Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Torts > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Pearson v. Dodd

Reporter

A

In order to be liable for conversion, the defendant must permanently erase or take away the plaintiff’s use of the chattel.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Katko v. Briney

Shot Gun

A
  • Human life and safety takes priority over property rights.
  • A property owner cannot use lethal or indiscriminate force to defend their property if they do not believe their life is in danger.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store

Jewelry Thief

A
  • Shopkeeper’s privilege: merchant is privileged to detain someone they suspect of theft.
  • The merchant must have a reasonable belief the theft occurred and they must conduct a reasonable investigation and must be close to the store itself.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority

School Bus

A

Those in a parental role can use reasonable force to maintain discipline for safety purposes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Garratt v. Dailey

Chair

A
  • The defendant must intend to make contact AND have substantial certainty that the contact will cause harm.
  • The contact can be indirect and still be considered battery.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

McGuire v. Almy

Insane Lady

A

Legal insanity is not a defense against battery.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Wallace v. Rosen

Fire Alarm

A

Not all unwanted touching constitutes battery. Battery requires that the unwanted touching be done in a “rude, insolent or angry manner”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wagner v. State

Grabbing Hair

A
  • To commit a battery, the defendant only needs to intend to contact, not necessarily to cause harm.
  • Legal insanity is not a defense for battery.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Talmage v. Smith

Threw Stick

A

A defendant is liable for the damages that result from an illegal action, regardless of whether the plaintiff was the intended target or not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Fisher v. Carrousel

Plate

A
  • An offensive contact, when done in anger, constitutes battery regardless of whether physical injury is caused.
  • Offensive contact extends to the objects associated with the plaintiff, such as those items they are holding, and not necessarily direct physical contact with the plaintiff.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

I de S et ux. v. W de S

Axe in Tavern

A
  • Established assault as a tort.
  • Apprehension of harm is harm in and of itself.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill

Sexual Harassment

A

It is not necessary that the contact be actually physically possible, only that the plaintiff have a “well-founded fear of an imminent battery” and the defendant has an apparent ability to follow through on the battery.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman

Old Man

A
  • Restraining someone against their will without legal justification is false imprisonment.
  • A defendant can be held for actual and punitive damages for false imprisonment.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Parvi v. City of Kingston

Drunk on the Highway

A

The plaintiff must be conscious of the confinement for it to be considered false imprisonment. However, ‘conscious’ can mean conscious at the time of the imprisonment without any current recollection.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co.

Interrogation by Employer

A

There must be evidence that the plaintiff was confined against their will to qualify as false imprisonment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Whittaker v. Sandford

Trapped on a Boat

A

Being denied access to freedom is considered physical restraint even if the plaintiff is not be physically held.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Enright v. Groves

Mistaken Arrest

A

A police officer commits false imprisonment if they arrest someone for something which is not a crime, even if they thought it was a crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Dougherty v. Stepp

Innocent Entrance

A

A defendant can be held liable for trespass to land even if no damage is caused or if the land is unenclosed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Herrin v. Sutherland

Shooting over Land

A
  • A defendant does not need to physically stand on another’s land to be held liable for trespass to land.
  • Property extended vertically as well as horizontally.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners for Kent County

Pole Left Behind

A
  • A defendant may be held liable for trespass to land if they leave an unauthorized object on the property.
  • Consent to stay or leave someone on someone’s land can be revoked.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff

Trash Mafia

A

The defendant may be held liable for mental distress caused by an action which did not amount to assault.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Taylor v. Vallelunga

Father’s Beating

A

The defendant must have intended to inflict emotional distress or have substantial certainty that the distress will occur to be held liable for IIED.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida

Rude Employee

A
  • Mere insults and vulgarities do not amount to IIED.
  • Severe emotional distress is an objective standard of what a reasonable person would experience.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Harris v. Jones

Stutter

A

The plaintiff’s distress must be extremely severe in order to recover for IIED.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Snyder v. Phelps

Westboro Baptist Church

A

The defendant cannot be held liable for IIED if the speech is constitutionally protected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Glidden v. Szybiak

Grabbing a Dog’s Ears

A

A defendant must have caused damages to be held liable for trespass to chattels.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.

