Cases for final Flashcards
1
Q
What is the rule or holding in Vosberg v. Putney (1. battery) and why is it important?
A
Rule: D may be liable for battery if they intend to take an action that ends up harming P, even if they did not intend to harm P. (Also, social norms are relevant in determining if there was battery.)
Impt because: defines elements of/requirements for battery
2
Q
What is the rule or holding in Garratt v. Dailey (1. battery) and why is it important?
A
Rule: if someone takes an action that they know would/could harm another person, and that harm results, the person is entitled to damages.
Impt because: foreseeability requirement for battery
3
Q
What is the rule or holding in White v. U. of Idaho (1. Battery) and why is it important?
A
Rule: if you touch someone nonconsensually and they are harmed, you are liable for battery, even if you did not intend to harm them.
Impt because: kind of takes away foreseeability requirement for battery.
4
Q
What is the rule or holding in Dougherty v. Stepp (2. trespass to land) and why is it important?
A
Rule: entering onto someone’s land with no justification counts as a trespass, regardless of damage done.
Impt because: notes no damage requirement for trespass (which is different from battery.)
5
Q
What is the rule or holding in Mohr v. Williams (3. consent) and why is it important?
A
Rule: Physically touching someone/doing things to someone’s body without their consent counts as battery, even if there was no intent to harm & no negligence.
Impt because: notes the importance of consent, including in medical situations
6
Q
What is the rule or holding in Kennedy v. Parrot (3. consent) and why is it important?
A
Rule: if surgeon decides that other action is necessary as part of professional judgment, that does not count as assault & battery even if the patient did not consent to those specific actions.
Impt because: takes away consent requirement in medical situations.
Note: now, hospitals have patients sign informed consent forms
7
Q
What is the rule or holding in Hudson v. Craft (4. consent and contact sports) and why is it important?
A
Rule: although each situation is different, a fight promoter can be held liable for injuries to fighters, even if they consented to participating in the fight.
Impt because: you cannot consent to breach of the peace; court is using holding to disincentivize both participants and promoters from holding illegal fights
8
Q
What is the rule or holding in Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals (4. consent and contact sports) and why is it important?
A
Rule: you don’t get to claim roughness of sport as defense, especially if a hit was not a normal one & is against the rules
Impt because: setting standard for battery in settings where the social norm is for people to get hit all the time
9
Q
Avila v. Citrus Community College District (4. consent and contact sports)
A
Rule: although D has a duty to not increase the risks inherent in the sport, even intentional hits in the head are/can be an inherent risk of the sport.
Impt because: Gets rid of “violation of the rules” standard in sports cases for battery: Even if something is a violation of the rules, if it happens often enough, it can be an inherent risk.
10
Q
What is the rule or holding in Ploof v. Putnam (5. necessity) and why is it important?
A
Rule: people will not be held liable for trespass if they interfere with another’s belongings out of necessity, like protecting themselves during a storm
Impt because: Makes an exception to the strict no-consent-yes-liability trespass doctrine
11
Q
What is the rule or holding in Vincent v. Lake Erie (5. necessity) and why is it important?
A
Rule: if P protects own property (even from an ‘act of God’) at the expense of D’s property, P is liable for those damages to D’s property.
Impt because: creates an exception to the exception to the trespass rule.
12
Q
What is the rule or holding in Brown v. Kendall (6. rise of negligence) and why is it important?
A
Rule: if one person injures another unintentionally, and they were not doing anything illegal/improper at the time and were not acting carelessly, then they are not liable for the injury.
Impt because: this case signaled the rise of negligence over strict liability in accident cases.
13
Q
Fletcher v. Rylands / Rylands v. Fletcher (6. rise of negligence)
A
Rule: if someone brings something onto their property that could damage their neighbor’s property if it escaped, and it escapes and damages their neighbor’s land/property/etc. they are liable for that damage, regardless of how careful they were to prevent it.
Impt because: it is a more strict liability like rule among the rise in accident cases
14
Q
What is the rule or holding in Brown v. Collins (7. rise of negligence) and why is it important?
A
Rule: negligence is required for liability for damage caused by the escape of something one lawfully brings into his own property
Impt because: overturning Rylands v. Fletcher, promoting negligence more
15
Q
What is the rule or holding in Stone v. Bolton (7. rise of negligence) and why is it important?
A
Rule: D is liable if they did nothing about something that was a foreseeable risk, even if it was not particularly common or likely.
Impt because: clarifying that people can be liable for failing to take precautions when something is foreseeable, and foreseeable ≠ likely.
