Imputed Contributory Negligence

Our system of liability based on fault is part of an economic and social philosophy of individualism. Quite naturally then an individual is generally held only for his own fault and not for the fault of another. Innocent A is not usually liable for injuries caused by guilty B. It is commonplace, however, that he sometimes is. That is where there is a relationship between A and B to which the law attaches the consequences of vicarious liability. Such relationships are those between master and servant, and persons engaged in a partnership or a joint enterprise. Where the servant, for instance, acting within the scope of his employment negligently injured C, the innocent master, A, is liable to C for that injury. This result is usually described by identifying master and servant. Qui facit per alium facit per se. This means that the servant\u27s negligence is imputed to the master

The Evolution and Status of the Contributory Negligence Defense to Medical Malpractice Actions in North Carolina - McGill v. French

This Note will examine the defense of contributory negligence, the prerequisites for asserting the defense, and the underlying policy reasons which may explain the rampant growth of the defense and its alleged recent decline. Next, this Note will evaluate the circumstances which have given rise to contributory negligence as well as those circumstances that do not rise to the level of contributory negligence. Finally, this Note will analyze the North Carolina Supreme Court\u27s decision to permit the defense when the patient fails to follow the physician\u27s advice and instructions

Contributory Negligence of Children

We will deal primarily with the child of tender years and will touch only briefly on the teen-ager in the field of contributory negligence. We will first examine the characteristics of younger children which the courts have emphasized in applying the doctrine of contributory negligence and then review the rationale underlying the way in which the courts have applied the doctrine to the child. We will find that the capacity of a child to be contributorily negligent has presented problems which are related to the standard of care which the child, if capable of contributory negligence, must observe in order not to be barred by this defense

Illusory Defense of Contributory Negligence in Product Liability

As is readily apprehended, contributory negligence in the defense of a product liability action is a can of worms. But, if it is recognized that there is no such thing as contributory negligence and that the defense contemplated is that of abnormal, unintended, or unforeseen use, or is that of assumed risk, or that of lack of due care, then there may perhaps be order brought out of chaos. However, it is strongly suggested that even these defenses are, in the absence of uncontrovertible facts, no panacea for defendants. There are much better ways to beat a product liability claim than relying on contributory negligence, an illusory defense