Torts

I. Negligence
A. Elements of a Negligence Action
A plaintiff alleging and seeking to prevail in a cause of action for negligence must
prove and establish the following five elements:
1. The defendant had and owed a duty to the plaintiff to use reasonable
and due care. As noted in the Restatement (thiRd) of torts, [a]n actor
ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actors
conduct creates a risk of physical harm. duty to use reasonable care
2. The defendant failed to meet and therefore committed a breach of the
duty and standard of care. breach of that duty
3. The defendants negligent conduct (i.e., breach of duty) injured the
plaintiff. To establish causation the plaintiff must prove that the
defendants negligence was both the cause-in-fact (the but-for cause)
and the legal cause or proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury. causation
4. The plaintiff suffered actual damages. Note that nominal damages
cannot be recovered in negligence. resulting damages
B. Negligence
1. Is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon this
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do,
or doing something which a prudent & reasonable man would do
1. Slight
want a great care & diligence
2. Ordinary
want of ordinary care & diligence
3. Gross
want go slight care & diligence
2. A general duty of care is imposed on all human activity. When a person
engages in an activity, he is under a legal duty to act as an ordinary,
prudent, reasonable person. It is presumed that an ordinary, prudent,
reasonable person will take precautions against creating unreasonable risks of
injury to other persons. Thus, if the defendants conduct creates an
unreasonable risk of injury to persons in the position of the plaintiff, the general
duty of care extends from the defendant to the plaintiff. No duty is imposed on
a person to take precautions against events that cannot reasonably be foreseen.
Therefore, if at the time of the negligent conduct, no foreseeable risk of injury
to a person in the position of the plaintiff is created by the defendants act, the
general duty of care does not extend from the defendant to the plaintiff.
C. Negligence:Formulation & factors
1. 290. What Actor is Required to Know
For the purpose of determining whether the actor should recognize that
his conduct involves a risk, he is required to know
a. the qualities and habits of human beings and animals and the
qualities, characteristics, and capacities of things and forces in so
far as they are matters of common knowledge at the time and in
the community; and


b. the common law, legislative enactments, and general customs
in so far as they are likely to affect the conduct of the other or third
persons.
2. 291 Unreasonableness; How Determined; Magnitude of Risk and Utility
of Conduct
Where an act is one which a reasonable [person] would recognize as
involving a risk of harm to another, the risk is unreasonable and the act is
negligent if the risk is of such magnitude as to outweigh what the law
regards as the utility of the act or of the particular manner in which it is
done.
3. 292. Factors Considered in Determining Utility of Actors Conduct
In determining what the law regards as the utility of the actors conduct for
the purpose of determining whether the actor is negligent, the following
factors are important:
a. the social value which the law attaches to the interest which is
to be advanced or protected by the conduct;
b. the extent of the chance that this interest will be advanced or
protected by the particular course of conduct;
c. the extent of the chance that such interest can be adequately
advanced or protected by another and less dangerous course of
conduct.
4. 293. Factors Considered in Determining Magnitude of Risk
In determining the magnitude of risk for the purposes of determining
whether the actor is negligent, the following factors are important:
a. the social value which the law attaches to the interests which
are imperiled;
b. the extent of the chance that the actors conduct will cause an
invasion of any interest of the other or of one of a class of which
the other is a member;
c. the extent of the harm likely to be caused to the interests
imperiled;
d. the number of persons whose interests are likely to be invaded
if the risk takes effect in harm.
5. cases
a. A golf club is not so inherently dangerous that leaving it lying in a yard
can constitute negligence. (Lubitz v. Wells)
b. With respect to dangerous instrumentalities, the character, location,
and utility of the instrumentality as well as the ease of making it safer
must be taken into account in determining what degree of precaution is
necessary so as not to be negligent. (Chicago v. Krayenbuhl)
c. A duty of care may be said to exist if the burden of reasonable
precautions against harm to others is less than the product of the
chances of resulting harm in terms of probability, and the magnitude of
the harm. (U.S v. Carroll towing)
C. Duty
1. General RuleForeseeable Plaintiffs
A duty of care is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs.