16
Q
What is the rule or holding in Roberts v. Ring (8&9 reasonable person) and why is it important?
A
Rule: in protecting others, people must account for their own infirmities and take due care. (although in protecting themselves, children are only held to the standard of the average level of care of someone their age)
Impt because: instructs on what to do with infirmities & age & how they interact with the reasonable person standard
17
Q
What is the rule or holding in Daniels v. Evans (8&9 reasonable person) and why is it important?
A
Rule: when a minor is doing an adult-like activity such as operating a motor vehicle, the standard of care required (for self-protection as well as the protection of others) is the same as that of a reasonable adult
Impt because: makes an exception to the general rule that minors’ standard of reasonable care for self-protection is a bit lower
18
Q
What is the rule or holding in Breunig v. AmFam (8&9 reasonable person) and why is it important?
A
Rule: Someone can claim an insanity defense for negligence, but only as long as their ‘insanity’ was in foreseeable
Impt because: insanity is sort of an exception to the reasonable person standard, but its usage is very limited.
19
Q
What is the rule or holding in Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen (8&9 reasonable person) and why is it important?
A
Rule: there is a burden of care on the city to accommodate for disabled people, especially those who are exercising reasonable care for self-protection
Impt because: disabilities create a modified ‘reasonable person’ standard
20
Q
What is the rule or holding in Cooley v. Public Service Co. (10. calculus of risk) and why is it important?
A
Rule: if 2 parties have conflicting duties, you only have a duty to the person who would suffer immediate and obvious harm without your care.
Impt because: gives instructions on what to do when there are conflicting duties/precautions to one group would create harm for the other
21
Q
What is the rule or holding in US v. Carroll Towing Co. (11. Hand formula) and why is it important?
A
Impt because: they make a formula for balancing interests
Rule: Owner’s duty [to take precautions against boat breaking away] is function of 3 variables:
1. Probability that boat will break away
2. Gravity of resulting injury if boat breaks away
3. How much of a burden it would be to take precautions
22
Q
What is the rule or holding in Andrews v. United (11. Hand formula) and why is it important?
A
Rule: given the heightened duty of a common carrier, even a small risk of serious injury to passengers may form the basis of liability if the risk could be eliminated consistent with the character and mode of the business & its practical operation
Impt because: puts forth heightened duty of common carriers
23
Q
What is the rule or holding in Titus v. Bradford (12. custom) and why is it important?
A
Rule: Employers are not negligent just bc they don’t use the latest safety equipment & practices; if they follow ordinary custom in the business, they are not negligent.
Impt because: emphasizes the importance of custom in workplace injury negligence cases, especially with employees
24
Q
What is the rule or holding in Mayhew (12. custom) and why is it important?
A
Rule: Regular custom is not the same thing as ordinary care; just because something follows regular custom does not mean it complies with ordinary care
Impt because: introduces idea that custom is not always determinative of negligence/nonnegligence in workplace injury cases, especially with independent contractors.
25
What is the rule or holding in TJ Hooper (12. custom) and why is it important?
Rule in TJ Hooper I: Even if something is not required by statute, if it is a near-universal practice in the industry, there is a duty to follow that practice
Rule in TJ Hooper II: the standard should be reasonable prudence, not custom.
Impt because: first one introduces custom as a dispositive sword for Ps; second one introduces custom as a relevant-but-not-dispositive shield for Ds (instead of either dispositive as in Titus or irrelevant as in Mayhew)
26
What is the rule or holding in Lama v. Borras (13. med mal) and why is it important?
Rule: in med mal cases, custom is a crucial part of determining whether there was negligence or not
Impt because: introduces a specific area where custom is dispositive (which is an exception to the general rule.)
27
What is the rule or holding in Canterbury v. Spence (14. med mal informed consent) and why is it important?
Rule: Physician's city to warn of potential dangers/risks of something is a facet of due care on their part (it does not matter if disclosing these risks is custom or not)
Impt because: Informed consent is an exception to the med mal exception to the normal rule that custom is relevant but not dispositive
28
What is the rule or holding in Valles (14. med mal informed consent) and why is it important?
Holding: the manner or method by which the surgeon performs the proposed procedure is not encompassed within the purview of the informed consent doctrine
Impt because: Method of procedure is an exception to the informed consent exception to the med mal exception to the general rule that custom is relevant but not dispositive.
29
What is the rule or holding in Osborne v. McMasters (15. role of statutes) and why is it important?
