Torts Case Briefs

Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke - vicarious liability

(D) negligently started a fire in his hotel room after smoking a cigarette while he filled out his expense account during a business trip. Black Letter Rule: The smoking of a cigarette, if done while engaged in the business of the employer, is within the employee's scope of employment because it is a minor deviation from the employee's work-related activities, and thus merely an act done incidental to general employment.

Katko v. Briney - Defense of Property

(D) set up a spring gun in their unoccupied farm house. The spring gun went off and injured (P) when he broke into the house. Black Letter Rule: A landowner may not use a spring gun to defend an unoccupied farm house.

Brown v. Martinez - Defense of Property

(D) shot and injured(P) when (P) and some other boys trespassed on (D) land to steal watermelons. Black Letter Rule: A landowner may not use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to prevent a trespass or an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

Indiana Consolidated Insurance Co. v. Mathew - Due Care

(D) started his brother's lawnmower to cut his brother's lawn and the lawnmower caught fire damaging his brother's garage. Black Letter Rule: The standard of care to adjudge negligent conduct is whether a person exercised the duty to use care that an ordinary prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.

Salinetro v. Nystrom - But-for

(D) took x-rays of (P) when, unbeknownst to her, she was pregnant, and as a result she chose to have an abortion. Black Letter Rule: If the injury would not have occurred but-for the defendant's negligence, causation exists.

Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc. - Substantial Factor

(D) truck lost a load of large glass panes on the freeway; (D) son was caught up in the ensuing traffic jam when his pickup was hit by a vehicle driven by Clemmer (D), which caused his truck to erupt into a fire in which the son died. The issue in this case concerned the exclusion of evidence of Clemmer's (D) intoxication at the time of the collision. Black Letter Rule: Factual cause exists if someone examining the event without regard to legal consequences would conclude that the allegedly faulty conduct or condition in fact played a role in its occurrence.

Creasy v. Rusk - Mental Disability

(D), an Alzheimer's patient, kicked (P), his nurse, while she was trying to put him to bed, injuring her knee and lower back. Black Letter Rule: In general, the standard of care for adults with mental disabilities is the same standard of reasonable care that governs adults without mental disabilities, with no allowance for their capacity to control or understand the consequences of their actions.

Surocco v. Geary - Public Necessity

(D), the mayor of San Francisco, authorized (P) house to be blown up in order to stop the progress of a raging fire. Black Letter Rule: A person is not liable for destroying another's property if it is necessary to prevent an imminent public disaster.

Coomer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. (Mo. 2014)

(P) claims he was injured when he was hit the eye with a hotdog thrown by Sluggerrr, the mascot. Holding: As a result, Sluggerrr (and, therefore, the Royals) owe the fans a duty to use reasonable care in conducting the Hotdog Launch and can be held liable for damages caused by a breach of that duty

Marcus v. Staubs - Intervening

(P) daughters were involved in an accident, killing one of them and seriously injuring another, after (D) provided the minors with alcohol and took them to a party; (D) argued that the fact that the girls stole a truck and drove themselves home after consuming alcohol relieved him of liability. Black Letter Rule: A tortfeasor whose negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about injuries is not relieved from liability by the intervening acts of third persons if those acts were reasonably foreseeable by the original tortfeasor at the time of his negligent conduct.

Dillon v. Frazer

(P) presented evidence of over $500,000 in damages from an automobile accident but the jury awarded him only $6,000; although the trial judge increased that amount to $21,000, he refused to grant a new trial on the issue of damages. Black Letter Rule: A trial court must grant a new trial on the issue of damages if the amount of the verdict is so grossly inadequate or excessive as to shock the conscience of the court and clearly indicates that the figure reached was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption, or some other improper motive.

Delaney v. Reynolds - Intervening, Superceding

(P) shot herself with an unlocked, loaded gun kept in the house she shared with a police officer, and in her negligence suit against him the officer claimed that (P) suicide attempt was a superseding cause of her injuries. Black Letter Rule: When an intervening occurrence was foreseeable by the defendant, the causal chain of events remains intact and the defendant's original negligence remains a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury.

Moore v. Hartley Motors - express assumption of risk

(P) signed a release to participate in an ATV safety course, she was injured when thrown from an ATV. Black Letter Rule: A court may invalidate a release as against public policy upon consideration of such factors as the type of service performed and whether the party seeking exculpation has a decisive advantage in bargaining strength because of the essential nature of the service.

