Should we write like this?

On Sunday, August 9, 1986, Jeffrey Harper (“Harper”) was one of four guests on Theodor Herman’s (“Herman”) 26-foot boat…

We treat our reader like a big, golden baby.

A duty to

exercise reasonable care

[fit] Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

“The Psychiatrist Who Didn’t Warn the Murder Victim”

[fit] Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District

“The Alleged Sexual Predator’s Recommenders”

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

Strauss v. Belle Realty

Third Restatement

When determining that no legal duty exists for reasons of public policy, courts should use “categorical, bright-line rules of law applicable to a general class of cases.”

Two Closing Thoughts

1. Crushing liability has not aged well.
2. Policy justifications ≠ individual autonomy concerns

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