Rule: if a law imposed a duty on people for the protection and benefit of others, and the person neglects to perform that duty, he is negligent. (and it doesn't matter if the law is in force)
Impt because: introduces statutory duty as a way to determine negligence
30
What is the rule or holding in Gorris v. Scott (15. role of statutes) and why is it important?
Rule: in order to find negligence bc of failure to comply with statute, suit must be for injuries of the type the statute was designed to prevent.
Impt because: narrows ability to use statutory duty in determining negligence
31
What is the rule or holding in Martin v. Herzog (15. role of statutes) and why is it important?
Rule: if you clearly violate statute that was intended to protect others, that is conclusively evidence of negligence.
Impt because: this can be a part of proving contributory negligence on P's part, even if they didn't end up harming anyone else. (also need proximate cause tho.)
32
What is the rule or holding in Tedla v. Ellman (15. role of statutes) and why is it important?
Rule: a person who violates a statute is not always negligent per se.
Impt because: overturns Martin/makes an exception to the Martin rule that is all about reasonableness.
33
What is the rule or holding in Ross v. Hartman (15. role of statutes) and why is it important?
Rule: if you violate a statute that was designed to protect people, you are liable--third parties' actions do not break the chain of causation and make you not liable.
Impt because: deals with a situation where people could argue they should not be liable even though they violated a statute
34
What is the rule or holding in Baltimore Ohio RR v. Goodman (16. judge vs. jury) & why is it important?
Rule: question of due care is generally left to the jury, but if it is obvious, judge can decide.
Impt because: assigning roles between judge & jury
35
What is the rule or holding in Pokora v. Wabash Railway (16. judge vs. jury) & why is it important?
Rule: when someone is in a special circumstance where the usual precautions wouldn't have helped them, the precautions they should have taken should be decided by the jury.
Impt because: popular way to assign roles between judge & jury
36
What is the rule or holding in Wilkerson v. McCarthy (16. judge v. jury) & why is it important?
Rule: jury should decide what counts as due care/reasonable care
Impt because: another case that affirms that jury should decide due care, not judge.
37
What is the rule or holding in Byrne v. Boadle (17. res ipsa) & why is it important?
Rule: in some cases, presumption of negligence can arise from the fact that an accident occurred (when someone had a duty to others.)
Impt because: introducing idea behind res ipsa loquitur
38
What is the rule or holding in Larson v. St. Francis Hotel (17. res ipsa) & why is it important?
Holding: you can't have res ipsa action like this against hotel, bc hotel doesn't have complete control over guests' actions
Impt because: imposes a complete control requirement/limitation on res ipsa.
39
What is the rule or holding in Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel (17. res ipsa) & why is it important?
Rule: hotel can be held liable under res ipsa if they had ample notice of rowdiness etc.
Impt because: an exception to the no hotels/complete control res ipsa rule.
40
What is the rule or holding in Walston v. Lambertsen (17. res ipsa) & why is it important?
Rule: you can't rule res ipsa if you can't rule out most or all options of causes besides D's conduct
Impt because: provides guide for how to arrive at res ipsa determination
41
What is the rule or holding in Newing v. Cheatham (17. res ipsa) & why is it important?
Holding: res ipsa applies in case where pilot may have been drinking & ran out of fuel; also, accidents in areas with the most safety equipment are the strongest res ipsa cases
Impt because: provides a guide abt when res ipsa might be appropriate
42
What is the rule or holding in Colmenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co. (17. res ipsa) & why is it important?
Rule: res ipsa loquitur applies even if D shares responsibility with another, or if D is responsible for something although someone else had complete physical control over it.
Impt because: partially overrules the "complete control" requirement for res ipsa
43
What is the rule or holding in Holzhauer v. Saks & Co. (17. res ipsa) and why is it important?
Rule: the possibility of an alternative explanation means that you can't apply res ipsa (ex: escalator could have stopped bc someone pressed the emergency brake, not just bc it was broken.)
Impt because: escalator case where res ipsa didn't apply, unlike Colmenares Vivas.
44
What is the rule or holding in Ybarra v. Spangard (18. res ipsa in med mal) & why is it important?
Rule: In med mal cases, one or more Ds may be liable when others aren't, but this should not preclude application of res ipsa (and its complete control requirement.)
Impt because: this is an exceptional type of case where courts shift burden of production to Ds in res ipsa.
45
What is the rule or holding in Butterfield v. Forrester (Unit 19/20 CN) & why is it important?
Rule: if P is not taking ordinary care when they are injured, the accident is their fault (& they get no damages)
Holding: even though D was negligent, they are not liable bc P was negligent
Impt because: introduces idea behind contributory negligence
46
What is the rule or holding in Beems v. Chicago RR (19 & 20. contributory negligence) & why is it important?