Cullison v. Medley - Assault

(P) sued (D) for assault after they intimidated him while armed. Black Letter Rule: Assault occurs when one acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or an imminent apprehension of such contact.

Pohl v. County of Furnas - contributory/comparative

(P) sued the county (D) alleging that injuries he sustained when he went off the road could have been avoided had the county (D) properly placed an appropriately reflective sign warning of the sharp curve ahead; the county (D) argued that Pohl's (P) excessive speed caused, or at least worsened, his injuries. Black Letter Rule: An intervening cause cuts off a tortfeasor's liability only when it is not foreseeable.

Mohr v. Grantham - Lost Chance

(P) suffered brain damage allegedly as a result of delayed medical treatment, but the court granted summary judgment in the doctors' favor; she and her husband appealed. Black Letter Rule: The loss of a less-than-even chance is a loss worthy of redress.

Stewart v. Motts - Due Care: Reasonable Standard

(P) suffered burns from an explosion which occurred when he poured gasoline into a car's carburetor and (D) turned the key. Black Letter Rule: There is one standard of care for negligence actions, the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, which requires a person to exercise care in proportion to the danger of his activity.

Santiago v. First Student, Inc. - Proximate Cause

(P) was injured while riding a bus operated by (D). Black Letter Rule: A plaintiff bears the burden of proving a defendant's actions were the proximate cause of her injuries.

Posas v. Horton - Emergency Instruction

(P) was rear-ended by (D) after (P) stopped in the middle of traffic to avoid hitting a pedestrian who unexpectedly walked into the street pushing a stroller; at (P) personal injury trial, the judge gave the jury a sudden-emergency instruction, and the jury found in (D) favor. Black Letter Rule: In order to be entitled to a sudden-emergency instruction, the proponent of the instruction must show that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that he or she was suddenly placed in a position of peril through no negligence of his or her own, and in meeting the emergency acted as a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances.

Butterfield v. Forrester - contributory/comparative

(P) was thrown from his horse and was injured after encountering an obstruction which (D) had placed in the road. Black Letter Rule: When a plaintiff's lack of ordinary care contributes to an accident, he cannot recover for injuries sustained.

Simmons v. Porter (Kan. 2013)

(P) was working for the (D), doing business at farms, as a farm truck and machinery mechanic. removing a leaky fuel tank from a Ford pickup truck, and noticed that the tank was not secured with proper fastenings. Then he attempted to loosen the tank. It fell to one side and doused him with gasoline. He quickly pushed himself1 out from under the truck, but when he did so he kicked a shop light, which broke and ignited the gasoline, burning him seriously. Issue: The question before us is whether the legislature's adoption of comparative fault should abrogate the assumption of risk doctrine Workers Compensation Act: doctrine is premised on a view that there is an express or implied agreement within the employer-employee relationship that an employee accepts the risk of known dangers to which the employee is exposed as a part of the work and takes responsibility for any resulting injury. Assumption of risk bars recovery when two conditions are present: (1) the employee knew and understood the risk being incurred; and (2) the choice to incur the risk was entirely free and voluntary.

O'Guin v. Bingham County - Negligence Per Se

7. Instant Facts: Children were crushed by the collapsing wall of a landfill pit and their parents sued the county under the theory of negligence per se. 8. Black Letter Rule: In order to replace a common law duty of care with a duty of care from a statute or regulation, the statute or regulation must clearly define the required standard of conduct, the statute or regulation must have been intended to prevent the type of harm the defendant's act or omission caused, the plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons the statute or regulation was designed to protect, and the violation must have been the proximate cause of the injury.

Pipher v. Parsell - Foreseeable

7. Instant Facts: When three sixteen-year-olds were driving in a pick-up, the passenger-side rider unexpectedly grabbed the wheel two times, and the second time it happened the truck left the road and (P) was injured. 8. Black Letter Rule: When the actions of a passenger that cause an accident are not foreseeable, there is no negligence attributable to the driver, but when the actions of a passenger that interfere with the driver's safe operation of his vehicle are foreseeable, the failure to prevent such conduct may be a breach of the driver's duty to other passengers or the public.