Spam Emails

A
  • Email and other internet transmissions are considered physical contact for trespass to chattels.
  • A defendant must have caused damages to be held liable for trespass to chattels.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co.

On Board Vaccination

A

If the plaintiff does not indicate that they do not consent, or if in the circumstances consent is implied, a defendant is not liable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Mohr v. Williams

ENT Decision

A

Even if a defendant acts in good faith and without negligence, they may still be held liable if they act without the consent of the plaintiff. However, this may mitigate the damages a defendant incurs.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.

Football Inury

A

Players consent to injuries inflicted within the scope of the rules of a game. This includes actions which may be fouls that regularly occur and are expected during the course of the game.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

De May v. Roberts

Birthing Assistant

A
  • Consent is invalid if it has been obtained through fraud. However, if the fraud is collateral consent is still valid.
  • Consent can be revoked retroactively.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Lubitz v. Wells

Golf Club

A

A defendant has a duty to mitigate foreseeable risks rather than all possible risks.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Pipher v. Parsell

Dangerous Passenger

A

A defendant may be held liable for negligence if they anticipate and fail to take precautions against another person’s harmful conduct.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.

Water Mains

A

A defendant must only meet a reasonable standard of care given average circumstances. They are not negligent if they do not take precautions against anomalous or unforeseeable events.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Davison v. Snohomish County

Car Through Guard Rail

A

A defendant only has a duty to ensure reasonable safety which is commensurate with the danger that risk poses.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl

Foot in the Turntable

A
  • Even if the plaintiff was behaving negligently, if the risk was foreseeable a defendant has a duty of care to mitigate that risk.
  • A defendant is responsible for taking reasonable measures to protect others. The precautions must be proportionate to the likelihood and severity of the risk.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

Boats Breaking Free

A

If B<PL then the defendant has a duty to take precautions.
* B = burden of taking the precautions
* P = probability of the loss
* L = gravity of the loss

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Vaughan v. Menlove

Haystack Fire

A
  • A defendant is held to an objective standard of what a reasonably prudent person would do in the circumstances. Factors such as intelligence do not mitigate liability.
  • Exercising a good faith judgment is not a shield for negligence liability.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Delair v. McAdoo

Blown Tire

A

The driver of a vehicle has a duty to have reasonable knowledge that their car is in working order.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Trimarco v. Klein

Shower Door

A

A defendant may be held liable for negligence if they ignore customary precautions and the burden of those precautions is low.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.

Emergency Escape

A

Negligence is relative to the circumstances. A defendant is not required to have the most rational judgment under emergency circumstances that were not of their own making.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Roberts v. State of Louisiana

Blind Man

A

A defendant may not be held liable for negligence if they act in accordance with customary rules.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Roberts v. Lindsay

Snowmobile

A

Normally children are not held to the same standard as adults in negligence cases except if they are performing actions which are inherently dangerous (such as operating machinery).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Breunig v. American Family Ins. Co.

Schizophrenic Episode

A

A mentally ill defendant may have reduced liability if they have an episode which severely impairs their judgment and that episode was not foreseeable.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Heath v. Swift Wings Inc.

Inexperienced Plane Crash

A

The standard to which professionals are held is an objective professional standard and is not moderated by the level of experience that professional has.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Hodges v. Carter

Suing Attorney

A
  • An attorney may not be held liable for negligence if they make a good faith mistake not clarified in the law. This does not extend to good faith mistakes made in an area about which they are expected to be knowledgeable.
  • Plaintiffs must prove that had the attorney acted with a reasonable professional standard they would have won the case.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Boyce v. Brown

Broken Ankle

A

The standard to which professionals are held is an objective professional standard and is not moderated by the level of experience that professional has.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

Morrison v. MacNamara

Smear Test

A

Professionals are to be held to a national, rather than local, standard.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Scott v. Bradford

Hysterectomy Risks

A

Part of a doctor’s standard of care is informed consent. Even if the procedure was done well and the decision to do the procedure was correct, if there is no informed consent there is medical malpractice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Moore v. The Regents of the University of California

Medical Experiment

A

Doctors have a duty to disclose to their patients interests, even outside of the medical scope, which may affect their medical judgment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Surocco v. Geary

Fire

A
  • Individual rights of property can be superseded by human necessity in extreme circumstances, especially in situations of public necessity.
  • The authority figure is critical as they must protect the public rather than satisfy their personal interests.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.