Rule: if P tells D to take a precaution, & D doesn't, P isn't CN if they go ahead and act.
Impt because: this is a classic case of CN but it is significant because the parties are in a contractual relationship; it's not a stranger case.
47
What is the rule or holding in Gyerman v. US Lines Co. (19 & 20. CN) & why is it important?
Rule: D may successfully defend against liability for negligence if it proves that P's contributory negligence was the proximate cause of P's injuries
48
What is the rule or holding in Leroy Fibre (19 & 20 CN) & why is it important?
Rule: a property owner has no duty to use his or her property to avoid harm caused by another's wrongdoing
Impt because: strongly defends property rights within contributory negligence regime
49
What is the rule or holding in Derheim (19 & 20 CN) & why is it important?
Rule: it seems extremely unfair to reduce the damages of one who sustains those damages in an accident they weren't responsible for, esp. if there is no statutory duty to take a certain precaution like wearing a seat belt.
Impt because: limited use of seat belt defense as contributory negligence proof. Now, 49 states have seat belt statutes.
50
What is the rule or holding in Spier v. Barker (19 & 20 CN) & why is it important?
Rule: the jury may consider nonuse of a seatbelt as a factor in determining amount of damages, but not whether D is liable
Impt because: defines scope of relevance / use of seatbelt defense
51
What is the rule or holding in Fuller v. Illinois Central RR (19 & 20 CN) & why is it important?
Rule: if D had last clear chance to avoid the accident & did not, they are liable, even if P was contributorily negligent.
Impt because: creates "last clear chance" doctrine which is an exception to / limitation on contributory negligence.
52
What is the rule or holding in Farwell (21. Assumption of risk) & why is it important?
Rule: if one employee is injured due to the actions of another employee & sues the employer, the principle of vicarious liability does not apply, especially if P knew about the risks of the job & was compensated for them.
Impt because: contract/employment/compensation = reason to use assumption of the risk
53
What is the rule or holding in Lamson (21. assumption of risk) & why is it important?
Rule: if P notices that his workplace is unsafe, is told to accept the risks or leave, & accepts the risk and stays, D is not liable for any injury coming from this unsafe condition
Impt because: strengthens the contract/workplace reasoning for/use of assumption of the risk
54
What is the rule or holding in Murphy v. Steeplechase (21. assumption of risk) & why is it important?
Rule: one who takes part in such a sport accepts the dangers inherent in it so far as they are obvious & necessary (/as long as it is not a trap for the unwary.)
Impt because: sets forth recreational/sport use of/reasoning for assumption of the risk
55
What is the rule or holding in Dalury (21. assumption of risk) & why is it important?
Rule: assumption of the risk of certain sports does not mean someone cannot sue for negligence outside of the normal risk (+ exculpatory agreements that try to disallow this are contrary to public policy.)
Impt because: imposes limitation on sports/recreation assumption of risk
56
What is the rule or holding in Li v. Yellow Cab (22. comp n) & why is it important?
Rule: the doctrine of (pure) comparative negligence is preferable to the all-or-nothing doctrine of contributory negligence, from the point of view of logic, practical experience, and fundamental justice
Impt because: signaled transition from contributory negligence to comparative negligence
57
What is the rule or holding in NY Central RR v. Grimstad (23. proving causation) & why is it important?
Rule: for D's negligence to be the cause of P's injury, you must show that if D had not been negligent, P definitely would not have been injured.
58
What is the rule or holding in Reynolds v. Texas Pacific Railway (23. proving causation) & why is it important?
Rule: where D's negligence greatly increases the chance of an accident, the mere possibility that the accident might have happened absent the negligence is not sufficient to break the chain of cause and effect between the negligence and the injury.
Impt because: allows for existence of but-for cause between A and B even if A is not the only possible cause of B
59
What is the rule or holding in Zuchowicz (23. proving causation) & why is it important?
Rule: you can say that a negligent behavior caused harm if a negligent act was deemed wrongful because that act increased the chances of a particular type of accident, and that type of accident did happen
Impt because: the injury doesn't have to be a 100% certain result from an action in order for there to be but-for cause between the action and the injury.
60
What is the rule or holding in Haft (23. proving causation) & why is it important?
Rule: if D's (alleged) negligence makes it much more difficult for P to prove causation, that is a reason to shift burden to D
Impt because: an exceptional circumstance where burden is shifted to D instead of P
61
What is the rule or holding in AMA v. Superior Court (24. joint & several liability) & why is it important?
