Case Pithies Flashcards
[Durre v. Wilkinson Development Inc.] “Sign Falls on Truck, Kills Passenger”
Statute of Repose: Enacted to free certain occupations/industries from liability for past negligent acts. Puts a limit on the right to bring civil action from when the last culpable act of DEF, rather than when injury occurred or was discovered.
Anderson v. Zamir
“I can rear-end people and not pay for it.”
Damages caused directly or indirectly by the actions of D are viable for compensation, even if they are only found long after.
Van Camp v. McAfoos.
“Brat hits woman in the ankle with tricycle.”
There must be fault assigned in the cause of action for liability to be found.
McElhaney v. Thomas.
“Whoops I accidentally ran you over.”
Intent to make an offensive contact is sufficient for damages to be awarded based on harm that unintentionally results.
Cohen v. Smith
“Male nurse touches religious woman.”
Though a battery may not be harmful, it may still be offensive contact due to the insult itself.
White v. Muniz
“Grandma is attacking senior care workers again.”
Under dual intent, the intention to cause harm or offense is required.
Wagner v. State
“Mentally disabled man attacks woman in Target.”
Under single intent, the intent to contact itself is sufficient for battery even if the person committing battery doesn’t know that they are committing battery.
Garrat v. Dailey, 1955.
“Kid pulls chair and Grandma breaks her hip.”
Intent requires the tortfeasor to either intend to harm or have a sufficient certainty that harm will result from his actions
Baska v. Scherzer, 2007.
“I didn’t mean to break your jaw, I meant to break his!”
Transferred intent means that if person A intends to harm person B, but harms person C by accident, the harm is still intentional.
Cullison v. Medley, 1991.
“Jump astraddle.”
If D causes P an imminent apprehension of harmful contact, it is still assault, even if no harmful contact results, such as waving your fist under someone’s chin.
McCann v. Wal-Mart
“Remember 24/7 fitness Kai?”
The gist of false imprisonment under common law is conduct by the actor which is intended to, and in fact does, confine another within boundaries fixed by the actor where, additionally, the victim is either harmed or conscious of the confinement.
Chanko v. ABC
“This dying man and his family will make for great TV!
Four elements of IIED: (i) extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent to cause, or disregard of a substantial probability of causing, severe emotional distress; (iii) a causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (iv) severe emotional distress.
GTE Southwest Inc. v. Bruce “It’s not abuse, just his management style!”
The factors of Extreme and Outrageous conduct are: Plaintiff vulnerability, Plaintiff attempt to remedy, Pattern of conduct over time, Abuse of power.
Roth v. Islamic Republic of Iran
“Iran gets sued for terrorism.”
Bystander IIED elements: Plaintiff must be immediate family of V and present at the time of the conduct. (In this case, FSIA statute modifies this to not apply to acts of terrorism)
Briggs v. Southwest
“Is drilling from a shared oil well trespass?”
Elements of Trespass:
P must prove ownership or possessory interest in the land.
An intentional and tangible invasion, intrusion, or entry by D onto that land.
That harms P’s interest in exclusive possession.
Reif v. Nagy
“Returning holocaust paintings to heirs.”
MW: Thieves can’t confer good title.
Elements of Conversion: D must intend to exercise “substantial dominion” over the chattel:
Substantial Dominion factors: extent/duration of control
: D asserts a right to the property
: Whether D is acting in good faith
: Harm done
:Expense or Inconvenience caused
School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz
“Spammers get what they deserve.”
Elements of Trespass to Chattel:
DEF intentionally and without justification or consent
Physically interfered with the use and enjoyment of PLNTF’s personal property
PLNTF was harmed as a result
Can be proven by damages to the chattel or loss of use or access
Remedy is paying for the damage to the property.
Grimes v. Saban
“Girlfriends attack each other over social media. Self defense?” elements of self defense
Elements of Self-Defense:
(a) A person is justified in using physical force to defend himself or a third person from what is reasonably believed to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by another. (b) If A is true, they have no duty to retreat and have the right to stand their ground. (c) If A and B are true, a person is not justified if they were the initial aggressor unless they previously withdrew from the encounter and communicated intent to do so, but the latter person continues to attack or threaten.
Katko v. Briney
“Shotgun booby trap for uninhabited property”
The value of life and limb outweighs the interest of a possessor in his land, and possessor has no privilege to use force likely to cause death or serious harm against a trespasser unless the intrusion threatens death or serious harm to the inhabitants.
Gotarez v. Smitty’s Super Valu, Inc.
“False accusation of 67c air freshener theft leads to injury and detainment.”
Shopkeeper’s privilege: One who reasonably believes that another has tortiously taken property can detain without arresting for only the time necessary for a reasonable investigation of the facts.
Wulf v. Kunnath
“Doctor gives playful slap after years of playful slaps.”
MW: Silence and inaction may manifest consent where a reasonable person would speak if he objected.
Apparent or Implied Consent ordinarily bars recovery.
EX: Apparent consent: words or conduct reasonably understood to be intended as consent is as effective as actual consent. Silence and inaction may manifest consent where a reasonable person would speak if he objected. It is only when notice is given that consent can’t be assumed.
Robins v. Harris
“Prison guard gets head from inmate. Consent or coercion?”
Consent is not available as a defense when there is a significant position of authority, such as a jailer and inmate. Also, apparent consent is not a defense to sexual assault.
Hunt v. Zuffa LLC.
“Brock Lesnar sued for punching too hard in MMA because he does steroids.”