2. The Unforeseeable Plaintiff Problem
a. The unforeseeable plaintiff problem arises when defendant breaches
a duty to one plaintiff and also causes injury thereby to a second plaintiff
to whom a foreseeable risk of injury might or might not have been created
at the time of the original negligent act. (Palsgraf)
b. Solutions
i. Andrews View in Palsgraf, the second plaintiff may establish
the existence of a duty extending from the defendant to her by
showing that the defendant has breached a duty he owed P1. In
short, defendant owes a duty of care to anyone who suffers
injuries as a proximate result of his breach of duty to someone.
ii. Cardozo View in Palsgraf, the second plaintiff can
recover only if she can establish that a reasonable person
would have foreseen a risk of injury to her in the
circumstances, i.e., that she was located in a foreseeable zone
of danger.
D. Standard of care
1. Four ways to determine
1. by determining the conduct of the reasonable prudent person under the
facts of the case
2. by applying a rule of law previously formulated by a binding court
3. by applying a non-tort specific legislative enactment or administrative
regulation
4. by applying a legislative enactment or administrative regulation that
expressly defines the standard of care in a negligence action.
2. 285(d)
The standard of conduct of a reasonable [person] may be . . . applied to
the facts of the case by the trial judge or the jury, if there is no [legislative]
enactment, regulation, or [judicial] decision.
3. Definition:the degree of care that a reasonable person should exercise
4. Hand Formula B>PL
a. B the burden of adequate precautions was less than
b. P the probability
c. L the loss or injury
5. The precise standard of care in a common law negligence case may be
established by proving the applicability to that case of a statute providing for
criminal penalties (including fines). If this is done, a clearly stated specific duty
imposed by the statute will replace the more general common law duty of due
care. In proving the availability of the statutory standard, plaintiff must show the
following:
a. Plaintiff Within Protected Class: The plaintiff must show that she is in
the class intended to be protected by the statute.
b. Particular Harm to Be Avoided: The plaintiff must show that the statute
was designed to prevent the type of harm that the plaintiff suffered.
c. Exceptions
i. Where compliance would cause more danger than violation;
e.g., defendant drives onto wrong side of road to avoid hitting
children who dart into his path


ii. Where compliance would be beyond defendants control; e.g.,
blind pedestrian crosses against light.
6. Cases
D. The Reasonable Prudent Person
1. 295a (1965) Custom
In determining whether conduct is negligent, the customs of the
community, or of others under like circumstances, are factors to be taken
into account, but are not controlling where a reasonable [person] would
not follow them.
2. Liability for Physical harm 13 (2010) Custom
a. An actors compliance with the custom of the community, or of others in
like circumstances, is evidence that the actors conduct is not negligent
but does not preclude a finding of negligence.
b. An actors departure from the custom of the community, or of others in
like circumstances, in a way that increases risk is evidence of the actors
negligence but does not require a finding of negligence.
3. 283A
The standard of conduct to which a child must conform to avoid being
negligent is that of a reasonable person of like age, intelligence, and
experience under like circumstances. Comment c to 283A states that
an exception to this rule may arise when the child engages in an activity
which is normally undertaken only by adults, and for which adult
qualifications are required. In those situations the child may be held to
the standard of adult skill, knowledge, and competence, and no allowance
may be made for his immaturity.
4. 283B Mentally Ill/Insanity
unless the actor is a child, his insanity or other mental deficiency does not
relieve the actor from liability for conduct which does not conform tot he
standard of a reasonable man under like circumstances
5. 283c Disabled
Actor is ill or otherwise physically disabled, the standard of conduct to
which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable
man under like disability
6. Children
a. A majority of courts take the view that a child is required to conform to
the standard of care of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and
experience. This permits a subjective evaluation of these factors.
b. Minimum Age for Capacity to Be Negligent: a case to case basis
c. Children Engaged in Adult Activities: be treated as an adult
7. Inn-keeper
required to exercise a very high degree of care toward their passengers
and guests; i.e., they are liable for slight negligence.
8. Bailment Duties