Rule: joint & several liability is still alive; a doctrine of partial equitable indemnity should be adopted at common law to permit partial indemnity among multiple Ds on a comparative fault basis).
Important because: instead of P bearing the risk of one D being insolvent, the other Ds bear that risk instead.
62
What is the rule or holding in Evangelatos v. Superior Court (24. joint & several liability) & why is it important?
Rule: if one or more tortfeasors prove to be insolvent and are not able to bear their share of the loss, the shortfall created by such insolvency should be apportioned equitably among the remaining culpable parties-both Ds and Ps.
Impt because: changes AMA rule in that a culpable P has to bear some of the cost of an insolvent D, although not all of it.
63
What is the rule or holding in Kingston (25. multiple & alternate causes) & why is it important?
Rule: if there are multiple sufficient causes of harm, any of the people who were responsible for any of those individual causes can be held fully liable for the harm to the injured person.
Impt because: explains how/who to hold liable if there are multiple causes of injury
64
What is the rule or holding in Smith v. J.C. Penney Co. (25. multiple & alternate causes) & why is it important?
Holding: injuries are indivisible, both JC Penney & gas station are fully liable
Impt because: is one way to apportion (or not) liability between 2 negligent Ds
65
What is the rule or holding in Summers v. Tice (25. multiple & alternate causes) & why is it important?
Rule: sometimes the victim is incapable of showing who harmed him but can show that one of a group did. then it is up t those in the group to show that they did not cause the harm
Impt because: explains what to do/how/who to hold liable if one member of a group caused injury but you don't know which member
66
What is the rule or holding in Sindell (26. Market share liability) & why is it important?
Rule: modification of the Summers rule: if there are a great many Ds, P shouldn't be required to join them all; they shouldn't be required to apportion liability among themselves. But if you can find a small group of Ds who were responsible for the offending conduct, you can sue them & it is up to them to apportion liability among themselves.
Impt because: explains what to do / how / who to hold liable if you know one of many Ds caused injury but aren't sure which one
67
What is the rule or holding in Skipworth (26. market share liability) & why is it important?
Holding: market share liability not allowed if product not fungible, time period too long
Impt because: places limitations on / requirements for use of market share liability
68
What is the rule or holding in Thomas v. Mallett (26. Market share liability) & why is it important?
Holding: market share liability is allowed in lead paint case; it is a fungible product
Impt because: allowed liability in lead paint case unlike Skipworth 8 years earlier
69
What is the rule or holding in Ryan v. NY Central RR (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Rule: a negligent person is liable in damages for the proximate results of his own acts, but not for remote damages, that would be just too much liability
Impt because: introduces the idea of proximate cause to draw a line so there's not 'too much liability'
70
What is the rule or holding in Bower (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Rule: A negligent D may be held liable for all reasonably foreseeable damages, even if caused by another person, unless the other person's actions constitute an intervening cause (D can be held liable for creating a foreseeable opportunity for a third person to intervene and cause harm.)
Impt because: Clarified that third party conduct was not an obstacle to proximate cause, as long as that conduct was foreseeable
71
What is the rule or holding in Wagner v. International Railway (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Rule: a D who negligently imperils and causes injury to a person may also be liable for injuries suffered by a third party in attempting to rescue that person ("Danger invites rescue")
Impt because: made rescue exception to cn; clarified that rescue did not pose an obstacle to proximate cause)
72
What is the rule or holding in Polemis (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
(impt: this case is no longer good law, but was significant)
Rule: a negligent actor can be held liable for all damages his negligent act caused, even if not reasonably foreseeable
Impt because: introduced (temporary) lack of foreseeability requirement for proximate cause
73
What is the rule or holding in City of Lincoln (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Rule: even if P's conduct isn't flawless, it's not a supervening cause
Impt because: notes that P's comparative negligence etc. isn't always a limitation on/obstacle to proximate cause
74
What is the rule or holding in Wagon Mound I & II (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Wagon Mound I Rule: a D is only liable for the consequences flowing from his negligent act that are foreseeable to a reasonable person at the time of the act
Wagon Mound II Rule: a party may be held liable in negligence for the foreseeable consequences of their actions (even if the risk was small.)
Impt because: (re)introduced foreseeability requirement for proximate cause
75
What is the rule or holding in Smith v. Brain Leech & Co. (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Holding: death by cancer was unforeseeable, too bad, eggshell skull P rule
Impt because: makes an exception in personal injury cases to foreseeability requirement for proximate cause
76
What is the rule or holding in Steinheiser v. Hertz (27-29) & why is it important?