Disaster While Docked

A
  • Even if decisions are made in good faith and without negligence, if the action is intentional the plaintiff can recover damages.
  • A plaintiff may recover damages if the purpose of the action is to protect private interests.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Pokora v. Wabash Railway

Crossing Train Tracks Without Getting Out

A

If someone violates a statute, etc., they may not be held liable as a rule of law if that rule is unreasonable or impossible to follow in the circumstances.

54
Q

Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam

Bar Fight

A

If a defendant could have prevented a harm from occurring if they had followed regulations then the defendant has been negligent per se.

55
Q

Osborn v. McMasters

Mislabelled Poison

A

Violating a statute evidences a breach of duty and therefore negligence per se.

56
Q

Perry v. SN and SN

Daycare Molestation

A
  • There is no underlying duty to protect others unless the defendant themselves has created the harm.
  • Criminal statutes do not fall under the scope of negligence.
57
Q

Zeni v. Anderson

Walking on a Ploughed Road

A

If someone violates a statute, etc., they may not be held liable as a rule of law if that rule is unreasonable or impossible to follow in the circumstances.

58
Q

Martin v. Herzog

Headlights

A

Failure to abide by a statute, if that conduct caused the harm, constitutes negligence per se.

59
Q

Goddard v. Boston & Maine

Banana at the Train Station

A

A plaintiff must prove that the defendant was actually negligent to recover damages.

60
Q

Ortega v. Kmart

Spilt Milk

A
  • Stores are not expected to guarantee their customers’ safety, but they do have a duty of care to keep the premises safe.
  • The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the defendant had notice of the hazard, and the hazard had not been remedied.
61
Q

HE Butt Groc. v. Resendez

Grape Display

A

In order to recover for negligence from a store, a plaintiff must prove:
1. The defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
2. The condition of the store posed an unreasonable risk of harm
3. The defendant did not exercise reasonable care to prevent the risk
4. The defendant’s failure to prevent the risk was the proximate cause of the injury.

62
Q

Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway

Old Banana at the Train Station

A

Evidence that a defendant had enough time to act to prevent injury is proof of negligence.

63
Q

Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.

Banana at the Supermarket

A

If it is unclear how long a hazard has been there, negligence cannot be proven.

64
Q

Jasko v. FW Woolworth

Pizza

A

If the defendant created an environment in which the type of injury in question would occur, the plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant had notice of the exact hazard which caused that specific injury.

65
Q

Byrne v. Boadle

Flour Barrel

A

Res ipsa loquitur provides evidence of a breach of duty and therefore provides evidence for a prima facie case of negligence.

66
Q

Cruz v. Daimler Chrysler Motors

Airbags Accident

A

Res ipsa loquitur applies to events which
1. Do not occur without negligence
2. Other possible causes by other parties have been ruled out
3. Negligence was within the scope of the defendant’s duty.

67
Q

James v. Wormuth

Wire in the Lungj

A

Res ipsa loquitur does not apply if the allegedly negligent act was done intentionally by the defendant.

68
Q

Larson v. St. Francis Hotel

Chair out the WIndow

A

In order for a plaintiff to make a res ipsa loquitur case they must prove (1) there was an accident, (2) the thing which caused the accident was under exclusive control of the defendant, (3) if the defendant had used reasonable care the accident would not have occurred.

69
Q

Sullivan v. Crabtree

Truck off the Road

A

Procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur:
1. Warrants an inference of negligence which the jury may draw or not
2. Raises a presumption of negligence
3. Shifts the burden of proof to the defendant.

70
Q

Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Railway

Speeding Train

A

Negligence only requires that the defendant’s actions were a substantial factor in the harm, not the only cause. The standard is sine qua non: if the accident would have occurred in the absence of the defendant’s actions then the defendant’s actions were not a substantial factor.

71
Q

Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch

Slip, Fall, Shoot

A
  • If factual causation cannot be proved, speculation alone does not prove negligence or overcome a motion for summary judgment.
  • Causation requires that a plaintiff prove both cause in fact and proximate causation.
72
Q

Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.