a. the bailor transfers physical possession of an item of personal property
to the bailee without a transfer of title. The bailee acquires the right to
possess the property in accordance with the terms of the bailment. A
bailment obligates the bailee to return the item of personal property to the
bailor or otherwise dispose of it according to the bailment terms.
b. Duties Owed by Bailee
i. Sole Benefit of Bailor Bailment
If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor (e.g., the
bailor asks his neighbor (the bailee) to take in the bailors
mail while he is on vacation), the bailee is liable only for
gross negligence.
ii. Sole Benefit of Bailee Bailment
If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee (e.g., the
bailor gratuitously loans her lawnmower to the bailee), the
bailee is liable even for slight negligence.
iii. Mutual Benefit Bailments
If the bailment is for the mutual benefit of the bailor and
bailee (typically a bailment for hire such as in the computer
example above), the bailee must exercise ordinary due
care.
iv. Modern Trend
Today the trend is away from such classifications and
toward a rule that considers whether the bailee exercised
ordinary care under all the circumstances. These
circumstances include, e.g., value of the goods, type of
bailment, custom of a trade, etc.
c. Duties Owed by Bailor
i. Sole Benefit of Bailee Bailments
If the bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailee (e.g., the
bailor gratuitously loans her lawnmower to the bailee), the
bailor need only inform the bailee of known dangerous
defects in the chattel. There is no duty with regard to
unknown defects.
ii. Bailments for Hire
If the bailment is for hire (e.g., the bailor loans her
lawnmower to the bailee for a fee), the bailor owes a duty
to inform the bailee of defects known to him, or of which he
would have known by the exercise of reasonable diligence.
9. Cases
a. The standard of care under negligence is not based on the judgment of
each individual. 2) A landowner is under a general duty of care to use his
land without negligently causing injury to others. The standard for
negligence is that of a reasonable person under the same or similar
circumstances. (Vaughan v. Menlove)
b. The conduct of an individual in an emergency situation cannot be
measured by the same standard of care as a reasonable person in a non-
emergency situation. (Cordas v. Peerless transportation co.)
c. The standard of care differs between ordinary people and those with
physical handicaps when dealing in negligence. (Roberts v. Louisiana)


d. Insanity is only a defense to the reasonable person standard in
negligence if the D had no warning and knowledge of her insanity.
(Breunig v. American Family Insurance Company)
E. Reasonable Prudent Professional
1. Professional
a. A person who is a professional or has special skills (e.g., doctor,
lawyer, airplane mechanic, etc.) is required to possess and exercise the
knowledge and skill of a member of the profession or occupation in good
standing in similar communities.
b. must also use such superior judgment, skill, and knowledge as he
actually possesses. Thus, a specialist might be held liable where a
general practitioner would not. For medical specialists, a national
standard of care applies. A modern trend applies a national standard to
all physicians.
2. Objective Standard of care
A legal standard that is based on conduct & perceptions external to a
particular person. In torts ex. reasonable-person standard is considered
an objective standard because it does not require a determination of what
the defendant was thinking.
3. Subjective standard of care
A legal standard that is peculiar to a particular person & based on the
persons individual views & experience
4. Malpractice/Professional Negligence
An instance of negligence or incompetence not he part of a professional
5. Medical Malpractice
A doctors failure to exercise the degree of care & skill that a physician or
surgeon of the same medical specialty would use under similar
circumstances. AKA med. mal.
6. Locality Rule
states that the conduct of members of the medical profession is to be
measured solely by the standard of conduct expected of other members
of the medical profession in the same locality or the same community.
The rule was designed to protect doctors in rural areas who, because of
inadequate training and experience, and the lack of effective means of
transportation and communication, could not be expected to exhibit the
skill and care of urban doctors. To hold doctors to different standards
7. Same/Similar Localities rule
if the standard of conduct in a similar community is substandard, the
similar locality rule would immunize those medical professionals whose
conduct conforms to the substandard medical practice in a similar
community.
8. National Standard of care Rule
The import of these decisions is that health care professionals who are
trained according to national standards and who hold themselves out to
the public as such, should be held to a national standard of care
9. Theory of Informed consent: Allege & Prove
1. defendant physician failed to inform him adequately of a material risk
before securing his consent to the proposed treatment;
2. if he had been informed of the risks he would not have consented to
the treatment;