Rule: where D's negligence precipitates the onset of harm to P, the negligence is the proximate cause of the harm
Important because: Smith role (personal injury exception to foreseeability requirement for proximate cause) applies to mental illness as well as physical illness/injury.
77
What is the rule or holding in Palsgraf (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Rule: D only owes a duty of care to P if P is in the zone of reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from D's actions
Impt because: introduced 'foreseeable P' requirement for proximate cause (also, Andrews' dissent in this case provides some useful factors for determining proximate cause)
78
What is the rule or holding in Kinsman Transit Co. (27-29 proximate cause) & why is it important?
Rule: where an actor breaches a duty of care at the risk of creating a foreseeable type of injury, liability is not limited on the ground that the actual resulting injury was different in manner AND extent than expectable
Impt because: this is a case where court says D is liable even though the type of harm was unforeseeable. (majority also doesn't care that P was unforeseeable P, and cites Andrews' Palsgraf dissent abt how to find proximate cause.)
79
What is the rule or holding in Strauss (30. prox cause modern cases) & why is it important?
Rule: courts must fix an orbit of duty which limits liability to manageable levels, even where this may exclude parties who would have been able to recover under traditional torts principles.
Impt because: acknowledges that proximate cause is an arbitrary line to avoid 'too much liability', reaffirms that goal
80
What is the rule or holding in 9/11 litigation (30. prox cause modern cases) & why is it important?
Rule: manufacturer has a duty of care to foreseeable Ps
Impt because: a case where D tried to argue there would be limitless/crushing liability & so they shouldn't have a duty to some Ps, and court said no to both of those claims.
81
What is the rule or holding in Mitchell (31. prox cause & emotional distress) & why is it important?
Rule: P may not recover for damages for injuries solely caused by fright induced by D's conduct
Impt because: in general you can't recover for purely emotional distress; this was especially true back in the day
82
What is the rule or holding in Amaya (31. prox cause & emotional distress) & why is it important?
Rule: people can recover for injuries caused by emotional distress if they were in the zone of danger of a dangerous event
Impt because: this is a tiny exception to the 'no emotional distress damages' rule; was mainly made for mothers who watched their children die.
83
What is the rule or holding in Dillon v. Legg (31. prox cause & emotional distress) & why is it important?
D's liability for emotional distress caused to a P largely depends on whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable. (reasonably foreseeable: if P was located near the scene of the accident, if the shock came from P's observance of the accident, if P and the victim were closely related.)
Impt because: expands the exception to 'no emotional distress claims' beyond the zone of danger, but it is still small & tailored to mothers who watched their children die.
84
What is the rule or holding in Buch (32. Duty to rescue?) & why is it important?
Rule: a landowner only has a duty to not intentionally harm a trespasser on his property
Impt because: introduced/reified very limited duties of landowners toward trespassers, including no duty to rescue
85
What is the rule or holding in Hurley v. Eddingfield (32. duty to rescue?) & why is it important?
Rule: a physician does not have a legal duty to provide medical assistance whenever and to whomever they are asked.
Impt because: strengthens the rule of no duty to rescue.
86
What is the rule or holding in Addie (33. duties of landowners) & why is it important?
Rule: landowner only has a legal duty to avoid willful harm to trespasser, nothing more
Impt because: introduces/reifies landowner's very limited duty to trespassers; introduces/reifies landowners' 3 types of duties to ppl on their land
87
What is the rule or holding in Rowland v. Christian (33. landowners' duties) & why is it important?
Rule: Landowners have a duty to act as a reasonable person in all circumstances, regardless of the status of entrants on their property
Impt because: at least in California, got rid of landowner's 3 duties to people on their land, replaced those with the reasonable person standard
88
What is the rule or holding in Kline v. 1500 Mass Ave (34. special duties) & why is it important?
Rule: when a landlord leases portions of a building to tenants and maintains control over parts of the building for common use, the landlord has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to minimize the risk to tenants of foreseeable criminal acts committed by third parties on the entire premises and particularly in the common areas.
Impt because: explains landlord/tenant exception to landowner's limited duties rule
89
What is the rule or holding in Tarasoff (34. special duties) & why is it important?
Rule: when a therapist learns from his patient about intent to do harm to a third party, the therapist has a duty to take reasonable precautions given the circumstances to warn the potential victim of danger
Impt because: therapist is an exception to general rule that ppl who do not create harm have no duty to those injured.
90
What is the rule or holding in Poggi v. Scott (36. conversion) & why is it important?
