"Discussion 1: Limits on Liability: Duty and Proximate Cause"
Part A: The plaintiffs attended a showing of a movie at a movie theater in a shopping mall. At the conclusion of the movie, the plaintiffs (parents and their seven year old daughter) left the theater using a door that opened directly into the parking area. They drove a short distance and then their vehicle was struck by flood waters, caused by a severe rainstorm near the theatre. In their attempt to escape, their seven year old daughter drowned.
- The manager of the theater had learned about the dangerous weather during the showing of the movie, including a possible tornado, but had taken no steps to warn patrons.
- In this situation, discuss whether or not a court should recognize a "duty" of both the movie company and its landlord to warn patrons of bad weather. In your analysis, be sure to discuss the legal relationship, if any, between the parties in this case.
Part B: Many cases involve medical malpractice taking place after a plaintiff has suffered an injury due to defendant's negligence. See for example, Weems v. HY-VEE Food Stores, Inc. at 526 N.W. 2d 571 (Iowa App, 1994) and at page 289 of your textbook.
- What is the general rule with regard to whether or not medical treatment sought by an injured party is considered a normal consequence of the tortfeasor's conduct, making the tortfeasor liable for the medical malpractice?
- What is the exception to this rule when an "intervening act" turns into a "superseding cause?"