One who enters into a sport may be taken to consent to physical contacts consistent with the understood rules of the game.
Kaplan v. Mamelak
“Doctor operates on wrong part of spine, claims consent.”
Consent can extend to touching by a doctor that not literally consented to, involving complications inherent to the procedure, but not to a substantially different treatment from that consented to.
Hill v. Sparks
“Bulldozer driver runs over sister who was riding on the outside, Negligence?”
Restatement (2) 289: If the actor has more than the minimum knowledge of a standard
“reasonable man” he is required to exercise these superior qualities as reasonable under the circumstances
Stewart v. Motts
“PLNTF tells mechanic to start an engine after pouring gasoline on it, injury results.”
Restatement (2) of Torts 298: Reasonable care is the only standard of care, but the exact level of care which is reasonable varies proportionately to the danger in the act. The greater the danger, the greater the care.
Posas v. Horton
“Tailgater rear-ends someone due to jaywalker forcing stop, negligence or sudden emergency?”
Test for sudden-emergency:
1. DEF had been suddenly placed in position of peril through no negligence of his own
2. Acted as a reasonable person in response to the emergency
Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale
“Half-blind woman trips over concrete slab, did she need a higher standard of care?”
Physical Impairment Rule: A person with a physical disability has no special higher standard of care, only such care as a reasonable person with a similar infirmity would have acted under such circumstances.
Creasy v. Rusk
“Nurses wrestle combative man with Alzheimers and sue when they get hurt.”
CL: The general duty of care imposed on adults with mental disabilities is the same as that for adults without mental disabilities, regardless of their capacity.
Duty of care between patient and caretaker created by relationship, so DEF wins.
Stevens v. Veenstra
“14 year old driving student hits pedestrian, adult standard of care?”
Children held to standard care of reasonably careful child of same age, intelligence, experience
BUT: MI policy: All drivers, even minors, held to same standard of care
Martin v. Herzog
“Man without headlights in dark kills horse carriage driver”
Statutes such as road light requirements apply a clear duty of care, violation of the relevant statute is negligence per se. .
Smith v. Wells
“Man causes 4 car pile up by tailgating.”
DEF clearly violated the law by tailgating, and therefore Negligence Per Se is established. Therefore there was no need for a jury to determine fact.
O’Guin v. Bingham County
“Kids die in landfill”
Test for replacing standard of care with duty from a statute/regulation:
1. Statute or regulation must clearly define the standard of conduct
2. Must have been intended to prevent the type of harm caused
3. PLNTF must be a member of the class the statute was designed to protect
4. Violation must have been the proximate cause of injury
Goldstein v. J.B.
“Anesthesiologist records himself SA’ing unconscious patients.”
Must have been intended to prevent the type of harm caused
Statute here was intending to prevent incompetent and improperly trained employees from being hired and harming patients in that manner
Getchel v. Lodge
“Moose Excuse.”
Emergency: Violation of statute/regulation will ordinarily be excused when the actor is confronted with an emergency which is not caused by his own misconduct.
Pipher v. Parsell
“Girl repeatedly grabs steering wheel and causes car crash.”
A driver owns a duty of care to his passengers. When actions of a passenger that interfere with the driver are foreseeable, failure to prevent such conduct may be a breach of duty to other passengers or the public.
Limones v. School District of Lee County
“Kid in vegetative state after practice because no one brought an AED when he collapsed.”
School employees must reasonably supervise students during activities that are subject to the control of the school, reasonable care under the circumstances includes technology such as the AED.
Indiana Consolidated Insurance Co. v. Mathew
“Brother tries to start lawnmower and catches the garage on fire.”
Human life is above property, one may be deemed negligent in risking life or serious injury to save mere property.
Stinnett v. Buchele
“Construction worker falls fixing doctor’s barn and blames doctor for injuries.”
An employer’s obligation to its employee isn’t providing a perfectly safe place to work. Liability of an employer regarding safety equipment rests on the employer having a better and more comprehensive knowledge than the employee.
Bernier v. Boston Edison Co.
“Fender-Bender turns into catastrophic series of events, with a light pole falling on teens.”
A designer should anticipate the environment in which its product will be used, and must design against reasonably foreseeable risk in that setting.
Likelihood of accidents need not be high when injuries might be serious.
No designer is required to make a product that is fully accident free
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
“Boat sinks due to missing bargee during work hours.”
Owner’s Duty: 3 FACTORS
(1) Probability of danger.
(2) Injury cost if danger occurs.
(3) Burden of adequate precautions.
Liability depends on: Probability x Injury > Burden. B<PI
Miller v. Warren “Motel fire, no smoke alarms.”
Statutory requirements reflect a minimum standard of care, not a maximum obligation. Compliance with a statute is not a full defense, just evidence of reasonable care. If DEF knows or should know of some risk that could be prevented reasonably they can be held negligent even if the measures were not required by statute.
Byrne v. Boadle “Barrel mysteriously falls on pedestrian.”
Res Ipsa Elements:
(1) The event is of a kind that normally doesn’t occur without negligence;
(2) other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and
(3) The indicated negligence is within the scope of DEF’s duty to PLNTF
Koch v. Norris “Power line randomly falls and starts fire.”
Res Ipsa is applied in the absence of a substantial, significant, or probably explanation other than negligence.
Giles v. City of New Haven “PLNTF injured jumping out of shaky elevator.”
If the jury could reasonably find DEF was more likely responsible than someone else, even without absolute proof of control, the T/C must allow the jury to draw that inference.