Rule: bad faith or unlawful intent is not a required element of conversion
Impt because: clarifies elements of conversion, which do not include bad faith--conversion is a strict liability tort
91
What is the rule or holding in Maye v. Yappan (36. conversion) & why is it important?
Holding: court awarded Ps damages equal to the value of the gold taken from their land, less the cost of its extraction and refinement. P's action was a mistake; if they had done it in bad faith, their damages wouldn't be reduced for their labor
92
What is the rule or holding in Moore (36. conversion) & why is it important?
Rule: once cells leave a patient's body, they are no longer that patient's property, although doctors must get patient's informed consent before taking cells and using them for research etc.
Impt because: notes that you cannot have conversion with cells/no property interest in taken cells, although restates importance of informed consent.
93
What is the rule or holding in Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. (37. Abnormally dangerous activities) & why is it important?
Rule/holding: shipping hazardous chemicals by rail through metropolitan areas is not an abnormally dangerous activity
Impt because: defines sth that isn't vs. is an abnormally dangerous activity
94
What is the rule or holding in Yukon Equipment (37. abnormally dangerous activities) & why is it important?
Holding: strict liability applies to the storage of explosives, even if it is 3rd party (thieves) who set them off
Impt because: defines what is vs. isn't abnormally dangerous activity & how that is affected by third party conduct
95
What is the rule or holding in Ensign v. Walls (38. private nuisance) & why is it important?
Rule: a D who operates a business that becomes a nuisance when the area becomes more densely populated may not escape liability by arguing that Ps willingly came to the nuisance
Impt because: explains/says that you can't use 'coming to the nuisance' defense
96
What is the rule or holding in Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (38. private nuisance) & why is it important?
Rule: permanent damages, rather than an injunction, should be awarded when the damages resulting from the nuisance are significantly less than the economic benefit derived by the party causing the harm (which is also an economic benefit to society, economists would say).
97
What is the rule or holding in Spur Industries v. Webb (38. private nuisance) & why is it important?
Holding: P retirement community obtains an injunction against D's cattle farm, but P has to pay/indemnify D for costs of moving or shutting down to comply with injunction.
Impt because: introduces a way to protect D's rights when an injunction is issued against it in order to protect P's rights in a private nuisance case.
98
What is the rule or holding in Burgess (39. public nuisance) & why is it important?
Rule: to recover damages for a public nuisance, private individuals must suffer a unique kind of harm (economic harm/business losses ok in this kind of case)
Impt because: limits who Ps can be in public nuisance case
99
What is the rule or holding in City of Oakland v. BP (39. public nuisance) & why is it important?
Rule: courts cannot adjudicate common-law public nuisance claims based on climate change that implicate foreign policy, even if not displaced by federal environmental laws
Impt because: points out foreign policy/separation of powers limitation on big public nuisance cases
100
What is the rule or holding in National Prescription Opiate Litigation (39. public nuisance) & why is it important?
Holding: 2 no-go suits, 1 yes liability suit for public nuisance for the opioid crisis
Impt because: example of how company can be held liable or not for their sort-of-remote role in a public nuisance / brings up question of what can count as a pubilc nuisance
101
What is the rule or holding in Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. US (40. Vicarious liability) & why is it important?
Rule: an employer assumes the risk for the acts of its employees which arise out of, and in the course of, their employment (an employer is liable for an employee's damage even if the employee was not performing a duty for the employer, when it was foreseeable that the damage could have been caused in the scope of employment.)
Impt because: defines when an edge case should count as vicarious liability.
102
What is the rule or holding in Winterbottom v. Wright (41 & 42. products liability foundations) & why is it important?
Rule: a P who lacks privity of contract with D may not sue D based on negligent performance of a contract made between D and a third party
Impt because: typifies old privity rule for products liability
103
What is the rule or holding in Macpherson v. Buick (41 & 42. products liability foundations) & why is it important?
Rule: manufacturing defect cases should be governed by negligence, rather than privity of contract
Impt because: got rid of privity of contract rule & instituted negligence rule for products liability
104
What is the rule or holding in Escola v. Coca Cola (41 & 42. products liability foundations) & why is it important?
Rule: manufacturing defect cases should be governed by strict liability, rather than negligence
Impt because: exemplified change from negligence to strict liability in products liability cases
105
What is the rule or holding in Speller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (43. manufacturing and design defects) & why is it important?
Rule: in the absence of evidence showing a specific flaw in a product, P may still recover damages based on strict products liability by showing circumstantial evidence that the product did not perform as intended, and excluding all other causes for the product's failure that are not attributable to the D manufacturer/seller
Impt because: allows for strict products liability in an almost res-ipsa like case (although with some expert testimony)
106
What is the rule or holding in Campo v. Scofield (43. manufacturing & design defects) & why is it important?