3. the adverse consequences that were not made known did in fact occur
and he was injured as a result of submitting to the treatment
10. Cases
a. A professional standard of care is not a subjective standard, it is an
objective standard predicated on the rules and guidelines of the
profession. (Heath v. Swift wings)
b.
F. Aggravated Negligence
1. Reckless-Conduct whereby the actor does not desire harmful consequence
but nonetheless foresees the possibility and consciously takes the risk.
Recklessness involves a greater degree of fault than negligence but a lesser
degree of fault than intentional wrongdoing.
2. the willful disregard for the safety of others where the defendant's
unreasonably risky actions will almost definitely result in injury.
3. 500 Recklessness
The actor's conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he
does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the
other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a
reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an
unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is
substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct
negligent.
4. 285c
The standard of conduct of a reasonable [person] may beestablished
by judicial decision
5. 285b non tort statute
The standard of conduct of a reasonable [person] may beadopted by a
court from a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which
does not so provide
6. Negligence per se
A. Negligence established as a matter of law, so that breach of the duty is
not a jury question. Negligence per se usually arises from a statutory
violation.
B. Negligence due to the violation of a public duty, such as high speed
driving
C. Types of person & Type of injury to be protected
7. 288A Excused Violations
1. An excused violation of a legislative enactment or an administrative
regulation is not negligence.
2. Unless such enactment or regulation is construed not to permit such
excuse, its violation is excused when
a. the violation is reasonable because of the actors incapacity;
b. he neither knows nor should know of the occasion for
compliance;
c. he is unable after reasonable diligence or care to comply;
d. he is confronted by an emergency not due to his own
misconduct;


e. compliance would involve a greater risk of harm to the actor or
to others. (dangerous)
8. 285(a) Excused Violation (torts-specific statue)
The standard of conduct of a reasonable [person] may be established
by a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which so provides.
Example: Dram Shop
A statute allowing a plaintiff to recover damages from a
commercial seller of alcoholic beverages for the plaintiffs
injuries caused by a customers intoxication
Sell alcohol to a know drunk and know they will
drive, if something happens can be held liable for
damages
G. Proving Negligence
1. Direct Evidence
a. Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that,
if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.
b. testimony by a witness about a matter within his personal knowledge
and so does not require drawing an inference from the evidence (his
testimony) to the proposition that it is offered to establish
1. Eyewitness
2. Video
3. testimony
2. Circumstantial Evidence
a. Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or
observation
b. does require drawing inferences
3. Actual Knowledge
Direct & clear knowledge
4. constructive Knowledge
Knowledge that one using reasonable care or diligence should have,
therefore that is attributed by law to a given person
H. Res Ipsa Loquitur (breach)
1. the thing speaks for itself
2. The doctrine providing that, in some circumstances, the mere fact of an
accidents occurrence raises an inference of negligence so as to establish
a prima facie case
3. presumed to be negligent if you had exclusive control of whatever
caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of
negligence & without negligence it would not of happened
4. situations where the fact that a particular injury occurred may itself establish or
tend to establish a breach of duty owed. Where the facts are such as to strongly
indicate that plaintiffs injuries resulted from defendants negligence, the trier of
fact may be permitted to infer defendants liability. prove the following:
a. Inference of Negligence
Plaintiff must establish that the accident causing his injury is the
type that would not normally occur unless someone was


