Personal Injury and Civil Damages Flashcards
Christie Bros. Circus v. Turnage (1928)*
Expanded personal injury – ANY unlawful touching of a person’s body violates a personal right and can constitute physical injury to that person (regardless of whether or not physical harm have ensued)
Horse shit on a spinster, reduced chances of marriage.
Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1980)
The requirement for physical injury in personal damages cases is NO LONGER REQUIRED due to the “increasing widespread knowledge of the debilitating effect of mental distress”
- Contrary to “zone of danger” concept, husband successfully sued a physician who negligently misdx his wife’s condition as syphilis (led to divorce). Recognized a right to compensation bc of psych distress.
Plaisance v. Texaco Inc. (1991)
In order to recover emotional damages, the damages MUST be a “reasonable foreseeable consequence of the alleged negligence”
Waube v. Warrington (1935)
In order to give rise to a right of action grounded on negligent conduct, the emotional distress or shock must be occasioned by fear of personal injury to the person sustaining the shock (Mrs W who died from shock after seeing her kid die), and not fear of injury to his property or to the person of another (Mr. W).
Dillon v. Legg (1968)*
A person who suffers emotional injury but was not exposed to actual physical injury has standing to sue for negligence.
Bystander recovery criteria:
- A close rel to vic
- Close proximity to accident
- Emo shock is “sensory and contemporaneous” to the incident
Weighing these factors will determine whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable.
Palsgraf v. LIRR (1928)
The extent of duty in negligence is determined by the risk that can be reasonably foreseen under the circumstances.
A defendant owes a duty of care only to those who are in the reasonably foreseeable “zone of danger” caused by the defendant’s conduct.
Bragdon v. Abbott (1998)
Can a physician refuse or alter care of an HIV-positive patient without violating the equal treatment stipulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)? No.
The Court held that although the ADA does not force care-givers to treat an “individual [who] poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others,” it also prohibits discrimination against any individual “on the basis of disability in the enjoyment of the services of any place of public accommodation by any person who operates [such] a place.” The Court then reasoned that since HIV “substantially limits” major life activities, such as reproduction, the infection is a “disability” that entitles its victims to ADA protections. Having said this, however, the Court concluded that only care-givers can determine if treating an HIV-positive individual would constitute a “direct threat” to themselves or others. Therefore, the Court remanded for further risk assessment based on objective medical evidence or risk.
Carter v. General Motors (1960)
“Mental collapse” stemming from emotional pressure at a job is compensable per WComp statute in Michigan.
Gough v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co of America (1993)
Fishing vessel went over gas pipeline that should have been buried. Explosion ensued, and 11 die. Appellate crt found jury awarded an excessive amount plaintiff. Crt reasoned the plaintiff was partially to blame for the incident.
Molzof v. US (1992)
Guardian ad litem for a comatose pt brought suit alleging negligence of gov’t hospital workers led to pt’s brain damage.
Guardian appealed portion of award that denied certain damages.
Crt held pt was not entitled to award of future medical expenses for services he was receiving free of charge.
Comatose pt’s loss of enjoyment of life was not compensable under Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), the act deemed such pay as “punitive” and barred.
Plaisance v. Texaco (1991)
Tug boat captain witnesses fire.
Cpt sued for emotional damages.
Crt finds cpt was not in any actual physical damage, damage was not done to anyone or to his boat.
Crt does not support his claim of emotional damage.
Crt found Cpt was not in the zone of danger.
TXO Products v. Alliance Resources (1993)
TXO tried a “slick” move to bilk Alliance of land and money.
Alliance wins in crt and receives a punitive amount of 10 million.
Crt upholds the settlement, does not find it unreasonable.