(this case was overruled in Micallef) Rule: for products liability purposes, a manufacturer is not required to guard against an obvious danger
Impt because: places a limit on products liability
107
What is the rule or holding in Micallef v. Miehle Co. (43. manufacturing & design defects) & why is it important?
Rule: basically, manufacturers have to use Hand formula when they are deciding what precautions to take in designing a product. they have to avoid unreasonable risk of harm, even if that unreasonable risk would be obvious.
Impt because: overturns 'obvious harm' limitation on products liability (although keeps some limitation on products liability)
108
What is the rule or holding in Barker v. Lull (43. Manufacturing & design defect) & why is it important?
Rule: a product is defective in design if D could have taken more reasonable (not too burdensome) precautions that wouldn't have made the product more dangerous
Impt because: puts limitation on when to add more precautions; overturns consumer expectations test & uses reasonable alternative design test instead
109
What is the rule or holding in Macdonald (44. Defective warnings) & why is it important?
Rule: a drug manufacturer has a duty to warn both doctor & ultimate consumer of all dangers inherent in the use of oral contraceptives
Impt because: made birth control pills an exception to the "learned intermediary" exception to companies' duty to warn customers/consumers
110
What is the rule or holding in Hood (44. Defective warnings) & why is it important?
Rule: a manufacturer does not have a duty to warn about all potential consequences associated with misusing a product (especially bc that might be TMI); they only have a duty to provide a warning that is reasonable under the circumstances
Impt because: introduces some limitations on duty to warn; introduces idea of TMI making warnings less effective
111
What is the rule or holding in Liriano (44. Defective warnings) & why is it important?
Holding: D can be held liable for failure to warn, bc a danger that would seem obvious to some people wouldn't seem obvious to others
Impt because: gets rid of / limits 'obvious danger' exception to duty to warn
112
What is the rule or holding in Geier (46. Federal preemption) & why is it important?
Rule: Ordinary preemption principles such as federal conflict preemption may apply to defeat state common-law tort actions based on strict products liability
113
What is the rule or holding in Cipollone (46. federal preemption) & why is it important?
Rule: federal preemptive 'requirements' include common-law tort actions
Impt because: federal common law can preempt state common-law actions (?)
114
What is the rule or holding in Williamson (46. federal preemption) & why is it important?
Holding: SC distinguished this case from Geier: in both cases, tort suit would restrict manufacturer's choice, but in this case, choice was a side thing, not a significant regulatory objective, so the tort suit is not preempted.
Impt because: makes a distinction where tort suit could be preempted by regulation but is not
115
What is the rule or holding in Wyeth v. Levine (46. federal preemption) & why is it important?
Rule: state tort-law products-liability claims for failure to warn are not preempted by federal law
Impt because: example of drug-related litigation that was allowed to continue despite regulation abt the general topic
116
What is the rule or holding in Macdougald (47. Compensatory damages) & why is it important?
Rule: some degree of cognitive awareness of loss by P is a prerequisite to recovery for loss of enjoyment of life
Impt because: articulates a requirement for damages for loss of enjoyment of life
117
What is the rule or holding in O'Shea v. Riverway Towing Co. (47. compensatory damages) & why is it important?
Rule: calculations of awards for damages for lost future wages must take into account projected inflation (+ be discounted to present value)
Impt because: articulates a requirement to follow when calculating compensatory damages
118
What is the rule or holding in McMillan v. City of New York (47. compensatory damages) & why is it important?
Holding: judge refused to use race-based statistics to calculate a Black man's life expectancy for damages purposes
Impt because: beginning resistance to using long-used race & sex tables to calculate future wages
119
What is the rule or holding in Duncan (47 & 48. Compensatory damages) & why is it important?
Rule: an award of damages must be based on P's shorter life expectancy due to their injury
Impt because: seems unjust but goes along with the stated purpose of compensatory damages to calculate actual lost wages + medical costs in a shorter lifetime
120
What is the rule or holding in Kemezy (49. Punitive damages)?
Rule: to establish grounds for punitive damages, P is not required to introduce evidence about D's net worth
121
What is the rule or holding in State Farm v. Campbell (49. punitive damages) & why is it important?
Rule: awards of punitive damages by state courts that exceed a single-digit ratio between punitive damages and compensasory damages are usually "grossly excessive" and violate Due Process clause of 14th Amdt
Impt because: puts a pretty intense limit on punitive damages
