzed as quasi-strict liabilities for anegligence without faultn (§ 16). Elsewhere I suggested that this type of negligence be termed quasi-negligence,
5 as the basis of a non-fault liability within the framework of the traditional language of negligence. However, this terminology has been abandoned in this study to take account of the fact that we have come to think of this quasi-negligence
as of the negligence of our daily lives distinguishing therefrom as gross,
wanton,
or wilful
negligence most of what remains of the original moral
concept (§ 23).
Before the negligence rule (the rule invoked
), as applied to enterprise liability, can be restated in terms of a new true
rule of negligence without fault,
that rule must be proved to be the better rule
as to simplicity, clarity, and compatibility, as well as the real rule
appearing in the actual doing
of the courts.6 Thus, the new rule will have to be tested as to damages, conflict of laws, pleading and jury practice; as to the several types of tortfeasors (including employer and employee, automobile owner and operator, manufacturer and retailer, trustee and trust estate, government and official); and as to the several torts (including nuisance, deceit, libel, and breach of warranty). A brief outline of some results expected from such an investigation will be given at this time (88 17-23).
Enterprise liability for negligence without fault has been promoted by, and has in turn promoted, the institution of liability insurance as a means of the injured’s compensation. I attempted elsewhere to follow this development through several foreign legal systems. 7 The next logical step in the protection of persons injured by hazardous activities would be the adoption of schemes of compulsory liability insurance.8 The opposition to such schemes is partly caused, I believe, by the failure to segregate consciously an enterprise liability whose limits could be determined by its very insurability. It can only be a matter of conjecture, whether developments such as the medical first payment revolution,
which would secure certain benefits of automobile liability insurance
to passengers and bystanders without regard to liability,9 or the liability
insurance of immune tortfeasors (886, 21), will initiate a semisocial " third party beneficiary insurance" which would distribute losses caused by hazardous enterprise without regard to the entrepreneur’s liability.
The peculiarity of the present project which, to discover and promote trends, must presuppose much that might still be subject to controversy, may justify a somewhat unorthodox technique. In stating settled doctrine references to textbooks and law review articles have seemed more appropriate than citations of cases arbitrarily chosen from boundless accumulations. Living law is shown as it appears from encyclopedic case summaries and business
literature, in a field in which case law has become so redundant that surveys of fact situations catering to the practitioner’s needs have largely replaced the analysis of judicial opinion. Where, however, growing or future law is investigated, such analysis is indispensable to show characteristic divergences between rules avowedly and actually followed. For this purpose, to illustrate trends, views expressed in dissents, minority jurisdictions, and obiter dicta are as valuable as, or more valuable than, majority opinions purportedly following traditional doctrines. Similar considerations may justify the liberal use of quotations where language is our best guide to thought.
medical indorsements
entitle occupants of the insured’s car to medical expenses within specified limits. 8 APPLEMAN, INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE §§ 4895, 4896 (1942, Supp. 1949). This type of insurance seems to be spreading both to new types of accidents and new groups of persons. See 48 BEST’S No. 2, 45 (1947); Spectator, Feb. 14, 1946; James, Accident Liability Reconsidered: The Impact of Liability Insurance, 57 YALE L.J. 565 (1948); James and Thornton, The Impact of Insurance on the Law of Torts, 15 LAW AND CONTEMP. PROB. 431 (1950).
Part One
THE RULE INVOKED: NEGLIGENCE
‘The rule is settled,’ the Sirens sung.
Llewellyn, Put in His Thumb 45 (1931)
THE GROWTH OF THE RULE
1 But for Professor E. W. Patterson’s untiring advice and encouragement, this paper could not have been written. It seeks to establish a theory previously discussed by the writer in an unsigned Note, Loss-Shifting and Quasi-Negligence: A New Interpretation of the Palsgraf Case, 8 U. of CHI. L. REV. 729 (1941) (cited as Loss-Shifting); in Soldiers’ Liability for Wrongs Committed on Duty, 30 CORN. L. Q. 179 (1944); and in two Studies prepared for the State of New York Law Revision Commission [Multiple Damages, Leg. Doc. (1944) No. 65 (J), and products Liability, Leg. Doc. (1943) No. 65 (J) (cited as Products Liability)]; and further developed in Assurance Oblige—A Comparative Study, 15 LAW AND CONTEMP. PROB. 445 (I 95°) (cited as Assurance Oblige) [also Versicherung als Haftungsgrund, 72 JURIST. BLAETTER 253 (Vienna 1950); El Seguro Obliga, 3 BOL. del INST, de DER. COMP, de MEXICO 3 (1950)]. Much I owe to Dean Smith and Professor Llewellyn of the School of Law of Columbia University and to Dean Prosser of the School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.
2 Irwin Savings & Trust Co. v. Pa. R. R., 349 Pa. 278, 37 A. (2d) 432 (1944). For a note on cases dealing with similar fact situations, see 10 U. of PITTSBURGH L. REV. 97 (1948). Cf. infra note 62; Part II, notes 40, 143.
3 GREEN, JUDGE AND JURY 139 (1930). For references to recent statistics see James, Functions of Judge and Jury in Negligence Cases, 58 YALE L. J. 667, 687 (1949). See also Prosser, Proximate Cause in California, 38 CALIF. L. REV. 369, 397 (1950); McCord, Are You Tour Brother’s Keeper? [1950] INS. L. J. 709 (1950).
4 Jackson, J., in Wilkerson v. McCarthy, 336 U.S. 53, 76, 69