Rountree v. Boise Baseball, LLC (Idaho 2013)

Baseball Rule: stadium owners and operators must provide screened seats for as many spectators as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any ordinary occasion. Rationale: The rationale behind this is put bluntly by the common knowledge that an baseball games hard balls are thrown and batted with great swiftness and "they are liable to be thrown or batted outside the lines of the diamond. "due care on the part on the management does not require all of the spectators to be screened m; that the management performs its duty toward the spectators when it provides screened seats in the grand stand t gives spectators the opportunity of occupying them." Despite the district court's conclusion that only the Legislature could t the Baseball Rule, it is also within this Court s power to do so.

Marshall v. Southern Railway Co. (Driver) v. (Railroad Co)

Facts: (P) driving at night on a paved road 30ft wide. (D) railroad trestle above the road was supported by large timbers, which narrowed the road to about 15ft under the trestle. (P) ran into trestle supports after a car with their 'brights' on came toward him. (P) sued (D), railway company, for negligently placing and leaving the trestles where it did without lighting or signaling them. Rule: driver must keep his vehicle under such control at night as to be able to stop within the range of its lights

Lind v. Maigret - Hypo

Facts: (P) hit a fog bank and slowed. A large boulder rolled down the hillside and struck the rear of (P)'s car from the side. The impact spun car around. (P) did not react skillfully. Went into a state of shock when he felt the impact, gripping the steering wheel and closing his eyes. When his car came to a stop the engine was stalled. He was unable to start it. The car was projecting across most of one lane of traffic in fairly thick fog. At this point it was hit by a truck driven by Lind. The impact caused serious injury to (D). A statute provided that "no person shall stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle, whether attended or unattended, upon the roadway. Another statute provided that "every person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise care for the safety of others at all times. Question: If the defendant is guilty of breaching a statute aimed at one kind of risk to one kind of victim but compliance with the statute would have prevented harm from another kind of risk to another kind of victim, should breach of the statute alone justify a finding of negligence to the actual victim?

Shepherd v. Gardner Wholesale, Inc.

Facts: (P) suffered from cataracts, & had exceptionally vision poor vision. (P), Shepherd, tripped over a raised concrete slab in the sidewalk in front of (D)'s business. Rule: A person laboring under a physical disability such as defective vision is not required to exercise a higher degree of care to avoid injury than is required of a person under no disability.

Dillon v. Evanston Hospital

Facts: A catheter was inserted into π's body in the course of a medical procedure. It was removed, except that a portion broke off and remained in her body and floated into her head. Rule: The ∆ is liable without proof that his conduct caused legal harm if, but only if, (1) the defendant has acted negligently; and (2) the negligence created an identifiable risk; and (3) π was one of the persons subjected to that risk; and (4) π actually suffered harm of the kind risked by ∆.

Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (CA, 1963)

Facts: A worker knocked one of the covers made of asbestos and cement into a pool of molten liquid without causing a splash. A few minutes later, the liquid erupted and injured π. Rule: If there is no duty owed to π in regard to the initial action that led to the injury, then ∆ is not liable for damages

Robins v. Harris

Facts: According to D, P and another inmate flashed him. D ordered a lock down, requiring inmates to stay in their cells. D called the other inmate that flashed him out of her cell, and then after some time called P out of her cells. D grabbed P by the arm and brought her into the shower room, where she performed fellatio on him. P filed suit, alleging battery. D originally denied allegations, but two days later admitted to the sexual contact and resigned his position. In tort action, D claimed he was not liable and raised an affirmative defense of consent Holding: consent is not available for an inmate given lack of autonomy as an inmate and that the courts should further the public policy of no sexual contact between jailer and prisoner

School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz

Facts: D allegedly caused large volumes of pornographic emails and unsolicited job applications to be sent to the P, resulting in depleted hard disk space, drained processing power, and other adverse affects on P's computer system Holding: valid cause of action for trespass to chattels because D acted with the intention of interference with the property or with knowledge that such interference is substantially certain to result and the computer systems were damaged due to the D's actions.

