Personal Injury & Civil Damages

Question 1

Negligence: 4 elements

Answer 1

Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages

Question 2

Intentional Injury: 4 additional elements

Answer 2

Intention (or substantial certainty)
Extreme and outrageous conduct
Act directly or proximately caused injury
Emotional injury severe

Question 3

Christy Bros. Circus v. Turnage (1928)

Answer 3

recovery of emotional damages because the plaintiff suffered humiliation from the physical impact of the horse releasing bowels into her lap and the ensuing laughter

Question 4

Zone of danger

Answer 4

a litigant was permitted to sue for emotional damages related to the fear associated with being in the “zone of danger” generated by the defendant’s negligence or malice

Question 5

Dillon v. Legg (1968)

Answer 5

David Legg struck and killed 2 year old Erin Dillon while sister Cheryl and mother Marjery watched; court permitted Cheryl to recover damages asserting that she was in the zone of danger, but mother was not close enough in proximity; CA SC reinstated mother’s claim - they asserted that zone of danger encompasses the area of exposure to emotional as well as physical injury

Question 6

Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital (1980)

Answer 6

husband’s right to gain compensation because of psychological distress and deemed the misdiagnosis as the proximate cause of marital upset and divorce

Question 7

Related bystander test:

Answer 7

The plaintiff must have a close relationship with the victim
The plaintiff must be in close proximity to the scene of the accident
The emotional shock has to be the “sensory and contemporaneous result” of the incident

Question 8

Molzoff v. US (1992)

Answer 8

lung surgery –> ventilator tube itself later became detached, leaving Mr. Molzof deprived of oxygen for approximately 8 minutes before it was discovered.

Molzof’s wife, sought to recover damages from the U.S. government after her husband suffered irreversible brain damage from this apparent negligence of the federal VA employees.

SCOTUS ruled that separate damages for loss of enjoyment of life were legitimate and recoverable because there was no way to property redress

Question 9

TXO Products Corp. v. Alliance Resources (1993)

Answer 9

permitted the award of very large punitive damages

so long as there are basic guidelines to juries concerning the award of such damages. In this case, the jury granted $10 million for punitive damages, even though only $19,000 in actual damages was awarded

Question 10

Bragdon v. Abbott (1998)

Answer 10

an individual who is HIV positive but asymptomatic has a disability within the meaning of, and is covered by, the ADA

Question 11

Carter v. General Motors (1960)

Answer 11

mental injury resulting from emotional pressure is a compensable injury

Question 12

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)

Answer 12

Defendant could not be held liable for an injury that could not be reasonably foreseen

Question 13

Plaisance v. Texaco (1991)

Answer 13

Defendant could not be held liable for an injury that could not be reasonably foreseen

Question 14

Waube v. Warrington (1935)

Answer 14

There can be no recovery for physical injuries sustained by a plaintiff as a result of the shock of witnessing another’s danger who is out of the zone of danger or range of ordinary physical peril.

Question 15

Gough v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America (1993)

Answer 15

Maritime law - emotional damages