Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Torts 2 - 2011
Spring 2011 Torts
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Elements of negligence | Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages |
| Restatement 519 | "one who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land or chattels of another resulting from the activity, though he has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm." |
| Restatement 520 Abnormally Dangerous Factors | 1. existence of high degree of risk 2. likelihood that harm resulting will be great 3. inability to eliminate risk by ordinary care 4. activity is not common usage 5. inappropriate for the location 6. value to community outweighed by danger |
| Atlantic Coast Line v. Daniels | P’s car on train tracks, this case poses the problem with ‘cause in fact’. Rule: you must have both cause in fact and proximate cause. |
| Ryan v. New York Central | guy burned down his house then fire spread to consecutive houses. Court decided that the damages were too remote to hold D liable. |
| Bartolone v. Jeckovich | 4 car pileup in which D was negligent. Court held D liable b/e you have to take the P as he is (egg shell). |
| In Re Arbitration, Polemis | heavy plank fell on tank of petrol and benzene b/e of D’s negligence making it blow up. Court held that D was liable b/e he was the direct cause and not too remote. |
| Wagon Mound No. 1 | oil and debris in water, when D dropped molten metal in the water it caused a fire and burned down P’s ship. Damages to the ship were foreseeable, but the fire was not foreseeable. |
| Wagon Mound 2 | Foreseeable and re4asonably foreseeable. |
| Palsgraf v. Long Island | train worker helped man on to train, man dropped unmarked box of explosives and explosives caused scales to fall over onto lady across the platform. Was she “within the range of reasonable apprehension?” Cardozo - duty only to foreseeable consequences; P |
| Yun v. Ford Motor Co. | spare tire came off van, so P went across road to get it, on the way back he was hit by driver. Court held that P’s conduct in getting the tire was extraordinary and therefore constituted a “superseding and intervening cause of his own injuries” b/e of th |
| Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting | D had seizure while driving and hurt a road worker. Worker sued b/e there was no road barrier. Court held that just b/e there is an intervening cause (like the seizure) D’s cause (no barrier) is not automatically cut off. |
| Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge | D’s negligence caused tanker to spill gas, man lit cigar and threw match causing a fire. Court held that intervening acts cut off liability when they are unforeseen, especially criminal acts. |
| Puller v. Preis | P’s husband committed suicide 7 months after accident, his health had been deteriorating. Issue: whether P’s suicide was due to a mental injury b/e of the wreck. Holding: if P could not resist the impulse b/e of his diminished mental state from the wrec |
| McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor | n |
| Kelly v. Gwinnell | n |
| Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co | n |
| Winterbottom v. Wright | n |
| MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. | n |
| H.R. Moch v. Rensselaer | n |
| Clagett v. Dacy | n |
| Hegel v. Longsam | n |
| L.S. Ayres & Co v. Hicks | n |
| J.S. & M.S. v. R.T.H. | n |
| Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California | n |
| St. of Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank | n |
| Daley v. LaCroix | n |
| Thing v. La Chusa | n |
| Endresz v. Friedberg | n |
| Taylor v. Olson | n |
| Salevan v. Wilmington Park | n |
| Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth Ry | n |
| Barmore v. Elmore | n |
| Campbell v. Weathers | n |
| Whelan v. Van Natta | n |
| Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. | n |
| Richardson v. Chapman | n |
| Montgomery Ward v. Anderson | n |
| Zimmerman v. Ausland | n |
| Cheatham v. Pohle | n |
| Moragne v. States Marine Lines | n |
| Selders v. Armentrout | n |
| Murphy v. Martin Oil Co. | n |
| Butterfield v. Forrester | n |
| Davies v. Mann | n |
| McIntyre v. Balentine | n |
| Seigueur v. National Fitness Institute | n |
| Rush v. Commercial Realty | n |
| Blackburn v. Dorta | n |
| Teeters v. Currey | n |
| Freehe v. Freehe | n |
| Zellmer v. Zellmer | n |
| Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's | n |
| Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University | n |
| Riss v. New York | n |
| DeLong v. Erie County | n |
| Deuser v. Vecera | n |
| Rylands v. Flecther | n |
| Miller v. Civil Contractors | n |
| Indiana Harbor Belt v. American Cyanamid | n |
| Foster v. Preston Mill Co. | n |
| Golden Amory | n |
| Sandy v. Bushey | n |
| MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co | n |
| Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. | n |
| Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors | n |
| Greenman v. Yuba Power Products | n |
| Rix v. General Motors Corp. | n |
| Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co. | n |
| O'Biren v. Muskin Corp. | n |
| Anderson v. Ownes-Corning Fiberglas | n |
| Friedman v. General Motors Corp. | n |
| Daly v. General Motors Corp | n |
| Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews | n |
| Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. | n |
| Wyeth v. Levine | n |
| Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. | n |
| Hector v. Cedars- Sinai Medical Ctr. | n |
| Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers | n |
| Grandt v. Reader's Digest Ass'n | n |
| Kilian v. Doubleday & Co | n |
| Neiman-Marcus v. Lait | n |
| Bindrim v. Mitchell | n |
| Shor v. Billingsley | n |
| Terwillinger v. Wands | n |
| Economopoulos v. A.G. Pollard Co | n |
| Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc | n |
| Ogden v. Ass'n of the United States Army | n |
| New York Times CO. v. Sullivan | n |
| St. Amant v. Thompson | n |
| Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc v. Connaughton | n |
| Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. | n |
| Dun & Bradstreet, Inc v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc | n |
| Hustler Magazine v. Falwell | n |
| Camper v. Gregory | n |
Created by:
aajohn64
Popular Law sets