Ploof v. Putnam

Facts: D owned an island in Lake Champlain. P with his wife and two children were sailing a sloop on the lake when a violent tempest arose. To avoid destruction of the sloop and injury to himself and his family, the P docked the boat at the D's dock. The D through his servant, undocked the boat. The sloop and its contents were destroyed and the people in it injured Reasoning: Not a trespasser bc of necessity. An entry upon land to save goods which are in danger of being lost or destroyed by water or fire is not a trespass. One may sacrifice the personal property of another to save his life or the lives of his fellows

• Stevens v. Veenstra (Pedestrian) v. (Smart 14 yr old)

Facts: D was14 year old (D) took driver's ed course offered through Calumet Public School system. (D) had skipped four grades in elementary school and graduated from high school early. (D) was taking driver's ed to transport himself to college. (D) had never driven an automobile on a public road in a developed area before the course. On the first day of the driving portion of the class, (D) stopped the automobile at an intersection, & turned right when traffic cleared. (D) turned too sharply and headed at (P) who was getting out of his parked automobile. Both (D) and the driving instructor attempted to turn (D)'s automobile away from the plaintiff. (D) testified that he may have hit the accelerator instead of the brake. (D)'s automobile struck the plaintiff Reasoning: ADULT STANDARD FOR YOUTH DRIVERS

Forsyth v. Joseph Case Brief (N.M. Ct. App. 1968)

Facts: Decedent was in a car when he was struck by a truck. There was evidence that the truck skidded 129 feet before impact. Rule: The court is permitted to draw inferences when there is lack of evidence through circumstantial evidence.

Cosgrove v. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Illinois Appellate Court, 2000)

Facts: On a stormy night, the electric company's power lines were seen to be sparkling by π's house. A fire later occurred and injured π. Evidence indicated that a gas leak was ignited by the sparks. Holding: Π cannot rely on res ipsa loquitur as to the electric company, but can rely on it as to the gas company. A ruptured gas line feeding a fire does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence, as they are not usually accessible to the general public. The gas company's superior knowledge of the facts at hand and its responsibility to the community create a duty to come forward and make an explanation.

Grimes v. Saban

Facts: P & D, along with mutual friends, returned to D's apartment after socializing at a bar. Argument between P & D which prompted D to go upstairs to her bedroom and lock her door. While in her room, D posted on Facebook, "No one likes Sarah, yayyy!"Later, P saw this post, became angry, went to D's bedroom and began yelling and pounding on the locked door, demanding the post be removed. When D opened the door to her bedroom and attempted to show P her phone and that the post had been removed, P advanced toward D, got within inches of P's face, and continued yelling. As D pushed P away, P grabbed D by the throat and a physical altercation began. P - alleged assault and battery - beating sustained by D left her with head injuries, anxiety, migraines, and a deformed nose. D - Claimed self-defense - P instigated altercation "by uttering hateful words" Holding: When viewed in the light most favorable to D and when all reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of D, D's deposition testimony raises genuine issues of material fact as to whether P reasonably believed the use of force was necessary to defend herself against D, whether P was the initial aggressor in the altercation

Doe v. Johnson

Facts: P alleged D transmitted HIV to her through consensual sexual contact. D had a promiscuous lifestyle. D did not warn P of this high risk or inform her that he did in fact have HIV, nor did he wear a condom. P suffers from HIV now and will develop AIDS Holding: one who knows he has a venereal disease, and knows that his sexual partner does not know of his infection, commits a battery by having sexual intercourse Hypo: Hazing Hypo: Stage diving

Baska v. Scherzer (Mom) v. (boys)

Facts: P gave daughter permission to organize party where a fight broke out between the Ds. P yelled for the boys to stop and then placed herself between them and was punched in the fact, suffering injuries. Intent: Both Defs didn't intend to hit the mom but their actions were still intentional. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, which has long been recognized in this state, the fact that the defendants struck the plaintiff does not change the fact that their actions were intentional

Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC (N.J. 2010)

Facts: P was new to gym, tried a spin class, handle bars fell off, and suffered up suffering serious injuries. Expert said that the handlebars did not engage fully at the time of the accident. Reasoning: A contract of adhesion is often presented in a standardized template format on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without any opportunity to negotiate its terms. It is also referred to as an exculpatory agreement.

Kaplan v. Mamelak

Facts: Patient sued his doctor for medical malpractice and battery, claiming that the doctor operated on the wrong herniated disks in his back Holding: Doctor who operates on a patient without that patient's consent commits a battery. A battery occurs if the physician performs a substantially different treatment from that covered by the patient's expressed consent."

