Cases

Question 1

Garratt v Dailey, 5 yr old chair

Answer 1

Malicious intent is not necessary because substantial certainty that contact could occur is sufficient

Question 2

White v Muniz, alzheimer’s jaw hit

Answer 2

Double Intent = plaintiff must prove defendant intended to cause h/o contact

Question 3

Wagner, kmart lady

Answer 3

Single intent = defendant only needs to intend contact, not that contact be h/o

Question 4

Ranson v Kitner, wolf dog killed

Answer 4

Over-deterrence is dangerous because it diminishes innovation incentives

Question 5

Talmage v Smith, stick thrown at kid on roof

Answer 5

Transferred Intent of intentional torts and persons

Question 6

Brzoska v Olson, HIV dentist

Answer 6

Contact must be h/o according to reasonable person standard

Question 7

Fisher, black scientist plate snatched

Answer 7

If an object is so personally attached to a person, the contact with the object can be battery *policy

Question 8

Western Union Telegraph v Hill, sweet love for clock fix (convicted)

Answer 8

Immediate conditional threat is sufficiently imminent apprehension of bodily contact

Question 9

Grant v Stop-N-Go Market, mistaken shoplifter

Answer 9

Shopkeeper’s Defense: confinement must be reasonable

Question 10

Nagata v Quest Diagnostics, urine sample

Answer 10

IIED has to be SO outrageous and cause SEVERE emotional distress

Question 11

Rogers v Kent County, trespass post-license

Answer 11

trespass to land is intent to be in the land, not intent to trespass

Question 12

Intel v Hamidi, spam emails

Answer 12

trespass to chattel must have injury

Question 13

O’Brien v Cunard Steamship, Irish vaccine

Answer 13

consent can be actual or apparent

Question 14

Hackbart v Cincinnati Bengals, football neck

Answer 14

scope of consent depends per activity

Question 15

Christman v Davis, dentist does less

Answer 15

consent can transfer to substantially same conduct

Question 16

DeMay v Roberts, childbirth consent

Answer 16

consent by fraud when patient is not aware of all relevant facts

Question 17

Grager v Schudar, sex with prisoner

Answer 17

contributory consent is a thing if you’re in a relationship where you can’t legally consent but may have actually consented

Question 18

Scott v Bradford, pees after surgery

Answer 18

Informed consent can be anti-medical customs

Question 19

Rice v Brakel, drug addict doctor

Answer 19

What doctors need to consent of their personal lives depends per case

Question 20

Hattori v Pearis, Halloween foreign student

Answer 20

Self-defense using deadly force must be necessary and reasonable

Question 21

Pages v Tapia, crazy car doctor

Answer 21

defense of others can use non-deadly force against the imminent apprehension of harm onto others

Question 22

Katko v Briney, airsoft gun

Answer 22

Deadly force to protect property is usually not allowed

Question 23

Vincent v Lake Erie Transport, tied boat in storm

Answer 23

Necessity is an imperfect defense because there is still harm caused

Question 24

Sindle v NYC Transit, crazy bus driver

Answer 24

Justification defense is a matter of fact for the jury

Question 25

Lubitz v Wells, dad leaves golf club in yard

Answer 25

both B & PL are close to zero, what would reasonable person do?

Question 26

Carroll Towing Co, tugboat loses flour

Answer 26

Negligence = B

Question 27

Louisiana Power & Light, electrocute antenna

Answer 27

B>PL, but how do you measure L for death?

Question 28

Brewer v Murray, sleepover statutory rape

Answer 28

Negligence because reasonable people know how adolescents act

Question 29

Cordas v Peerless Transportation, taxi driver jumps out from theft

Answer 29

You're not liable in an emergency even if you did cause harm

Question 30

Trimarco v Klein, shower glass

Answer 30

Industry customs can be incentives for change if they reflect the market demands

Question 31

Roberts, blind person bathroom

Answer 31

the reasonable person standard can be adapted for the incapacities of a disabled person if they acted reasonably

Question 32

Helling v Carey, glaucoma patient

Answer 32

most courts favor custom, but there are exceptions when B

Question 33

Martin v Herzog, crash but plainitff had lights off

Answer 33

plaintiff committed negligence per se and can't recover

Question 34

Timpte Industries v Gish, fertilizer truck fall

Answer 34

Risk-utility balancing - utility and safety; what utility would you lose with more safety?

Question 35

Reque v Milwaukee Transport, 12-in bus curb

Answer 35

negligence per se did not apply because plaintiff was not the intended audience and coa was not the intended purpose

Question 36

Stachniewicz v Mar-Cam Corp, bar figth

Answer 36

the statute must aim to protect a certain class of people (here, bar patrons) and guard against the kind of injury suffered (violence resulting from excessive alcohol consumption)

Question 37

Impson v Structural Metals, bad left turn

Answer 37

Negligence per se excuses = incapacity, couldn't have known, unable to comply, emergency not personally caused, compliance would increase risk of harm

Question 38

Lamprecht v Schluntz, cow left to crash

Answer 38

1. actor must not usually happen without negligence 2. instrumentality must be under exclusive control of defendant 3. absence of of explnantion from defendant

Question 39

Ybarra v Spangard, post-surgery pain

Answer 39

burden of proof shifted to defendant to break conspiracy of silence

Question 40

Sullivan v Crabtree, truck falls off mountain

Answer 40

RIL is relevant, not conclusive evidence

Question 41

Perkins v TX Railroad, train speed limit crash

Answer 41

But-for causation can be disputed through a causality story

Question 42

Reynolds v TX Train, nighttime fall in train

Answer 42

natural tendency of negligence to cause harm; accident bespeaks its own causality