Cases Flashcards
Van Camp v. McAfoos
McAfoos, a three-year-old child, collided with Van Camp while riding a tricycle, causing her injuries. Van Camp sued McAfoos in tort, but the trial court dismissed the case for failure to allege fault. Van Camp appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
The court held that a plaintiff must allege either intentional or negligent wrongful conduct by the defendant to plead a prima facie case in tort.
Anderson v. Zamir
While driving, Saadia Zamir rear-ended Tiffany Anderson, who later required medical treatment for back and shoulder injuries. Anderson sued Saadia and her husband, Saeed, for damages. The trial was solely to determine damages, and the jury awarded Anderson $12,500, which she appealed.
The court held that in a tort action, a jury’s compensatory-damages award must bear a reasonable relationship to the injured party’s proven harm.
Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC
Gina Stelluti sued Powerhouse Gym and its owner, Casapenn Enterprises, for injuries sustained during a spin class, alleging negligence.
The court held that a valid health club contract of adhesion with a waiver and release of liability for injuries will be enforced as long as the club’s actions do not rise to the heightened standard of recklessness or intent to harm.
Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California
(Hospital tries to disclaim negligence) Hugo Tunkl sued the University of California at Los Angeles Medical Center for personal injuries due to alleged negligence by its physicians. Tunkl had signed an exculpatory clause upon admission, but he was in great pain and under sedation. The trial court upheld the clause, and Tunkl’s wife, as executrix, appealed.
The court held that a hospital may not use an exculpatory clause to bar a patient’s malpractice action if it provides services in the public interest and possesses superior bargaining strength.
Moore v. Hartley Motors, Inc.
Gayle Moore and her husband purchased an ATV and later enrolled in a safety course where they signed a waiver. Gayle was injured during the course and sued for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Moores appealed to the Alaska Supreme Court.
The court held that a signed waiver and release does not preclude liability for negligence if the danger was unrelated to the inherent risks of the activity and could be eliminated or mitigated through reasonable care.
Butterfield v. Forrester
(contributory negligence) Forrester placed a pole across a public road while repairing his house, creating a partial obstruction. Butterfield, riding his horse recklessly, crashed into the pole and was injured. Butterfield sued Forrester for damages, but the jury found Butterfield was not exercising ordinary care and ruled in Forrester’s favor. Butterfield appealed.
The court held that a plaintiff who fails to use ordinary care in avoiding an obstruction caused by a defendant may not recover damages from the defendant.
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
(intervening acts) Felix Contracting Corp. (defendant) was sued by Harold Derdiarian (plaintiff) after Derdiarian was injured at a worksite when a car driven by James Dickens crashed into him. The trial court found in favor of Derdiarian, and the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division affirmed. Felix appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York.
The court held that an intervening act of negligence is not a superseding cause when that act is a foreseeable result of the defendant’s negligence.
Marshall v. Nugent
(intervening negligent act) Walter Harriman and Frank Marshall were driving to a business appointment when a truck owned by Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. forced their car off the road. Marshall was injured by another car while warning oncoming traffic. Marshall sued both drivers, and the jury awarded him $25,000 against Socony. Socony appealed, arguing their driver’s conduct was not the proximate cause of Marshall’s injuries.
The court held that a defendant’s negligent conduct may be the proximate cause of injuries occurring to a plaintiff after the actual negligent conduct if the risk of those injuries is a foreseeable consequence of the negligent conduct.
Ruiz v. Victory Properties, LLC
(unexpected type v. manner) Olga Rivera and her daughter Adriana Ruiz sued Victory Properties, LLC for negligence after Adriana was injured by a chunk of concrete thrown by her cousin from a third-floor window. The trial court granted summary judgment for Victory Properties, but the appellate court reversed, leading to an appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
The court held that proximate cause exists if the harm incurred is of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by a party’s conduct.
Marcus v. Staubs
(intervening/subsequent criminal acts) Jonathan Ray Marcus (defendant) and Steven Woodward drove 14-year-old Samantha Staubs and her 13-year-old sister Jessica to buy alcohol. After drinking, Samantha and Misty Johnson stole a truck, leading to a crash that killed Samantha and injured Jessica. Lori Ann Staubs (plaintiff) sued Marcus for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Staubs, and Marcus appealed.
The court held that a negligent defendant is not relieved from liability by the intervening acts of a third party if those acts were reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the negligent conduct.
Thompson v. Kaczinski
(scope of the risk) James Kaczinski and Michelle Lockwood placed a disassembled trampoline near a road, and a storm blew it onto the road, causing Charles Thompson to swerve and crash. The Thompsons sued for negligence, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, which was affirmed by the court of appeals. The Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case.
The court held that a defendant owes a general duty to exercise reasonable care, and the foreseeability of harm is a question of proximate causation, not duty.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
(scope of the risk) Helen Palsgraf (plaintiff) was injured by falling scales after a package containing fireworks was dropped by a man being helped onto a train by Long Island R.R. (defendant) employees. Palsgraf sued the railroad for negligence, winning in the trial court and appellate division, but the railroad appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
The court held that a defendant owes a duty of care only to those within the zone of reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from the defendant’s actions.