Getchell v. Lodge

Facts: Thin layer of ice covered the unsanded road, the morning was dark. (D) driving 45 mph in a 55mph speed limit. Moose emerged out of darkness. (D) hit her brakes. (D) lost control of car, which skidded and rotated. (D)'s car stopped in other lane. (P) driving under the speed limit. (P) hit passenger side of (D)'s car. Impact injured (P)'s ankle, requiring surgery Reasoning: Emergency situation excused consequences - Very little time to react - unable to use reasonable care

Wagner v. State

Facts: While waiting in a department store line, Pl. was suddenly attacked from behind by a mentally disabled patient who was brought to the store and accompanied by State employees as a part of a state mental health treatment program. By statute, the state could not be liable for the patient's conduct if that conduct "arose out of batter." Holding: only intent to make contact is necessary... we hold that the actor need not intend that his contact be harmful or offensive in order to commit a battery so long as he deliberately made the contact and so long as the contact satisfies our legal test for what is harmful or offensive

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright (Indiana, 2002)

Facts: Woman slipped on a puddle in the garden area of a Wal-Mart. She sued for injuries, alleging that Wal-Mart was negligent in the maintenance, care, and inspection of the premises. Rule: Defendant's failure to follow their own precautionary steps is not necessarily failure to exercise ordinary care if it exceeds ordinary care.

Hill v. Sparks (unexperienced, D's sister) v. (experienced operator)

Facts: an experienced operator of earth-moving machinery known as an earth scraper. At an exhibit of such machines he drove, he instructed his sister to stand on a ladder on the machine. It hit a mound of dirt and, because of its large rubber tires, bounced back. sister was thrown forward in front of the left wheel and was run over before could stop the machine. She died almost instantly. Rule of Law: the standard of the reasonable man requires only a minimum attention, perception, memory, knowledge, intelligence, and judgment in order to recognize the existence of the risk. If the actor has in fact more than the minimum of these qualities, he is required to exercise the superior qualities that he has in a manner reasonable under the circumstances

Miller v. Warren (W.Va. 1990)

Facts: Πs were injured in fire at hotel with no smoke alarm. There was a fire the statute (code) did not require such alarms, failure to comply with the statueor fire code demonstrates a prima facie case for negligence, but compliance with does not constitute due care. Defendants knew or should have known that some risk would be prevented by reasonable measures not required by the regulation. Reasoning: Δ contended no negligence because firm alarms not required by statute. Compliance with statute does not constitute reasonable care per se - is floor not ceiling. Evidence of Negligence: Violations of statutes can sometimes be determinative of an actor's negligence under the doctrine of negligence per se, and in other cases a statutory violation may provide evidence of negligence. Statutes typically reflect a minimum standard of care not a maximum, compliance with a statute isn't a defense. Regulation merely sets a floor for due care (Miller)

Abrams v. City of Chicago (Illinois, 2004)

Facts: π alleged that ∆ was negligent in sending an ambulance while she was in labor. Her friend had to drive her in a car, which she drove through a red light. She was hit by Jones, who had been driving at 75 mph and had been drinking and using cocaine. Holding: The city could not have reasonably anticipated that a refusal to send an ambulance would have resulted in the driver getting hit by a driver under the influence. Millions of women a year make it to the hospital safely by private transportation.

Hammerstein v. Jean Development West (Nevada, 1995)

Facts: π was an old man with diabetes staying in a hotel, and he had a hard time going up and down stairs. The hotel knew of his condition, but did not have a room available for him on the ground floor. There was an elevator, so it should not have mattered, but one night, the fire alarm went off and π had to take the stairs. He twisted his ankle and found a blister on his foot, which became a major infection because of his diabetes. Holding: This particular variety of harm, twisting an ankle or foot on the way down the stairs, is a foreseeable variety of harm in this circumstance. The infection may not have been foreseeable, but the underlying injury was.

Duncan v. Corbetta (Appellate Division of New York, 1991)

Facts: π was injured when he descended a wooden staircase at π's residence and the top step collapsed. Rule: Plaintiff must establish that defendant had a role in the design or construction of something in order to use custom in proving a breach of negligence.