Fall off the Stairs

A

If the negligence increases the likelihood of the harm occurring, the possibility that the accident might have happened absent the negligence does not break the chain of causation.

73
Q

Smith v. Providence Health & Services

Ignored Stroke

A

In order to recover for medical negligence, a plaintiff must prove he lost a substantial chance of a better medical outcome as a direct result of medical negligence. The defendant receives damages which reflect the quantity of loss.

74
Q

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Bendectin Defects

A

In order for a court to determine if an scientific expert’s testimony is valid, they must examine certain factors:
1. Whether the theory or method is approved of by the scientific community
2. Whether it has been subjected to peer review
3. Whether it can be tested
4. Whether the error rate is acceptable.

75
Q

Kramer Service v. Wilkins

Skin Cancer

A

Post hoc ergo propter hoc does not prove causation.

76
Q

Hill v. Edmonds

Parked at Night

A

If there is more than one party which has been negligent, each party bears the responsibility of the entirety of the damages, rather than just a fraction.

77
Q

Anderson v. Minneapolis & Marie Railway

Merging Fire

A

If a negligent action combines with an act of unknown origin, the defendant is still liable as his action could alone have caused the damage.

78
Q

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

Fungible Drugs

A

Industry liability: when an industry manufactures fungible goods, if a harm is the result of that good and it cannot be determined who exactly manufactured the exact good in question, the industry has a whole will bear damages proportional to their market share unless they can definitively prove they could not have manufactured the product in question.

79
Q

Summers v. Tice

Shooting Accident

A

If two defendants acted negligently, and it cannot be determined which one caused the harm, both will be held liable and will split the cost of damages between them.

80
Q

Commonwealth v. Peterson

University Shooting

A

Unless there is a special relationship, a person does not have a duty to warn or protect another person from a third party’s criminal acts.

81
Q

Hegel v. Langsam

Girl Gone Wild

A

Universities do not have a duty to intervene in students’ personal lives.

82
Q

LS Ayres v. Hicks

Kid in Elevator

A
  • There is a special relationship between a shopkeeper and their customers and therefore there is a duty of care.
  • If the defendant invites the plaintiff and that plaintiff is injured by an instrument under the control of the defendant then the defendant may be liable for damages even if the defendant was not directly negligent.
83
Q

JS and MS v. RTH

Neighbor Molestation

A
  • Duty of care weighs up factors: (1) foreseeability and risk of harm, (2) competing interest of the parties, (3) public policy and fairness.
  • Someone who suspects their spouse is sexually abusing others has a duty to report the abuse.
  • Public and societal interests may outweigh concern with preserving (e.g.) marital privacy.
84
Q

Tarasoff v. Regents of UC

Therapist Failure to Warn

A
  • There is a duty created by special relationship between a therapist and a third party if the therapist has knowledge that it is reasonably foreseeable that the patient will inflict harm on the third party.
  • Public policy concerns outweigh doctor-patient confidentiality.
85
Q

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting

Construction Car Accident

A

The negligent action of a third party does not necessarily break down the causal connection between the negligence and the injury. The third party negligence must be extraordinary or unforeseeable to break causation.

86
Q

Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad

Gasoline Fire

A

A third party’s criminal action usually breaks causation as it is not a foreseeable act.

87
Q

Fuller v. Preis

Suicide by Car Accident

A
  • Suicide is not a superseding cause because although it is intentional, courts recognize it can be an “irresistible impulse”.
  • If a reasonable person would foresee that the negligent action would cause harm, it does not matter if the exact manner of the harm is unforeseeable.
88
Q

McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor

Rescuer at a Car Accident

A
  • Rescue doctrine: allows the rescuer to recover for damages caused to him by the danger created by negligence.
  • Four elements: (1) defendant was negligent and the negligence caused the original harm, (2) danger was imminent, (3) reasonably prudent person would have rescued, (4) rescuer acted with reasonable care.
89
Q

Atlantic Coast Line v. Daniels

Car Stalled on the Tracks

A

A court may set an arbitrary limit on liability for a negligent action which caused injury, which is done by examining proximate causation.

