Cases Flashcards
Van Camp v. McAfoos
P struck from behind by a 3 year old on a tricycle. Holding: injury itself doesn’t create liability. P failed to claim that D was at fault in any way.
Dillon v. Frasier
In a car accident case, the trail awarded the P only $6K (grossly inadequate).
Holding: New trial only to decide the damages.
Conclusion: Torts is compensatory
Snyder v. Turk
The frustrated doctor grabbed the nurse by the shoulder and stuck her face in a body hole.
Yes, battery b/c contact was satisfied
Cohen v. Smith
Pregnant women w/ religious beliefs that no man could see her naked. Man performed the C section.
Holding: Yes, battery b/c harm can be “offensive touching” not just physical harm.
Baska v. Scherzer
Lady tries to break up a fight and gets punched in the face.
Holding: Yes, battery b/c intent to contact was satisfied even if P1 only meant to strike P2.
Garrett v. Dailey
Child removed the chair from someone about to sit down.
Holding: Yes, battery b/c child had knowledge that P was going to sit down.
White v. Muniz
Dementia patient hit nurse in the jaw.
Holding: Yes, battery (but nurse can’t sue patient).
Reasoning: Insanity isn’t a defense to tort liability, but (like with children) makes it harder to prove intent to contact.
Wagner v. State
Mentally disabled person on a field trip strikes a shopper at the mall. The statute prevents battery claims against the state.
Holding: Yes, battery b/c Disabled did intend to touch.
Cullison v Medley
Family comes to scare P. One of the guys motions like he’s going to grab his pistol. P suffers from mental distress and trauma.
Holding: yes, assault b/c mental trauma is an apprehension of imminent harmful contact.
McCann v. Walmart
Family detained by walmart security who said they were calling the cops (but were really waiting for manager). They were escorted to the back of the store and weren’t allowed to go to the bathroom.
Holding: yes, false imprisonment b/c no actual physical restraints are required.
Chanko v. American Broadcasting
Family member dies in hospital and is filmed. documentary airs months later and family sees the death on TV again.
Holding No IIED, because doesn’t meet the burden of extreme or outrageous
Grimes v. Saben
Chick fight with two conflicting accounts.
P claimed she was attacked. D claimed it was self defense.
Holding: Reverse MSJ b/c conflicting stories (let jury decide).
Katko v. Briney
Self defense of property. D’s booby trapped the door with a shotgun and injured the P.
Holding: No self defense of property b/c you can’t use deadly force to protect property.
Reasoning: Life > Property
Brown v. Martinez
Boys steal watermellon. Farmer shoots to scare but hits the boy in the leg.
Holding: No self defense of property b/c can’t use deadly force to protect property
Gotarez v Value Mart
Boys suspected of shoplifting. they were tailed and seen exiting the store. security choked the boys to get the items back, but the boys had left them in the store.
Holding: Yes, defense of property b/c purpose was proper. BUT method may not be proper (let the jury decide).
Robins v. Harris
inmate (P) flashed guard (D). D ordered lockdown that night and took P out of her cell. P performed oral sex on D. P filed for battery.
Holding: Yes, consent as defense to battery.
BUT: usually consent not available in inherently unequal relationships.
Right v Breen
Sitting at red light, rear ended. Had been in 5 previous accidents, could not prove injuries were caused by most recent driver
Hale v Ostrow
Lady on a walk, Bushes cover sidewalk, trips when looking back for cars. Cause if fact is direct contribution to injury. Case should go to jury.
Landers v Texas Salt Water Disposal
∆1 had pipe breakage that spilled salt water into pond. ∆2 closely following ∆1 had spill of salt water and oil into pond. Cant prove who caused which harm. Court held both contributed to same harm and are liable under several joint liability.
Anderson v Minneapolis St. Paul Railway
Train engine caused fire, house burned down. evidence that other non negligent fires in area existed and their fire merged with those fires. Because of fire mingling it will be difficult to determine if ∆ negligence substantially contributed to π
Lasley v Combined Transport
Truck cargo falls off trailer and causes traffic jam. π’s dad dies from drunk driver rear ending him. Dropping cargo was a substantial factor of death.
Summers v Tice
3 guys hunting quail. 2 ∆ shoot in direction of π. One hits eye, one hit lip. Unable to determine who hit eye. Both are held liable together.
Palsgraff v Long island Railroad Co
Rail employees help man onto train. Man drops package and fireworks inside the package explodes. panic causes a pole to fall over and hit P. Holding: No proximate cause b/c P didn't show P belonged to a foreseeable class of people
Thompson v Kaczinski
Disassembled trampoline blew into road.
Holding: Yes, proximate cause b/c reasonably foreseeable winds could blow tramp into the road.
Hughes v Lord Advocate
boys fell into uncovered manhole and lamp exploded. P injured by burns.
Holding: Yes, proximate cause b/c burning pedestrians was foreseable.
Conclusion: burning was foreseeable; the manner of harm doesn’t mattter
Doughty v Turner Manufacturing Co.
lid falls into hot lava and expodes, injuring P.
Holding: no proximate cause b/c spashing was foreseable, not explosion
Conclusion: buring was foreseeable; the manner of harm DOES matter (in this case)
BUTTERFIELD V. FORRESTER
Rule: Contributory negligence
D had pole in the street, but P was riding too fast on horse. Had P taken ordinary care, he would have avoided the accident. Holding: P gets nothing, b/c contributory negligence (all or nothing) for affirmative defense applies (OLD RULE)
POHL v. COUNTY OF FURNAS
Rule: pure comparative negligence
P veers off the gravel road. D negligent sign placement; P negligent speeding. Holding: 60-40% split in favor of P. App. Ct. affirmed (NEW RULE)
Hill v Sparks
Earth mover let sister no machine. She fell and died. He knew of risk of letting her ride where she did. Higher knowledge of risk requires a higher level of care.
Stevens v Veenstra
Veenstra was in driving school. hits person. Held. minors involved in inherently dangerous activities are held to the Reasonably Prudent person (adult) standard.
Stewart v Motts
Stewerat helped Motts get car started. Poured gas into carburetor, explodes and burns Stewart. Standard is still RPP because it accounts for using dangerous materials.
Poss v Hortan
Following too close. accident. cannot claim emergency for situation your created by tortious conduct.
Oguin v Binham
Negligence Per se
stautes required fence around grabage dump
Gretchell v Lodge
Negligence Per se/ Emergency
Moose in road. Drove on wrong side to avoid- accident. Held. Emergency applied because risk of harm to D
Stinnent
Dr hires guy to work on property. guy gets up on roof and falls off. Sued for neg. Held. not a breach of duty because duty was RPP not a professional/employer. Also applicable is implied assumption of risk/contributory negligence.