Koch v. Norris Public Power District (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2001)

Facts: ∆'s high voltage line broke and started a fire that damaged π's property. It was windy and sunny that day. Rule: Falling power lines establish res ipsa because they should be made to withstand those conditions

Riviello v. Waldron (N.Y. 1979)

Facts: ∆, who works as a cook, accidently struck a customer in the eye while flipping an open knife, causing her to lose use of it. Π sued the bar owner Holding: The bar owner is liable. ∆ was within the scope of his employment, since owners no longer have as close control over their employees. The test is whether what was done was his master's work, no matter how irregular.

United States v. Carroll Towing Co. - BPL

Instant Facts: A barge, without a bargee on broad broke adrift, was carried by wind into a tanker whose propeller broke a hole in barge's bottom, and barge lost its cargo and sank. Black Letter Rule: Absence a reasonable excuse, barge owner's failure to take reasonable steps to prevent unreasonable risk of barge breaking away in busy wartime harbor by manning barge with bargee is negligence.

Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. - contributory/comparative

Instant Facts: A machine operator sued the manufacturer of the machine after his hand was crushed, resulting in the loss of fingers and deformity of his hand. Black Letter Rule: In negligence cases the defense of contributory negligence has been held to be unavailable where considerations of policy and justice dictate.

Marshall v. Nugent - Intervening

Instant Facts: A man that was struck while attempting to warn oncoming traffic of an obstruction in the road, sued the truck driver that caused the obstruction. Black Letter Rule: In a traffic mix-up due to negligence, before the waters have become placid and normal again, the unfolding of events between the culpable act and the plaintiff's eventual injury may be bizarre indeed; yet the defendant may be liable for the result.

Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc. - Intervening

Instant Facts: A man was struck by a moving vehicle while trying to shut the defective trunk lid on the vehicle he rented. Black Letter Rule: A rental car company could not have foreseen that a driver would strike its client while the client was attempting to shut the trunk lid negligently left in disrepair by the company.

Snyder v. Turk Single-Intent Battery; Offensive Contact

Instant Facts: A nurse sued a doctor for battery when he grabbed her during an operation and yelled about her incompetence. Black Letter Rule: A person is subject to liability for battery when he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact, and when a harmful or offensive contact results.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. - Proximate Cause

Instant Facts: A passenger waiting for a train was injured on a railroad platform after railway employees dislodged from the arm of another passenger who they were negligently helping jump onto a moving train, a package of fireworks that exploded when it fell on the tracks, the shock from which caused scales to fall on the plaintiff. Black Letter Rule: The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.

Hale v. Ostrow - Cause in Fact + Proximate Cause

Instant Facts: A pedestrian stepped into the street to avoid an obstacle created by bushes overgrowing the sidewalk in front of the (D) property, and when she did she tripped and fell on a chunk of concrete in front of a business; she sued the (D), who contended that the business owner and the city were liable. Black Letter Rule: A negligence claim requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence of both causation in fact and proximate causation, and both kinds of causation generally involve questions of fact that must be resolved by the jury, unless the uncontroverted facts and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom make the case so clear that all reasonable persons would agree on the outcome.

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. - Intervening

Instant Facts: A road worker was injured after a man negligently drove his car through the work site and struck a boiling cauldron of enamel that was negligently left unguarded from traffic, causing the enamel to splatter and burn the worker. Black Letter Rule: An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent.

Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc. - Shopkeeper Rule

Instant Facts: A store clerk wrongly suspected Gortarez (P) of stealing a fifty-nine-cent car freshening vaporizer and alerted store security personnel, who forcibly detained Gortarez (P) after he left the store by putting him in a choke hold; Gortarez (P) was injured and sued the store and security guard. Black Letter Rule: A merchant, or his agent or employee, with reasonable cause may detain on the premises in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person suspected of shoplifting for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.

Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160 - illegal activity

Instant Facts: A student was sexually abused by her teacher, and she and her parents brought suit; the school district and principal attempted to assert a defense of contributory fault because the relationship was purportedly consensual. Black Letter Rule: Contributory fault may not be assessed against a thirteen-year-old child based on her failure to protect herself from being sexually abused when the defendant stands in a special relationship to the child and has a duty to protect the child.

White v. Muniz - Dual-Intent Battery

Instant Facts: A supervisor at a care facility for the elderly sued a resident when she was slapped for trying to change the resident's diaper. Black Letter Rule: In order to find a mentally deficient person liable for an intentional tort, a jury must find that the actor subjectively intended offensive or harmful consequences.