90
Q

Ryan v. New York Central Railroad

Knock-On Fire

A

A negligent defendant is not responsible for damages which are a remote cause of their negligent action - those consequences which are not a “natural or expected result of the [negligent action]”

91
Q

Bartolone v. Jeckovich

Mentally Ill and a Minor Car Crash

A

“Thin Skull” plaintiff: a defendant is liable for all damages even if their negligence harms someone more than one should think (e.g. due to a pre-existing condition).

92
Q

Polemis and Furness

Vapors Blow Boat Up

A

Even if the exact nature of the damage is unpredictable, if the negligent action is likely to damage of any kind, that defendant is liable for negligence.

93
Q

Yun v. Ford Motor

Chasing Spare Tire

A

A negligent action is only the proximate cause when the injury is a foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The negligence is not a proximate cause when a consequence is highly extraordinary.

94
Q

Wagon Mound No. 1

Oil in the Harbor

A

A negligent defendant is only liable for foreseeable damages.

95
Q

Wagon Mound No. 2

Oil in the Harbor

A

If a defendant could foresee the risk and could have prevented it, he is liable for negligence damages.

96
Q

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

Fireworks on a Train

A

A negligent defendant is only liable for risks inside the ‘zone of danger’ and must only take reasonable precautions to protect those inside that zone.

97
Q

Kelly v. Gwinnell

DUI

A
  • A host is responsible for any negligence resulting from their guest’s intoxication.
  • Liability for damages can be implemented as a matter of supporting public policy.
98
Q

Enright v. Eli Lilly

Pre-Conception Negligence

A
  • Public policy may expand the limits of proximate causation under extraordinary circumstances, but that liability is not limitless.
  • A child cannot recover for damages caused by negligence pre-conception.
99
Q

Teeters v. Currey

Statute of Limitations for Medical Malpractice

A
  • The statute of limitations in medical malpractice suits begins when the malpractice is discovered, not from when the negligence occurred.
  • Statutes of limitations are a matter of public policy, look to promote stability and reduce uncertainty in defending claims.
100
Q

Freehe v. Freehe

Husband Sues Wife

A

The court decided that interspousal tort immunity was outdated and that the immunity should be abandoned in personal injury cases.

101
Q

Zellmer

Child Drowns

A

Parents and those in loco parentis are immune from tort liability as it allows parents to discipline their children as they see fit.

102
Q

Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary’s

Negligence at Charity Hospital

A

The public policy benefits of protecting charities is outdated as charities are now big businesses capable of absorbing the cost of damages.

103
Q

Deuser v. Vecera

Park Ranger Arrest

A

The US government cannot be sued for the actions of an employee if the employee is (1) acting as a matter of choice and (2) acting to support the social, political or economic goals of the governing body.

104
Q

Delong v. Erie County

Woman Killed by Intruder

A

The municipality and police force do not have a general duty to protect the public unless there exists a special duty. Once the municipality promises an individual a service, they are responsible for not doing it negligently.

105
Q

Riss v. New York

Acid Thrown

A

A municipality has immunity from tort prosecution for failure to act. Municipalities are bound by the resources they are allocated so holding them liable for not providing services creates limitless liability and requires municipalities to have limitless resources.

106
Q

Butterfield v. Forrester

Horse Crashed into Pole

A

Plaintiff cannot sue for negligence damages unless they exercised reasonable care to avoid the danger. This created the doctrine of contributory negligence.

107
Q

Davies v. Mann

Unfettered Donkey

A

‘Last best chance’ doctrine: even if a plaintiff has been found to be contributorily negligent, if the defendant could have prevented the injury they can still recover.

108
Q

McIntyre v. Balentine

Drunk Car Crash

A

Modified comparative negligence: the plaintiff may recover if they were negligent but only if their negligence was less than the defendant’s.

109
Q

Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute

Injured at the Gym

A

Exculpatory clauses (express assumption of risk) are valid so long (1) as the defendant does not intentionally cause harm or act recklessly, (2) bargaining power between the parties is not grossly unequal and (3) the contract does not involve an essential public service.

110
Q

Rush v. Commercial Realty

Fallen through Outhouse

A

If a plaintiff is only given one option for an essential service then they do not voluntarily assume the risk.

111
Q

Anderson v. Sears

Burned Baby

A

‘Maximum recovery rule’: the jury is directed to award a reasonable sum of damages and if the judge finds these damages to be excessive he may himself reduce the damages.

