Soldano Vs O
Soldano vs O’Daniels
Facts: The plaintiff, Soldano attempted to contact the police from a phone at the Happy Jacks Saloon after receiving a threat. The defendant, Happy Jacks and the bartender did not allow the plaintiff to use the phone. The defendant is being charged with negligence in the death of the father of the plaintiff. The defendant contends that the request of its employee to call the police is a request to do something. Citing Restatement Second of Torts section 314, The fact the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another aide or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action. The lower court found that the defendant was not responsible for action in the death of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff appealed and the appeals court sided with the plaintiff and allowed for the case to go to trial.
Issue: Should the appeals court apply the doctrine of Restatement Second of Torts section 314 that the defendant is not responsible for action.
Judgment: Yes, the inherent capacity of the common law for growth and at its most significant feature. Its development has been determined by the social needs of the community which it serves. It is constantly changing and developing in keeping with advancing civilization and the new conditions and progress of society.
Reasons: There is a clear case of precedence from the case Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California.
Application: If one knows that a third person is ready to give aid to another and negligently prevents the third person from doing so, he is subject to liability for harm caused by the absence of aid. 327 Restatement Second of Torts
Facts: The plaintiff, Soldano attempted to contact the police from a phone at the Happy Jacks Saloon after receiving a threat. The defendant, Happy Jacks and the bartender did not allow the plaintiff to use the phone. The defendant is being charged with negligence in the death of the father of the plaintiff. The defendant contends that the request of its employee to call the police is a request to do something. Citing Restatement Second of Torts section 314, The fact the actor realizes or should realize that action on his part is necessary for another aide or protection does not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action. The lower court found that the defendant was not responsible for action in the death of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff appealed and the appeals court sided with the plaintiff and allowed for the case to go to trial.
Issue: Should the appeals court apply the doctrine of Restatement Second of Torts section 314 that the defendant is not responsible for action.
Judgment: Yes, the inherent capacity of the common law for growth and at its most significant feature. Its development has been determined by the social needs of the community which it serves. It is constantly changing and developing in keeping with advancing civilization and the new conditions and progress of society.
Reasons: There is a clear case of precedence from the case Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California.
Application: If one knows that a third person is ready to give aid to another and negligently prevents the third person from doing so, he is subject to liability for harm caused by the absence of aid. 327 Restatement Second of Torts