Van Camp v. McAfoos

Instant Facts: A three-year-old on a trike ran into the plaintiff and her Achilles tendon was injured, requiring surgery; she alleged the child was liable but the court granted his motion to dismiss. Black Letter Rule: A child cannot be held liable in tort without some allegation of negligence or wrongful conduct on his or her part.

Garratt v. Dailey - Single-Intent Battery

Instant Facts: A woman brought suit against a young boy when she was injured in a fall that resulted from his pulling a chair out from underneath her. Black Letter Rule: When a person has knowledge to a substantial certainty that harmful or offensive contact will result from a certain action, a battery occurs if that action is taken, even if there is no intent to cause harm to another.

Cohen v. Smith - Single-Intent, Offensive Contact "Should have Known"

Instant Facts: A woman sued her nurse and the hospital when, against her wishes, the nurse saw her unclothed and touched her naked body. Black Letter Rule: An actor commits a battery if he acts with an intent to cause harmful or offensive contact to another and such a contact results.

Upchurch v. Rotenberry - Reasonable Care, Jury Determination

Instant Facts: Automobile passenger is injured when automobile strikes a tree after automobile driver attempts to avoid an animal on the roadway. Black Letter Rule: It is the duty of the jury to determine whether a defendant in a negligence case exercised reasonable care under the circumstances.

Byrne v. Boadle - Res Ipsa Loquitur

Instant Facts: Barrel of flour falls on a man as he passes a flour shop. Black Letter Rule: Under certain circumstances, the fact that an accident occurred can support an inference or presumption of negligence.

Chaffin v. Brame - Driver's Duty

Instant Facts: Blinded by undimmed oncoming headlights, (P) collided with an unlighted truck left blocking the entire right lane. Black Letter Rule: A driver's ultimate duty is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, which may not always include a duty to be able to stop his vehicle within the range of its lights.

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. - Private Necessity

Instant Facts: During a fierce storm, a steamship was repeatedly thrown against a dock, causing damage to the dock. Black Letter Rule: Damage caused to another's property due to necessity requires compensation for the actual harm caused.

Giles v. City of New Haven - Dangerous Instrumentality

Instant Facts: Elevator operator is injured when chain of elevator she was operating became hooked on the rail bracket in the elevator shaft. Black Letter Rule: Use by the plaintiff of the instrumentality that caused her injury does not preclude a finding that the defendant had control of the instrumentality.

Stinnett v. Buchele - Due Care: Expertise

Instant Facts: Employee hired to paint a barn roof falls from the roof while painting it and injuries himself. Black Letter Rule: An employer does not breach a duty to its employee to provide a reasonably safe place to work and reasonably safe tools for doing the work when the employee injures himself during the scope of his employment and the employee's knowledge of the dangers to be incurred while working is equal to or exceeds the knowledge of the employer.

The T. J. Hooper - Custom

Instant Facts: Large barge filled with coal and the tugboat which was its tow were lost at sea during heavy weather. Black Letter Rule: Notwithstanding a custom of usage or the lack thereof, there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission.

Pusey v. Bator - vicarious liabiltiy

Instant Facts: Pusey was shot and killed by Bator (D), a security guard assigned to protect private property. Black Letter Rule: An employer remains liable for injuries caused by its independent contractors when the employer is under a nondelegable duty to take special precautions to prevent a peculiar risk of harm to others.

Thoma v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. - Slip n Fall

Instant Facts: Restaurant patron sustains injuries from a fall in a restaurant. Black Letter Rule: Proof of negligent conduct in a slip and fall case requires a finding by the jury that the owner of or employees at the premises either created a dangerous condition or had knowledge of the dangerous condition that lead to the fall and resulting injuries.

Warren v. Jeffries - Res Ipsa Loquitur

Instant Facts: Six-year old boy jumped out of a car when it begins to roll backward. When the boy jumped he fell, and the front wheel of the car rolled over his chest, killing him. Black Letter Rule: Pure speculation is not a basis for applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. - vicarious liability

Instant Facts: The defendant was sued after one of its employees, who was driving home from work, ran over a policeman and permanently injured him. Black Letter Rule: Where the employer and employee have made the travel time part of the working day by their contract, and the employee is using the time for the designated purpose of returning home, the doctrine of respondeat superior is applicable.