negligent.Ex: A windowpane fell from a second story window in
Defendants building, landing on Plaintiff.
b. Negligence Attributable to Defendant
Plaintiff must establish evidence connecting defendant with the
negligence in order to support a finding of liability, i.e., evidence
that this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the
negligence of someone in defendants position. This requirement
often can be satisfied by showing that the instrumentality that
caused the injury was in the exclusive control of defendant,
although actual possession of the instrumentality is not necessary.
4. 328D Res Ipsa Loquitur
1. It may be inferred that harm suffered by the plaintiff is caused
by negligence of the defendant when
a. the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in
the absence of negligence;
b. other responsible causes, including the conduct of the
plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the
evidence; and
c. the indicated negligence is within the scope of the
defendants duty to the plaintiff.
2. It is the function of the court to determine whether the inference
may reasonably be drawn by the jury, or whether it must
necessarily be drawn.
5. 17
factfinder may infer that the defendant has been negligent when
the accident causing the plaintiffs harm is a type of accident that
ordinarily happens as a result of the negligence of a class of
actors of which the defendant is the relevant member.
6. The Procedural Effects of Res Ipsa Loquitur
a. allows a plaintiffs lawsuit to proceed in the absence of factual
evidence on the issues of duty and breach
b. in most jurisdictions is that the plaintiff can survive a no-
evidence procedural challenge brought by the defendant, and an
inference of a defendants negligence can be argued to the
factfinder where it may be accepted or rejected.
II Causation
A. Actual Cause (Cause-In-Fact)
1. The cause without which the event could not have occurred.
2. Sine Qua Non
a. without which not
3. But-for
An act or omission to act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury
would not have occurred but for the act. Ex: Failure to provide a fire
escape is a cause of death of one who is thereby unable to flee a fire, but
it is not a cause of death of one who suffocated in bed.
3. 431


actors negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if . . . his
conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about that harm . . .
The word substantial is used to denote the fact that the defendants
conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable
men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in
which there always lurks the idea of responsibility, rather than in the so-
called philosophic sense, which includes every one of the great number
of events without which any happening would not have occurred.
4. 26
Tortious conduct must be a factual cause of physical harm for
liability to be imposed. Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the
harm would not have occurred absent the conduct. . . .
5. Eggshell Skull Plaintiff
rule provides that, in tort, a defendant takes his plaintiff as he finds her
and is responsible for the full extent of the injuries caused by his
negligence, even if unforeseeable or uncommon, and even if they are
injuries that would not have been suffered by others.
6. Loss of Chance Doctrine
A rule in some states providing a claim against a doctor who has engaged
in medical malpractice that, although it does not result in a particular
injury, decreases or eliminates the chance of surviving or recovering from
the preexisting condition for which the doctor was consulted
B. Problems in proving Causation-in-fact
1. 432 Negligent Conduct as Necessary Antecedent of Harm
1. Except as stated in Subsection 2, the actors negligent conduct is not a
substantial factor in bringing about harm to another if the harm would
have been sustained even if the actor had not been negligent.
2. If two forces are actively operating, one because of the actors
negligence, the other not because of any misconduct on his part, and
each of itself is sufficient to bring about the harm to another, the actors
negligence may be found to be a substantial factor in bringing it about
2. 27 Multiple Sufficient Causes
If multiple acts exist, each of which alone would have been a factual
cause . . . of the physical harm at the same time, each act is regarded as
a factual cause of the harm
3. 433b Burden of Proof
1. Except as stated in Subsections (2) and (3), the burden of proof that
the tortious conduct of the defendant has caused the harm to the plaintiff
is upon the plaintiff.
2. Where the tortious conduct of two or more actors has combined to
bring about harm to the plaintiff, and one or more of the actors seeks to
limit his liability on the ground that the harm is capable of apportionment
among them, the burden of proof as to the apportionment is upon each
such actor.


