Upcoming Schedule

Mon. Sept. 29 - Duty of Landowners and Occupiers

Wed. Oct. 1 - Midterm Review & Office Hours

Fri. Oct. 3 - No class

Mon. Oct. 6 - Midterm Exam

Midterm Review

Email me questions until 9am on Wednesday Oct. 1

Ask me questions in office hours after class on Oct. 1

I will not respond to substantive questions after Oct. 1

Reynolds v. Hicks

Negligence Per Se

Remember Martin v. Herzog?

Negligence Per Se

Under RCW 66.44.270(1) it is a crime to:

give or otherwise supply liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years or permit any person under that age to consume liquor on his or her premises or on any premises under his or her control.

[] What the heck?

Two Reasons

1. Legal
2. Policy

What have we learned about duty so far?

Duties of Landowners & Occupiers

Carter v. Kinney

Traditional View

Traditional View

Traditional View

Duties Owed — Traditional View

Trespasser duty not to intentionally or wantonly cause injury no duty of reasonable care (with handful of exceptions)

Licensee no duty to inspect or discover dangerous conditions duty to warn or make known conditions safe

Invitee duty to inspect and discover dangerous conditions duty to warn or make conditions safe

Heins v. Webster County

Modern View

Modern View

Duties Owed — Modern View

Trespasser¹ duty not to intentionally or wantonly cause injury no duty of reasonable care (with handful of exceptions)

Everybody Else duty of reasonable care

Traditional View

vs.

Modern View

Exercise 1:

Letter from Colleague

Exercise 2:

Optometrist Duty to 3rd Parties

Rowland Factors

• foreseeability of harm
• certainty of plaintiff’s injury
• connection between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s injury
• moral blame
• policy of preventing harm
• burden to defendant
• consequences to community
• availability of insurance