Thompson v. Kaczinski - Unforeseeable

Instant Facts: The defendants left unsecured parts from their disassembled trampoline in their yard for a few weeks; when a storm erupted, strong winds blew the top of the trampoline into the road and (P) was injured when he swerved to avoid hitting it. Black Letter Rule: Tort law does not impose liability on an actor for all harm factually caused by the actor's tortious conduct.

Right v. Breen - Negligence, No Nominal Damages

Instant Facts: The plaintiff was rear-ended and claimed no injuries at the scene, but later brought suit for personal injuries; the defendant argued that the plaintiff's injuries resulted from his five previous motor-vehicle accidents, not the present one, and that not even nominal damages should be awarded. Black Letter Rule: When a plaintiff's rights have been intentionally invaded, vindication in court through the award of nominal and even exemplary damages serves the policy of deterrence, but when the action sounds in negligence, no purpose would be served by a nominal damages award.

McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. - False Imprisonment

Instant Facts: Three store patrons sued Wal-Mart for false imprisonment when two store employees backed them into a corner and held them there for over an hour while waiting for a store security guard to arrive. Black Letter Rule: The tort of false imprisonment occurs when conduct by one party serves to confine another within certain boundaries fixed by the actor and the victim is conscious of the confinement or harmed by it.

Summers v. Tice - Joint and severally liable

Instant Facts: Two hunters, acting independently of each, negligently fired guns, only one of which hit (P). Black Letter Rule: Where two or more tortfeasors are negligent, but only one could have caused the harm to an injured third party, the tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable even absent proof as to which one actually caused the injury.

Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. - Joint and several liability

Instant Facts: Two independent companies caused salt and oil to flow into (P) lake killing the fish, and both were jointly and severally liable. Black Letter Rule: Where the independent tortious acts of two or more wrongdoers join to produce an indivisible injury, which from its nature cannot be apportioned with reasonable certainty to the individual wrongdoers, all of the wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable for the entire damages.

Hughes v. Lord Advocate - Proximate Cause

Instant Facts: While playing in and around an unguarded open manhole, two young boys accidentally knocked a kerosene lantern into the manhole, breaking the lantern and causing an unforeseeable explosion. Black Letter Rule: The fact that the defendant's negligence causes a known harm in an unforeseeable manner does not relieve him of liability.

Fruit v. Schreiner (Alaska 1972)

Rule of Law: The determination of whether or not an employee is acting within the scope of his employment is determined based on the facts of each case. Facts: (Appellant), was attending social and business events at a required sales convention held by his employer. While returning from an attempt to meet colleagues at a social setting, Appellant struck Appellee #1, (Appellee #1) car, crushing Appellee's legs. Appellee #1 sued both the Appellant and Appellee #2, the Equitable Life Assurance Society (Appellee #2) his employer.

Martin v. Herzog (driver) v. (driver)

Rule of Law: When a statute requires an affirmative action, the failure to perform that action constitutes a violation of a legal duty and constitutes negligence per se. Facts: The decedent of (P) was killed when a buggy he was driving collided with an automobile driven by (D). A statute required all buggies to be operated with headlights at night. At the time of the accident, (P)'s decedent was violating this statute by not driving a buggy with headlights. (P) brought suit against (D) for negligence. (D) alleged that (P)'s decedent was liable for contributory negligence based on his violation of the headlight statute.

Tunkl v. Regents of University of California (Cal. 1963)

Waiver was against public policy Facts: π was admitted to hospital on condition that he execute a release, absolving the ∆s "from any and all liability for the negligent or wrongful acts or omissions of its employees." Rule: Although the law permits someone to shoulder the risk of another, the releasing party cannot acquiesce voluntary shifting of risk.

Gregory v. Cott (Cal. 2014)

Wife with Alzheimer's pushed nurse causing her to stab herself - implied assumption.

Bernier v. Boston Edison Co. - Safety v. Responsibility

•What interests are involved? - only important take away from this •Decision is complicated and what we are weighting is the D safety v. responsibility D has to P (P) was injured when an electric light pole fell on him after it was struck by an automobile that was involved in a minor traffic accident. Black Letter Rule: Failure to take reasonable steps to prevent unreasonable risk of injury from reasonably foreseeable accidents is negligence.