3. Where the conduct of two or more actors is tortious, and it is proved
that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there
is uncertainty as to which one has caused it, the burden is upon each
such actor to prove that he has not caused the harm.
4. 28 Burden of Proof
a. Subject to Subsection (b), the plaintiff has the burden to prove that the
defendants tortious conduct was a factual cause of the plaintiffs physical
harm.
b. When the plaintiff sues all of multiple actors and proves that each
engaged in tortious conduct that exposed the plaintiff to a risk of physical
harm and that the tortious conduct of one or more of them caused the
plaintiffs harm but the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to prove
which actor caused the harm, the burden of proof, including both
production and persuasion, on factual causation is shifted to the
defendants.
5. 876
For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another,
one is subject to liability if he
a. does a tortious act in concert with the other or pursuant to a
common design with him, or
b. knows that the others conduct constitutes a breach of duty and
gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to
conduct himself, or
c. gives substantial assistance to the other in accomplishing a
tortious result and his own conduct, separately considered,
constitutes a breach of duty to the third person.
C. Proximate Cause (legal)
1. In addition to being a cause in fact, the defendants conduct must also be a
proximate cause of the injury. Not all injuries actually caused by defendant will
be deemed to have been proximately caused by his acts.
2. limitation of liability and deals with liability or nonliability for unforeseeable or
unusual consequences of ones acts.
3. Liability
a. defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents
of and within the increased risk caused by his acts.
b. if one of the reasons that make defendants act negligent is a greater
risk of a particular harmful result occurring, and that harmful result does
occur, defendant generally is liable.
4. 431 What Constitutes Legal Cause
The actors negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if
a. his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,
and
b. there is no rule of law relieving the actor from liability because
of the manner in which his negligence has resulted in the harm.


5. 29 Limitations on Liability for Tortious Conduct
An actors liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the
risks that made the actors conduct tortious.
6. Case
D. Foreseeable
If a particular harmful result was at all foreseeable from defendants negligent
conduct, the unusual manner in which the injury occurred or the unusual timing of
cause and effect is irrelevant to defendants liability.

E. Unforeseeable Consequences
1. In the rare case where defendants negligent conduct creates a risk of a
harmful result, but an entirely different and totally unforeseeable type of harmful
result occurs, most courts hold that defendant is not liable for that harm.


2. 281
actor is liable for an invasion of an interest of another if the interest
invaded is protected against unintentional invasion and the conduct of
the actor is negligent with respect to the other, or a class of persons
within which he is included. . . .
3. 29
An actors liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the
risks that made the actors conduct tortious.
4. 435(2)
The actors conduct may be held not to be a legal cause of harm where
after the event and looking back from the harm to the actors negligent
conduct, it appears to the court highly extraordinary that it should have
brought about the harm
5. Whether legal duty exist? Risk-utility test
a. the magnitude of the risk
b. the relationship of the parties
c. nature of the attendant risk
d. opportunity & ability to exercise care
e. foreseeability of the harm
f. policy interest in the proposed solution
6. Cases
F. Intervening Causes


1. Where defendants negligence caused a foreseeable harmful response or
reaction from an intervening force or created a foreseeable risk that an
intervening force would harm plaintiff, defendant is liable for the harm caused.
2. An event that comes between the initial event in a sequence and the
end result, thereby altering the natural course of events that might have
connected a wrongful act to an injury
3. If strong enough to relieve the wrongdoer of any liability, it becomes a
superseding cause. A dependent intervening cause is one that is not an act and
is never a superseding cause. An independent intervening cause is one that
operates on a condition produced by an antecedent cause but in no way resulted
from that cause
4. Superseding Cause
an intervening act/force that the law considers sufficient to override the
cause for which he original tortfeasor was responsible, thereby
exonerating that tortfeasor from liability
5. Cases
a. Foreseeability is the reasonable anticipation of the possible results of
an action. Proximate cause is determined by whether an intervening act is
a foreseeable consequence of the defendants negligence. If it is not
foreseeable, then it is a superseding act which would sever the causal
connection. (Derdiarian v felix)
b. If an intervening act is merely unforeseeable it does not sever the
liability of the primary negligent party. However, if the intervening act is so
unexpected or extraordinary that the primary tortfeasor could not
and ought not to have anticipated it, then liability is severed. (Watson
v. Kentucky)
c. An intentional intervening act like suicide does not sever the causal
relationship with the primary tortfeasor, when it is shown that the
decedent was incapable of resisting the impulse to kill themselves as a
result of the tortfeasor. (Fuller v. Preis)
d. Sole proximate case of his death was suicide. Suicide is generally
unforeseeable. (La Quinta v. Leech)
G. Public Policy