Summers v. Tice
Quail hunting, factual cause, one cause caused harm but unsure whose negligent cause it was
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.
(substantial factor causation) A truck belonging to Combined Transport, Inc. (Combined) spilled its contents on a highway, causing Mark Lasley to stop his vehicle. Judy Clemmer hit Lasley’s vehicle, causing it to burst into flames and killing him. Clarence Lasley sued Clemmer and Combined for negligence. The trial court excluded evidence of Clemmer’s intoxication, and the jury found Clemmer 78% responsible and Combined 22% responsible. Combined appealed, and the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial judgment. Lasley appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
The court held that in deciding whether a defendant’s act is a factual cause of a plaintiff’s harm, the effect of the defendant’s conduct, and not whether that conduct fell below the expected standard of care, is the relevant consideration.
Landers v. East TX Salt Water
(multiple sufficient causes) 2 negligent companies’ salt water in pond killed fish, both sufficient to cause harm on their own
Ziniti v. New England Central Railroad, Inc.
(but for) While driving, college student Matthew Ziniti was struck by a train at a railroad crossing operated by New England Central Railroad (NECR). Ziniti sued NECR for negligence, and the trial court granted NECR’s motion for summary judgment on the signage theory. Ziniti appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The court held that negligence liability applies only if a defendant’s conduct is an actual cause of a plaintiff’s harm.
Byrne v. Boadle
(res ipsa loquitur) falling barrel of flour
The T.J. Hooper
(deviance from industry custom breach method) The operator of two tugboats, The T.J. Hooper and the Montrose, was contracted to tow two barges and their cargo of coal from Virginia to New York. The barges and their cargo were lost in a severe storm, and the tugboat operator was found liable for negligence for not equipping the tugboats with radios. The tugboat operator appealed.
The court held that a business may be liable for failing to adopt new technology, even if the industry has not widely adopted it, if the use of the technology constitutes reasonable prudence.
Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc.
(notice and opportunity to cure) John Renner sued Retzer Resources, Inc. for negligence after tripping over a highchair leg at a McDonald’s in Winona, Mississippi. The trial court granted summary judgment for Retzer, and Renner appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The court held that to recover in a trip-and-fall case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant either directly created a dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition created by another.
U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co.
(B<PL) Connors Company (plaintiff) owned a barge called the Anna C, which was carrying flour owned by the United States (plaintiff). Connors hired Carroll Towing Co. (defendant) to tow the barge, and Carroll chartered its tug boat to Grace Line (defendant). The barge sank after Carroll’s tug boat attempted a tricky maneuver, and Connors and the United States sued for damages. The trial judge found Carroll partially responsible, and the parties appealed.
The court held that liability for negligence due to failure to take safety precautions exists if the burden of taking such precautions is less than the probability of injury multiplied by the gravity of any resulting injury (B < PL = negligence liability).
Indiana Consolidated Insurance Co. v. Mathew
(common sense weighing of alternatives- garage fire) Mathew (defendant) used a riding lawn mower in his brother’s garage, which caught fire. Indiana Consolidated Insurance (plaintiff) sued Mathew for negligence after the garage burned down. The trial court found no evidence of negligence and ruled in favor of Mathew.
The court held that a person confronted with a sudden emergency is held to the reasonable person standard, which prioritizes human life over property.
Pipher v. Parsell
(foreseeability) Kristyn Pipher sued Johnathan Parsell for negligence after being injured in a truck accident caused by another passenger, Johnene Beisel, grabbing the steering wheel twice. The trial court ruled in favor of Parsell, finding he had no duty to prevent the second incident, and Pipher appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
The court held that a driver owes a duty of care to passengers because it is foreseeable that passengers may be injured if the driver involves the car in a collision.
O’guin v. Bingham County
(negligence per se) Two children, Shaun and Alex O’Guin, entered an unattended landfill owned by Bingham County, where a pit wall collapsed and killed them. Their parents sued Bingham County for negligence, claiming the county violated statutes requiring landfills to be fenced off. The trial court applied the common law duty of care and granted summary judgment for Bingham County.
The court held that a statutory duty of care replaces the common law standard by defining the conduct that constitutes a breach of duty.
Stevens v. Veenstra
(kids doing adult things–contextualized standard of care) Aaron Veenstra, a 14-year-old, injured James Stevens while practicing driving in a driver’s education class. Stevens sued Veenstra for negligence. The trial court instructed the jury to use a minor’s standard of care, and the jury found in Veenstra’s favor. Stevens appealed, arguing for an adult standard of care for minors engaged in dangerous adult activities.
The court held that a minor who engages in a dangerous adult activity is charged with the same standard of care as an adult.
Stewart v. Motts
Stewart (plaintiff) entered Motts’ (defendant) auto repair shop and offered to help with a fuel tank repair. An explosion occurred, causing severe burns to Stewart, who then sued Motts for negligence. The Superior Court instructed the jury on the standard of reasonable care, and the jury found for Motts. Stewart appealed, arguing for a higher standard of care due to the dangerous nature of gasoline.
The court held that the standard of care in negligence actions is always reasonable care under the circumstances, even when dangerous instrumentalities are involved.
Wulf v. Kunnath
(hospital thump case/consent)