112
Q

Richardson v. Champman

Rear-Ended by a Truck

A

Damages are excessive if (1) they fall outside the range of reasonable and fair compensation, (2) they result from an emotional reaction or prejudice, (3) they are so great as to shock the conscience.

113
Q

Montgomery Ward v. Anderson

Discounted Medical Bills

A

Collateral-source rule: “[a claimant is allowed] to collect damages for medical and hospital care from the defendant even if he has insurance to cover it” (Black’s Law). Evidence that a plaintiff has already received money from the injury is inadmissible.

114
Q

Cheatham v. Pohle

Revenge Porn

A

A plaintiff has no constitutionally protected right to punitive damages. Instead, punitive damages are tools of the state to prevent wrongdoing.

115
Q

State Farm Mutual Automobile v. Campbell

Misinformed Liability

A
  • Due Process clause prohibits excessive and arbitrary punishments. The USSC has established that in awarding damages, courts should consider (1) the reprehensibility of the misconduct, (2) the ratio of actual and potential harm and the punitive damages awarded and (3) the usual punitive damages awarded in similar cases.
  • A single digit ratio of compensatory to punitive damages is usually appropriate.
116
Q

Biercyznski v. Rogers

Drag Race

A

If two people are acting negligently and one causes the plaintiff injury, both can be held liable for any injuries resulting from their negligence.

117
Q

Coney v. J.L.G Industries

Worker Killed by Machine

A

Comparative negligence does not eliminate joint and several liability. Even if the plaintiff was negligent, they can still recover the full amount of damages.

118
Q

Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply

Sudden Braking

A

Comparative negligence eliminates joint and several liability. The damages owed by the defendant should be reduced by their percentage culpability.

119
Q

Bundt v. Embro

Vision Blocked by Roadworks

A

Once a plaintiff recovers the full amount in damages, the other joint tortfeasors are discharged from liability.

120
Q

Cox v. Pearl Investment

Injured at Goodwill

A

If a contract releases one joint tortfeasor from liability but specifies that the plaintiff can sue other tortfeasors, those tortfeasors are still liable for damages.

121
Q

Knell v. Feltman

Passengers Injured in Car Accident

A

A defendant can sue another party for contribution even if that party was not named in the original suit.

122
Q

Yellow Cab v. Dreslin

Taxi Collision with Wife

A

If a joint tortfeasor is not liable to the plaintiff then the other joint tortfeasor cannot seek contribution from them.

123
Q

Slocum v. Donahue

Vehicular Homicide

A
  • Contribution and indemnification are mutually exclusive.
  • If there is a release made between the plaintiff and one of the joint tortfeasors, the other joint tortfeasors cannot seek contribution from the released party.
124
Q

Bussard v. Minimed

Exterminator and Car Accident

A

Under the ‘going and coming’ rule, employers are generally not liable for torts which occur during their employees’ commutes. An exception to this is when an employee ‘endangers others with a risk arising from or related to work’.

125
Q

O’Shea v. Welch

Stopping at Auto Repair Shop

A

‘Slight deviation’ rule: employer is still liable for their employee’s torts even if the employee deviates slightly from the prescribed work unless the deviation involves something wholly personal and unrelated to work.

126
Q

Murrell v. Goertz

Battery for Newspapers

A

Independent contractors do not fall under the scope of respondeat superior.

127
Q

Maloney v. Rath

Poor Car Repair

A

Car maintenance is a non delegable duty. A party is liable for their independent contractor’s negligence if the contractor’s work was non delegable.

128
Q

Foster v. Preston Mill

Scared Minks

A

Strict liability is confined to those damages which result from that which makes the activity ultrahazardous.

129
Q

Rylands v. Fletcher

Flooded Mines

A

An owner is liable for his land and the alterations he makes to it even if he has not been negligent.

130
Q

Miller v. Civil Constructors

Shooting Range

A

A defendant is strictly liable for damages that result from an ultrahazardous activity which is ‘unduly dangerous and inappropriate to the place where it is maintained’.

131
Q

Indiana Harvor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid

Chemical Spill

A

Shipping hazardous chemicals is not an ultrahazardous activity.

Torts (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions