Torts
Powell v. Fall (Q.B. 1880) (spark from defendant's road train ignited plaintiff's premises—liability).................................................................................................... 37 Strict Liability A non natural use claim New technology therefore high risk of damage re Guille (uncontrollable)
...
Pulka v Edelman [190] - P is struck by vehicle being driven out of Ds parking garage. No liability. The garage owners owe a duty to the patrons from its employees but not from general patrons. It seems limitless this duty should I be imposed.
...
RADLEY V KNEPFLY P is fatally injured in a fire in the place he is living. He attempts to escape through a window but is unable to. He argues that Ds failure to maintain the fire escape was the cause in fact of the death. No liability. The court reasons that nothing suggests if P knew the fire escape was available, he would have attempted to use it. Furthermore, nothing suggests it would have been successful.
...
RAFTER V DUBROCK'S RIDING ACADEMY (940)P rents a horse from D. She has never ridden a horse before. D employee shows her how to put feet in the stirrups and adjusts the saddle. After 30 minutes of riding the saddle slips and P is injured.Liability. Res Ipsa? With due care this is avoided.
...
RAIMONDI V NEW YORK RACING ASSOCIATION (723)P is injured at Ds racetrack when his seat collapsed.No liability. Not enough evidence to show it was under the exclusive control of D. Given the quantity of people at the racetrack, could have been caused by another patron.
...
4. FROM RISKS ARISING FROM DEFECTS IN PROPERTY I. LANDOWNERS DUTIES TO INVITEES FOR DEFECTS IN PROPERTY Invitee > Licensee > Trespassers Duty owed to invitees included investigating possible defects, for licensee it is only to inform of those defects that one knows or should know, to trespassers it is very minimal—not allowed to shoot at or create a trap. City of Boca Raton v Mattef [318] -P husband was hired to paint city water tower. Before the contract was complete, he went to the tower and entered on permission of the manager. During this, a rung on the water tower broke loose. He fell and died. No liability. P madea voluntary undertaking by entering the water tower during the formation stages of the contract. In so doing, D is not obligated to provide a duty of care.
...
5. FROM CONTRACTS: THE PRIVITY LIMITATION Manufacturers are liable for defective products when leave factory (misfeasance) whereas service providers are only liable under special circumstances. (non feasance) Economic arguments: 1) if you are selling a product or service, there is going to be high-risk uses and low-risk uses. You want to price discriminate—charging more for higher risk. (adverse selection). 2) correlated losses: seemingly where there is a large pool of risk takers (like the black-out cases)
...
ADAMS V BULLOCK -P childs swings wire and comes in contact with D trolley wire. The resulting contact caused injury to P. No liability. The trolley wire was so placed that no one on the bridge could reach it. Only some extraordinary behavior could cause injury. Thus, no any extra precaution would be too burdensome.
...
ADAMS V ELGART (952)P nurse is injured when an unruly patient attacks her. D is the attending doctor and was aware of the patients violent tendencies.No liability. D is not liable for negligent acts of third parties.
...
ADAMS V LANCASHIRE & YORKSHIRE RY. (661)P is passenger on Ds railway. He sits in seat next to door even though there is ample seating available away from the door. The door flies open and P shuts it. This happens several times and the trains stops numerous times. P does not move seats. He falls out the fourth time door opens.No liability. Ps failure to move seats or get off the train is an intervening cause of Ds negligence. P could have easily moved seats or gotten off. His failure to do so, limits Ds liability.
...
AGUIRRE V ADAMS (858)D failed to provide P with hot water in her apartment. Because of this P had to fetch hot water and place it in the tub. Ps child decided to jump in the tub during this process and was injured.No liability. The statute seems to be concerned with the enjoyment of hot water as opposed to preventing the scalding accidents.
...
AIKEN V HOLYOKE ST RY (919)P rider on Ds railroad was dangling from the train and asked the conductor to stop or let him off. D saw he was in danger but instead sped up causing P to fall off.Liability. P was a helpless plaintiff and D has a duty to take due care.
...
AKIONS V UNITED STATES (713)Ps are injured when one of Ds grenades gets into the hands of a third party. The third party detonated the grenade.No liability. Nothing suggests D had exclusive control of the grenade. While it was originally in the control of D, it cannot be established what may have happened to the grenade there in.
...
ALARID V VANIER - D crashes into P when his brakes fail. The vehicle code provides that every motorist must have functioning brakes. The court holds that there is strict liability in these situations absent a sufficient excuse. No liability. That same day, D drove ten miles to work and back with no sign of brake problems. He also had taken the vehicle to a mechanic recently and was not advised of any problem with the brakes. Thus, P had no warning of this issue and no reason to know it would be a problem.
...
ALEXANDER V TOWN OF NEW CASTLE (760)P attempted to arrest a third party. During the commute to the jail they passed Ds pit. The arrestee threw P into the pit and he was injured.No liability. The third party was an intervening cause and independent human agency.
...
AMERICAN GUARANTY & LIAB INSUR CO V FEDERICO'S SALON INC (733)Ps clothing inventory is ruined when a leak from above runs onto his space. He contends that D used a fourth floor bathroom that was under construction causing the leak. No liability. P failed to show that the bathroom was under the exclusive control of D. D was entitled as a matter of law to judgment because it showed uncontrovertibly that it did nothing to contribute to the negligence. D was permitted to use the bathroom from time to time.
...
Bixby v Eddy -P and D are at zoo when P informs D they are violating zoo rules. D follows P to their motorcycle and proceeds to follow them on the highway. P being distracted by the pursuing D, cannot manage the curve in the road and crashes. No liability. Proximate cause. Nothing to suggest that the defendants caused the crash—it was more likely inexperience and negligence of P part. Obvious precautionary measures to avoid harm.
...
BALTIMORE & OHIO R.R. V GOODMAN - D was driving and could not see railroad until he was close. On approach, he failed to stop look and listen and then found himself in an emergency in which P did all he could but was still hit. Liability. Because P failed to stop look and listen, he took on the risk of any accident that would occur.
...
BANSASINE V BODELL (770)P sues D driver who while driving recklessly on the highway is chased by another driver who pulls a gun on him. The driver fires the gun killing Ps father in Ds car.No liability. A shooting in this situation is not foreseeable. The shooting was a supervening and extreme response to the driving. [IIT]
...
BARBER V CHANG [393] -P is one time tenant in Ds building. Eventually he moves out but still visits regularly. During one incident, Ps wife is threatened with a gun and it told P is in danger. The gunman is a tenant who provides maintenance for D. A tenant notifies D of this but D says without a police report and restraining order he can do nothing. Three weeks later, P comes to retrieve an item when he is accosted by the gunman and is shot several times. Liability. Nothing in the record relieves D of duty to take minimally burdensome p2recautions like calling the police. Again, an identified victim case. Unlike in Saelzer where there is no identified victim per se.
...
BARKER V CITY OF PHILADELPHIA - D works for City trash services. He is leaving the truck depot when he attempts to maneuver around another truck and sees a larger piece of paper in the road. He wants to avoid it but doesn't and runs over it. Unbeknownst to him Ps decedent and another child are underneath the paper playing a game. Liability. This is a compliance error. In this case, the truck should have foreseen that there may be something underneath the paper. Stop and check it? Honk?
...
BARKER V KALLASH (941)P is injured when a pipe bomb he is attempting to construct explodes. D helped him obtain the materials necessary to make the bomb.No liability. P is guilty of contributory negligence for making the bomb.
...
BENANATI V BLACK ROCK CITY LLC (967)P attends Ds festival in which a large structure is burned and people thrown items into the fire for burning. P was present at the fire for some time. Without encouragement, P decided to approach the fire and put a picture of his friend in. He continued to approach the fire, and tripped and fell in severely injuring himself. No liability. P knew the risks of approaching the fire. He inherited that liability when he took it upon himself to approach the fire.
...
BENEDICT V EPPLEY HOTEL CO. (676)P attends an event at Ds hotel. The chair she sits in, unbeknownst to her, is missing some bolts. Thus when she sits down, it collapses underneath her and she is injured.Liability. The chair was under the exclusive control of the hotel, the porter was charged with inspecting the chairs, this would only happen in the case of negligence and nothing suggests P did anything to create the harm.
...
BENTACOURT V MANHATTAN FORD LINCOLN MERCURY (803)D rented to P a car with a history of overheating problems. It had been noted before but D failed to fix it. P drove the car on the highway when it overheated. She had to pull to the side of the highway at 3am. D got out of the vehicle to examine it but was hit by a tractor-trailer.Liability. The fact that P was forced to stop on an unlit highway in the winter is unforeseeable and thus not an intervening cause. [FH]
...
BERRY V BOROUGH OF SUGAR NOTCH (796)P was a driver for a traction company. An ordinance provided Ps company with the right to lay its track and use the road but only at speeds no greater than 8 mph. On the day in question, P was travelling over the limit but as he came under a tree, it fell on and smashed his car.No Liability. Just because P was travelling out of ordinance does not mean this excess speed was the proximate cause of the injury. It could have also occurred had he been travelling slow. NL for Contributory Negligence [LT]
...
BIAKANJA V IRVING [440] -P is bequeathed everything in his brother's will but it is denied probate and thus P is only given 1/8 of the estate. D is a notary who prepared the will. Liability. D has a duty to act with due care to insure the will is legal. He is liable therein.
...
BIGBEE V PACIFIC TELPHONE AND TELEGRAPH CO [366] - P is using Ds telephone booth located very near to the road when a car strikes the booth and injures him. Liability. Foreseeability of the harm has more to do with what a reasonable person would perceive than with the probability of an event. A reasonable person would have perceived the harm in this case.
...
BLAAK V DAVIDSON - D is driving an oil tanker on the highway when a dust cloud emerges blurring his vision. He slows his speed but runs into P. He does not stop because he argues it would be safer for him to rear end someone than for him to get rear-ended given he is driving an oil tanker. No liability. This court rejects the Holmes rule of negligence as matter of law. Instead it enacts an objective/reasonable man test. It essentially reverses the rule stating that only in exceptional cases should negligence as a matter of law hold.
...
BLYTH V BIRMINGHAM WATERWORKS CO -D contracted to install and maintain plugs in the city's water main. During the year in question, the frost was record levels. One of the plugs burst spewing water on to Ps property. No liability. D took reasonable care—nothing suggests D could predict or take care enough to prevent the accident that occurred.
...
BOLSENBROEK V TULLY & DINAPOLI INC (844)P observed young children playing in Ds excavation plot. D had placed lighted smudge pots around the site. The children took these into the pit and started a fire. One boy took a rag and placed it on fire. He twirled that rag on a stick and the rag flew and struck P. D hired security that routinely checked the site.No liability. The smudge pot is not a dangerous instrumentality. Further, the accident must not foreseeable. (LT)
...
BOLTAX V JOY DAY CAMP (941)P an experienced swimmer decided to dive head first into a shallow pool and was injured.No liability. Reckless behavior that he was aware was very likely to cause injury.
...
BOYD V RACINE CURRENCY EXCHANGE [365] - P is at Ds bank when a robber enters and holds a gun to his head. The robber tells the teller to give him money or he will shoot P. The teller does not comply and ducks, while the robber follows through and shoots P. No liability. D owes no duty to predict criminal acts of third parties unless they should have been foreseen. Unlike in Sinn, Boyd knew of the robber. Once he is informed of the hazard, D owes no duty to P.
...
BRADFORD V ROBINSON RENTALS, LTD (845)P was asked by D employer to take a trip across England in an unheated automobile. He told D that it was not advisable. Though, P took all precautions and was frostbitten.Liability. Not taking trips is the first thing to do in order to avoid these sorts of accidents.
...
BREWSTER V RANKINS - Third party student who takes an optional golf class at Ds school. During the last week, students are permitted to take one golf club home under the admonition that they should use it carefully. While at home, the club accidently strikes Ps child. No liability. A golf club is not an intrinsically dangerous item. Nothing to foresee that P would use the club to hit D.
...
BRITISH COLUMBIA ELECTRIC RY V LOACH (916)P was in cart when the driver tried to cross Ds railroad. D saw the cart from 400 feet and tried to apply the brake but the brakes were not in working order. If they had been they would have stopped the train in 300 feet.Liability. D failed to take precaution to avoid negligence of the driver. **Constructive Last Clear Chance** In fact, Ps negligence came after Ds negligence. Ds brakes were defective prior to Ps failure to yield. But had they fixed the brakes, they would have had the last clear chance.
...
BROOKS V EUGENE BURGER MANAGEMENT CO [354] - P lives with her son at Ds apartment complex. Ps son runs out into the street and is hit by a car. No liability. There is no foreseeability here that fences would have done anything to protect the young child. P knew that children were to play in designated areas and that allowing her child to go into the street would be extremely dangerous.
...
BROWER V NEW YORK CENTRAL & HRR (773)Ps horse pulled cart full of goods was destroyed when Ds train crashed into it. The horse pulling the cart was killed and the goods were scattered and ultimately stolen by other people. D had its own security but did nothing to protect Ps goods.Liability. The court argues that if D had its own security, it is inferable that it should have known that Ps good scattered needed to be secured.A dissenting judge argued that it was a supervening cause not attachable to D. [EFR]
...
BROWN B. POWAY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT (682)P is a self-employed computer repair man that delivers computers repaired to Ds school district. While there he slips on a piece of meat. No liability. Similar to the previous case, nothing certain suggests that Ds employee was the one who put the item on the floor. It was equally likely it was a visitor.
...
BRYANT V GLASTETTER (804)D is observed driving recklessly on the highway and is stopped by police on the side of the highway. She is given field tests and ultimately arrested for drinking and driving. P is called to tow the car. He arrives but is struck by an oncoming motorist.No liability. The court finds the policy implications to be problematic. It incentives people to self-help solve car problems on the highway.
...
BURTON V WALKER (614)P campus-goers found themselves in the middle of a campus riot when 38 D police officers fired shots. It was unknown which officers shot who and which ones shot negligently. No liability. Due to the unknown nature of the shots, there is no cause if fact established.
...
BYRNE V BOADLE (625)P is a pedestrian when Ds barrel falls and hits him. He is injured. He does not have any evidence of untaken precaution but proceeds on a general negligence theory that D was so negligent in his care that the barrel fell and hit him.Liability. The court determines that in cases where it would infeasible for P to show untaken precautions then he can proceed on this general negligence theory. When D has complete control of the object and P has no way to ascertain the cause, the fact the accident has occurred is prima facie evidence of negligence. Note: strict liability theory of compliance errors. These sorts of cases w.o res ipsa would incentivize D to stay silent. He could simply escape liability by not speaking.
...
Baer v Van Huffell [326] -P is a guest at Ds house. She wants to use the bathroom which is located next to the basement. In attempting to find the bathroom, P instead opens basement door and falls down the stairs and dies. Another guest had done this before so D put a hook on the door. The hook was not in place at the instant situation. No liability. There is no active negligence. To a reasonable person, this is not such a dangerous condition to which notice is necessary. A reasonable person would know that stairs lead from floor to floor and would take due care to avoid.
...
Baxter v Roberts [255] -D employs P to render services on his boat. D knowingly puts P in position to be harmed and he is. Ds neighbor shoots P when P attempts to remove a fence. Liability. D employs P any is liable for injury from his negligence.
...
Belhumeur v Zilm [219] -Bees that had been nesting on Ds property sting P. P notified D of the bees at one point and encouraged D to remove the tree. D got estimates for tree removal but never acted on those estimated. No liability. A promise to render service with no reliance or performance imposes no obligation. The mere seeking of estimates does not constitute performance. The likelihood of injury before and after D got the estimates was exactly the same and thus D did nothing to increase this risk.
...
Bennan v Parsonnet -P contracts D to operate on right testicle. -Instead D operates on left which he deems a menace. Before he can operate on right, P regains consciousness No liability. Implied consent. P consented for D to fix his injuries. P acting in good faith did so.
...
Bennett v. Mallinckrodt, Inc. (Mo. App. 1985) (defendant's pharmaceutical factory leaked radioactive emissions onto plaintiffs' adjoining properties—liability)......... 85 Strict Liability Injuries from Ds radiopharmaceutical factory Escape via Rylands
...
Bennight v Western Auto Supply Co. - P sues on behalf of wife who worked for D. As an employee of D, she was required to work in warehouse infested with bats. Said bats bit her and she was required to get anti-rabies treatment. During the course of treatment, she reacted negatively and was left blind and emotionally disturbed. Liability. She was required to work against her will in this warehouse. Thus D intentionally placed her in a situation with high risk of harm. D places her in a situation where there is substantial certainty she will be in an apprehension of harm.
...
HILL V LUNDIN ASSOCIATES INC - P trips over Ds ladder that was left at third party home. Somebody moved the ladder from its original position and P chasing a child tripped and was injured. No liability. The act of moving the ladder negates Ds liability. D could not have reasonably expected this to happen
...
HINES V MORROW (848)P engaged in attempting to tow a stalled car slipped into a mudhole and was unable to extricate his artificial leg. Attempting to do so, the tow rope lassoed his good leg and broke it.Liability.
...
HOME OFFICE V DORSET YACHT CO (793)D employees are juvenile criminals who are to be supervised by guards. The guards decided to go to bed leaving the juveniles to their own devices. They decide to swim out to a yacht and put it in motion. There negligent maneuvering of the boat causes it to crash into Ps yacht causing damage.Liability. Very analogous to the railroad switch case. It is foreseeable that the juveniles needed to be watched and that a failure to do so would induce them to act criminally. [EFR]
...
HOUSERMAN V GARETT - P has surgery performed by D. After surgery is over, it is discovered that D left a sponge in P. This required surgery and a lengthy recovery. No Liability. While doctors are required a standard of care that is not leaving any sponge in a patient, in this case the jury was mis-instruced as to how D can satisfy his duty. This may be distinguishable from previous case in that in this case harder to check for sponges.
...
HOWE V SEVEN FORTY TWO CO (725)P is a patron at Ds IHOP when the barstool he is sitting in separates from its base and he falls. D submitted evidence tending to show that it regularly inspected its chairs and that this sort of accident has never happened before.Liability. Even though P fails to establish evidence sufficient to invoke res ipsa, the jury is still entitled to find that by a preponderance of the evidence that D was negligent.
...
HR MOCH CO. V RENSSELAER WATER CO [429] -D supplies water to the city and its residents. P warehouse catches fire due to the spread of a nearby fire. P alleges Ds failure to provide adequate pressure caused the fire to spread. No liability. Three arguments. Breach of contract, a common law tort breach of duty and a breach of statutory duty. Court rejects all these arguing that D has a duty perhaps to the public but not to each individual homeowner. Again this adverse selection argument (what if warehouse was full of diamonds vs newspapers) and unidentifiable victim situation.
...
HUGHES V LORD ADVOCATE (833)D uncovered a manhold to reach the telephone lines. Surrounding it they had placed lamps. When they went on break, they covered up the entrance and removed the ladder. P children came along and accidently knocked one of the lamps into the hole causing an explosion.Liability. D is liable for those consequences related to and reasonable foreseeable from its breach of duty. In this case to children. When they create an attractive nuisance they are required to take due care to ensure safety of children.
...
HUTCHINSON V BOSTON GAS LIGHT CO (663)P was injured in an explosion at Ds building. The explosion was the result of a great fire the day prior. P alleges that Ds failure to maintain its gas lines properly allowed the fire to cause the explosion.No liability. Natural phenomenon exception. In this case a great fire led to unexpected and unpredictable events.
...
Hackman v American Medical Response [245] - P is injured in auto accident and receives medical condition. Witnesses attest to P being dazed and confused but paramedics determine she is OK. Several hours later she collapses and is taken to a hospital. Liability. While generally one owes no duty, once the paramedics undertake medical care, they must provide a duty of care. If it can be established that D was grossly negligent, then there is liability.
...
Haines v Fisher - P is 711 store clerk. D are police officers who pull prank on P. While P is working, one D who is dispatcher calls P and informs him that a robber is on the loose in the area. Another officer playing the role of robber, enters the 711 and orders P to ground. At this point is contended that D was recognized by P and D then shot blanks away from P. No liability. Nothing to suggest apprehension of harm. Plaintiff seemed to recognize D as his friend and thus knew it was joke.
...
Hansra v Superior Court [315] - P estate sues her husbands family for her death. P alleges that her husband's family knew of the risk associated with her peril. No liability. There is no foreseeability here and there is no causal connection between Ds conduct and the suffered harm.
...
Harper v Herman [269] -P is a passenger on Ds boat. When D stops boat in certain area, P jumps off and hits rock bottom which severs his spinal cord. He believes D owed him a duty to warn him of shallow water No liability. No special relationship. Not common carrier, innkeeper, or landowners.
...
Haynesworth v D.H Stevens Co. [211] - P slips on ice formed by water leaking from pipe. D is plumber who is on call for owners of an apartment complex, He is informed that water is leaking from a broken pipe and he notices it is leaking out a hole in the walk and into the alley in freezing. He does not notify the property management company. No liability. Because the leak was happening prior to defendant encountering it, nothing suggests he added to the risk. Furthermore, it was noticeable to people and thus nothing suggests D had a duty to warn P.
...
Hennessey v Pyne - P owns a condominium near golf course and D hits balls which injures P. - Ps condominium is hit regularly - daily No liability for battery or assault- no intentional act - Pyne did not try to hit Hennessey and furthermore Hennessey was aware of the risk (it had happened many times before.)
...
Holcombe v Whitaker - P meets socially and eventually marries D. She finds out however that D is already married and thus asks for an annulment. She moves out and he begins harassing her. Eventually he shows up at her apartment and begins to bang on the door exclaiming he was going to kill her. Liability. His banging on the door in conjunction with his verbal threat constitutes battery. While words alone are not sufficient. Those, in conjunction with action is.
...
Hosein v Checker Taxi [257] -P is shot by two passengers in his taxi. He alleges that D company by failing to put a partition in his vehicle created the possibility of the harm. No liability. There is no special relationship established in this case.
...
Hudson v Craft -P involved in prize fight with D. P is a minor and is harmed during this unsanctioned match. Liability. Requirement of "on the spot" supervision and the illegality of the match. Because of the failure to obtain a license and follow rules/regulations, harm occurred.
...
Hulsey v Safeway, Inc [304] - P is in parking lot of Safeway when an employee starts chasing a supposed shoplifter. The employee asks for help and P obliges. During the course of the chase, P is inured. No Liability. Words in the heat of the moment are not expected to be acted on rationally. D does not owe duty for 3rd party acts. And no foreseeability.
...
Hurley v Eddingfield [253] -P decedent dies as a result of D doctor's refusal to enter into a contract for services. P claims to have relied on doctor and was unable to find any other doctor. No liability. Nothing suggests that a doctor licensed by the state must provide services to anyone who seeks them. It does not rise to the class of innkeepers and common carriers.
...
I. de S. v W de S. - D strikes P tavern door with hatchet. She motions for him to stop by sticking her head out the window. Liability. Amounts to assault in that it causes an apprehension of harm.
...
IN THE CITY OF LINCOLN (759)P barge was hit by Ds barge. Because of this P lost his compass and log and was unable to navigate. The captain used a different compass but without the log could not measure distance. The ship eventually had to be grounded.Liability. Because of the defendant's negligence, P was deprived of the ability to avert the accident.
...
INGHAM V LUXOR CAB CO (738)P is a diabetic who is on dialysis. She hails Ds cabs to take her to her dental appointment because electricity was out and she could not take electric train. The cab dropped her off a couple blocks from the office. She was forced to walk and in the process collapsed and was injured.Liability. D has a duty to drop P off at destination point. Knowing her condition, D has a duty to insure her safety. Her being injury is a direct causal link to Ds failure to take due care.
...
ISAACS V HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL [363] - P is a doctor at D hospital. On night in question he parks in the parking lot so his wife can visit a friend and he can visit patients. On way out, he is apprehended by a gunman and shot. Liability. The totality of the circumstances suggests D should have known of the high risk. This was a high crime area and several incidents prior to the one in question were known to D. Parking lots in general are enticing for criminals.
...
In re Chicago Flood Litigation (Ill. 1987) (defendant city's contractor, which was a co-defendant, negligently breached tunnel wall under Chicago River and flooded plaintiffs' Chicago Loop buildings—no liability)....................................................... 78 Negligence Error on contractor's part causes dam breach and a flood in the Loop Vibrations are of common usage today Akin to Maximin v Rivera
...
JACKSON V RAY CRUSE CONSTRUCTION CO. (569)P was injured when she (4 year old) was hit by a bicycle on Ds apartment premises. An expert on her behalf testified that if D had installed a speed bump, P would have not been injured. The jury ruled for P but the court entered judgment n.o.v. for D. Liability. The jury could have reasonably believed that a speed bump would greatly reduce the risk of injury.
...
JACKSON V RYDER TRUCK RENTAL [455] - P drives truck for D. P notifies D of electrical issues with the truck but D does nothing to remedy the problem. One evening P has to pull truck over on side of road. He is fatally struck by another driver. Liability. Clear foreseeability and misfeasance here. D knew of the issue and failed to take due care to remedy it. The harm that occurred is that which would be expected. Transaction cost, adverse selection
...
JANSEN V CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER (878)P child was killed when she was negligently cared for by D. It was later determined that Ps child suffered a hemorrhage.No liability. No sudden emotional impact causing the death.
...
JASKO V FW WOOLWORTH CO - P slips on piece of pizza from Ds store. P is in shopping aisle when she slips on pizza and injures herself. Liability. D acknowledges that they were continuously sweeping up pizza debris. Because there were no chairs/tables, patrons regularly stood and ate the pizza. D knew or should have known that food would drop and create a dangerous condition.
...
JEWELL V BECKSTINE - D is a dairy farmer. P is a milk hauler who goes to Ds farm to pick up milk. While there, P slips on concrete and injures himself. He alleges D created the slippery situation and should have remedied it. No liability. D should have know just as much as P that the concrete would be slippery and thus he would be contributory negligent.
...
JOHNSON V HARRIS (578)Ps son drowned in Ds pool. On day in question, Ds were working and left their two daughters in charge. Donna went to Ps house to baby sit. P was told to inform D should she see one of the neighbors in the pool. When P does, she scolds the neighbor and informs D. Her children and Donna accompany but then leave. Donna and the children minus the decedent return wherein Donna argues with the neighbor. Sometime later Donna returns to argue with her sister but then leaves. No evidence to suggest Donna shut the gate. At some time between 4-430 Rodney, Ps decedent drowned.Liability. D gives four possibilities as to how P entered the backyard. Could have climed the portion non conforming to the regulations, entered via the gate, could have climbed fence that met regulation, or climbed neighbor's fence and entered. Court argues that Rodney had a sandwich—suggesting he would not climb a fence. And it is reasonable to assumes he would enter in the easiest way possible—through the gate.
...
JOHNSON V KOSMOS PORTLAND CEMENT CO (799)D operated a barge for hauling oil. Custom established that the barge was to be cleaned following transport to remove any residue gases that could ignite. D failed to do this. While P was working, lightening struck the barge igniting it and causing P injury.Liability. The possibility of fire was continuously present due to Ds failure. Thus even though the cause was unusual, the fact that it happened is foreseeable. [FH]
...
Johnson v State [308] - D places minor with homicidal tendencies in Ps home. He injured P. Liability. Foreseeability of harm. D knew or reasonably should have know harm would occur.
...
LARSON V ST FRANCIS HOTEL (664)P is injured when a chair near to Ds hotel falls on her and knocks her unconscious. No liability. Res ipsa clearly does not apply. It cannot be said that the chair was under the exclusive control of D nor can it be said that this is the sort of thing that would happen but for lack of due care.
...
LAVENDER V KURN (611)P worked for D railroad. He was charged with of opening and closing the switch when trains approached. He opened the switch but never closed the switched. P argued that his decedent was hit by the train mail hook while D argued P was murdered by a hobo.Liability. P had to appeal to the Supreme Court to affirm the verdict of the jury. But for the mail hook....
...
LEUER V JOHNSON (609)P and his two D brothers were hunting. They split up initially but were to meet back at the car. Ds made it back but thought they saw a deer. They simultaneously hit P. No bullet was found.No liability. The court overrules Summers arguing because each defendant has control of its own means, they cannot be jointly liable.
...
LI V YELLOW CAB CO (921)P was driving when she attempted to make a left turn. D was driving the opposite direction at an unacceptable speed. He ultimately hit Ps car injuring her.Comparative Negligence. Shift from contributory negligence to comparative negligence.
...
LILPAN FOOD CORP V CON ED CO [438] -P grocery store is looted when there is a blackout in the city whose electricity is provided by D. No liability. In this case, while there is a contract between the parties, the failure on the part of D is to the city and not solely to P.
...
LINDLEY V KNOWLTON (888)SEE BOULLION**P was alarmed when Ds chimpanzee attacked his daughter's. He was able to fight of the chimp but his wife was sent into shock. What is radical about this case, is that P did not suffer any physical harm. Liability. Foreseeable risk of owning a chimp.
...
LOWE V CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL (959)P is injured when a foul ball hits him during a game hosted by D. P was distracted by Ds mascot who was standing behind him and was proximate enough that the mascot was touching P.Liability. While getting hit by foul balls may be a primary risk of watching a baseball game, the same cannot be said of the mascot's antics. The baseball game is not contingent on the existence of the mascot.
...
LUA V SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CO (853)Ds train blocked a grade crossing that P pedestrian was trying to cross. He waited 10-15 for the train to move which it did not. He then attempted to climb over the train but as he did so, the train began to move and he was injured.No liability. While the statute provided that trains were to block grade crossings for no more than 10 minutes, the purpose was to give freedom of access to the public and for convenience and necessity. Not to protect those who might attempt to climb over a train.
...
LYNCH V ROSENTHAL -P is a mentally subnormal individual with a low IQ. D takes him in and one day in question asks him to follow the corn picker and pick up the corn that drops. P stumbles into the picker and injures himself. Liability. D knew P was mentally subnormal yet directed him to perform this clearly dangerous task.
...
LYTTLE V DENNY (646)P is staying a Ds hotel when the headboard of the bed he is sleeping on collapses and injures him.Liability. The court argues that this is such an extraordinary accident that the only inference that can be drawn is that of negligence.
...
LYVERE V INGLES MARKETS, INC - P shopper is injured when rug in Ds grocery store is blown over by a gust of wind and causes her to trip and fall. Immediately previous to this, P observed third party trip over same rug. No liability. P had as much knowledge about the rug as D. While D could remove the rug, nothing suggests the likelihood of injury or the extent of any injury would be great.
...
La Russa v Four Points at Sheraton Hotel [215] -P slips in falls on 5 foot wide puddle of water. D is delivery driver who drags in snow and ice while making a delivery. P informs D of this but D does not believe he has a duty to inform the hotel of this. Liability. The risk someone would slip and fall on such a big puddle is serious and foreseeable. Notification of the hotel is neither burdensome nor unreasonable given the high risk.
...
Laidlaw v Sage - D is confronted by third party saboteur who threatens to blow up office if he is not given money - D refuses this third party and as he approaches P (a clerk) he moves P gently in front of him to avoid any harm. Blast occurs and P is injured No liability - law states that " the law presumes that an act or omission done or neglected under the influence of pressing danger was done or neglected involuntarily."
...
Langan v. Valicopters, Inc. (Wash. 1977) (defendant's aerially sprayed pesticides drifted across property line and spoiled plaintiffs' organic crop—liability) ............ 67 Strict Liability D uses crop duster to spray fields and infects neighbor's organic fields Unpredictability like Guille Low transaction cost situation to inform neighbor
...
Leichtman v WLW Jacor Communications, Inc. (Specific Intemt) - P is anti smoking advocate who appears on D radio show. During this appearance, D blows smoke intentionally in Ps face causing harm. Liability. Tobacco smoke is a particulate matter capable of physical contact and which can offend a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
...
Lobert v Pack - D is driving Ps car who is sleeping in the back seat. D kicks the driver seat and cause P to crash. No liability - involuntary unconscious movement
...
Lopez v Southern Rapid Transit District [259] - P is passenger on D bus. Fight insues between passengers and D does nothing. P is harmed. Liability. Carrier/Pas`senger special relationship. Carries is liable for negligent harm to passenger when he knew or reasonably should have known assault could occur.
...
Lordi v Spiotta[323] - P is guest at Ds bungalow. D son lights gas heater to get water for bath. D son instructs D to turn it off in the cellar. D believes he has done so but in fact he has caused gas to leak for the next several hours. Later D asks P to again light the heater. When he does, it explodes and he dies. Liability. D committed active negligence when he failed to turn off the gas and then asked P to operate his heater. Guests should be free from latent defects?
...
Losee v. Buchanan (N.Y. 1873) (defendants' steam boiler exploded and spread shrapnel and destruction to plaintiffs' neighboring building—no liability) ........34 Negligence The social state and need for factories (mutual benefit) Risk associated with moving in vicinity of someone
...
AMERICAN MOTORCYCLE ASSOCIATION V SUPERIOR COURT (596)P is injured in a motorcycle race sponsored by D. Ps parents signed a consent form allowing P to compete in the competition. P alleges D failed in many ways to ensure their son's safety. D wished to hold P concurrently liable for negligence by their assent to their son competing.Liability. The court establishes a comparative fault rule for joint tortfeasors. The court argues that liable parties should apportioned their part of fault on a comparative basis - a movement away from the 'pro rate' rule. It also held that D could name parties it had not named in the original complaint. This again is a shift from the rule that only those parties to the original complaint could be found liable.The dissent argues (1) that a comparative basis allows an insolvent party to saddle a solvent party with the entire burden regardless of allocation. (2) if a more negligent party can settle early—it will at a much lower percentage than it would be allocated in court. Thus it would put the burden on a lesser liable party.
...
AMEZCUA V LOS ANGELES HARLEY-DAVIDSON (970)P participates in Ds charity motorcycle ride. During the ride, a vehicle in a neighboring lane is unable to stop and veers into Ps lane and hits Ps motorcycle.No liability. Primary assumption of risk applies to this situation. Accidents of this sort are expected at some level. Thus, P when deciding to engage in the activity, inherits the liability attached to this activity.
...
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO V TOWN OF VESTAL (838)D electric lines were blown into a tree and broke falling into a street sign which created an arc causing the electricity permeate the ground and breaching the gas line. This caused gas to fill in Ps home causing an explosion.No liability. Chain too complicated. Not foreseeable
...
ANJOU V BOSTON ELEVATED RY **res ipsa loquitor(the thing speaks for itself) (banana peel is breach of duty and cause in fact)** - P is on Ds train when she wants to transfer trains. She walks onto the platform but slips on a banana peal therein. The peel was described by witnesses as black and old—as if it had been there for a long time. Liability. So long as it had not just been dropped there, P has a duty to remove these hazards. 6. NEGLIGENCE PER SE: CRIMINAL STATUTES AND JUDGE-MADE RULES
...
ANN M V PACIFIC PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER [370] - P works at shop located in Ds shopping center. D operated all the common areas while the premises of the stores were controlled by the tenants. P opened her store one day when a man entered. He eventually went behind the counter and injured/raped P. D did not take measures to get rid of loiterers in common areas. No liability. This court holds that foreseeability is a question of law. In this case, D had a log detailing criminal activity but nothing in the log noted rapes prior to this incident. Thus, nothing can suggest D should have known such an incident would occur.
...
ARTRIP V EE BERRY EQUIPMENT CO (902)P is injured when she slips on a snow bank in a parking lot D was responsible for plowing. D plowed the snow into a bank along the sidewalk. P, in order to get to work had to cross the bank. She slipped trying to do so.Liability. There was a breach of duty to use reasonable care in removing the snow. Unlike in the railroad case where P sits in seat where he has to open door various times and could move seats, in this case P cannot avoid the harm.
...
ASMELASH V BRAGA - P and her sister were crossing at crosswalk when D approached and hit the sister. She was violating the speed limit at the time of the incident. Liability. Negligence per se is established by the 5 prong test which was satisfied in this case.
...
AVILA V CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (965)P is injured when he is beaned in the head by the opposing pitcher when P is at bat. P alleges the beaning was intentional. No liability. Co participants have a duty not to be reckless while the coaches have a duty not increase the inherent risk associated with the sport. Further, legal liability does not attach in such situation because it would discourage rigorous participation in such activities.
...
Acosta v Fuentes [231] -P chokes on food in Ds restaurant. Restaurant employees take P outside to sidewalk where an ambulance arrives a half hour later. P dies three weeks later. No liability. Nothing suggests that Ds placing P on sidewalk put her in a worse position. There were first aid signs posted and people around who could voluntarily help. Unlike in Zelenko, D puts P in a place where she can be helped.
...
Albig v. Municipal Authority (Pa. Super. 1985) (defendant's public reservoir burst and flooded plaintiffs' basements—no liability)........................................................ 30 Negligence Public benefit/good aspect Does not fall under Ryland 3rd party caused by coal mine (Rickard Lothian)
...
Alexander v Allen [194] -P is visiting Ds house when two armed gunmen appear telling everyone to be quiet. D screams causing gunmen to fire hitting P. No liability. There is nothing to suggest the proximate cause of the shooting is Ds screams.
...
Allen v Hannaford - P owes rent to D. D enters P apartment with gun and threatens to shoot anyone who removes items. She proceeds to aim gun at P. She claims gun was unloaded. Liability. The mere appearance of possible harm is the standard not actuality of harm. The pointing of the gun at D is an assault simply because it provides a strong possibility of harm regardless if D thought gun was loaded.
...
Allen v Slim Pickens Enterprises [324] -P wants to visit Ds cabin with his wife. D at one time told P where the key was. P in an attempt to find it, trips over weeds and grass and is injured. No liability. Landowners owe no duty to correct hazards created naturally.
...
BAHAN V GREEN BUS LINES, INC (823)P is injured when Ds bus driver runs over a white bleach bottle that contained acid. The bottle exploded injuring P.Liability. It is foreseeable that negligently running over a white plastic bottle could lead to injury to bystanders.
...
BALLARD V SOUTHERN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER (716)P goes to the Ds hospital to fix a record from his surgery. While there he used a handrail to support himself. The handrail came loose causing P to fall. No liability. P has the burden of showing that the defective was there long enough to be considered negligence.
...
BALLEW V AIELLO - D is passenger in vehicle and is dozing off. His driver pulls of the road to avoid another car. D, half-asleep, take ahold of the vehicle causing it to crash into P. No liability. Someone who is half-asleep is NOT conscious of their behavior and thus is not liable. They analogize to someone who has a fainting spell.
...
Black v New York [258] -P is passenger on D train. He is drunk. When they get to Ps stop, the conductor and brakeman help P off train and place him in precarious position and he falls. Liability. Affirmative act taken by D to increase risk of harm to P. D undertook a duty by assisting P and abandoned him. Special relationship → common carrier/passenger. They are liable for negligence therein.
...
Bloomberg v Interinsurance Exchange [221] - P is with friend driving when car stalls and he must pull over to the side of the road. They call highway patrol who sends a tow truck. The tow truck never locates the stalled vehicle and eventually a drunk driver comes along and hits P killing him. Liability. P relied on the tow truck to come and alter his position such that his death was caused. Had P not relied on tow truck he most likely would not have stayed on highway shoulder and could not have been hit.
...
Bolton v. Stone (H.L. 1951) (cricket ball escaped from defendant's cricket field and struck plaintiff standing by her garden gate—no liability)...........................53 Negligence Low risk of harm Ryland being limited to its facts? (only reservoirs) P had foreseeability (had happened before)
...
Bouillon v Laclede Gaslight Co. -P is a bedridden pregnant women who had a gas meter installed in her basement even though she does not use gas. When D, gas meter reader approached asking to read the meter, she refused entrance and he continued on with the argument. Eventually he entered through the basement as would have been expected. As a result of the stress from the confrontation, she miscarried. Liability. Given the trespass, the fright from the illegal behavior can be said to give an immediate apprehension of harm. It is said that if the illegal actor is liable for anything that is proximately related to the initial crime.
...
Bouton v Allstate Insurance - D are 3 young trick-or-treaters who approach P door. One D is dressed in military fatigues with a plastic machine gun when P opens door. He immediately shuts it and goes and grabs his .357 pistol . When he opens again the door, one D uses a camera flash to simulate a bullet at which point P shoots and kills one of the children. No liability. P had no reason to be in apprehension of harm. It was Halloween and one expects to be visited upon by all sorts of creatures. Seems to be due care of not entertaining the children or perhaps calling authorities?
...
Bowman v Home Life Insurance Co. - Bowman is approached by D for insurance. - Subsequently a field analyst shows up acting as a doctor to measure risk but this field analyst was not a doctor legally. Liability. Acted under fraudulent terms.
...
Boynton v. Fox Denver Theaters, Inc. (Colo. 1950) (defendant's popcorn box fire, started in alley, spread into plaintiff's adjoining garage—no liability).....................6 Negligence Intentionally set fire in public street Low risk of harm A year of trash burning. Plaintiff could have taken action
...
Brasseaux v Stand-By-Corp [267] - P is guest at Ds inn. He gets into the shower when a swarm of bees attacks him and injures him. Liability. D knew of the bees nesting in the eaves but failed to get the bees removed. A special relationship between innkeepers and guests
...
Bridges v. Kentucky Stone Co. (Ind. 1981) (third party stole defendant's dynamite and blew up plaintiffs' house 100 miles away—no liability).................................... 82 Negligence Stolen dynamite causes blast 100 miles away Proximite cause NOT storage like in Yukon Akin to Re: Chicago
...
Brooke v Silverthorne -- P is a telephone operator who answers a call from D. P is unable to help D and D proceeds to threaten P by saying if he was there he would break her neck. No liability. Nothing to suggest that a reasonable person would be placed in apprehension of harm. D said IF he was there but he was not.
...
Brosnahan v Western Air Lines [260] - P is airline passenger who is injured when another passenger in attempt to load the overhead compartment drops bag on P. The steward was not in place to help the passenger. Liability. It is up to jury to determine if there was foreseeability of harm and if a flight attendant in position could lessen the risk. If they do, then liability is in order.
...
Brower v Ackerley - P complains that Ds company has illegally posted billboards without proper consent from the city. D starts to harass P with phone calls to the point of threatening possible harm. D claims this amounts to an assault. No liability. There is nothing to suggest that D was going to actually take any action. The proximity makes this suggestion. While threats suggest harm in near future it is not immediate. IMMEDIACY is key.
...
Brown v Dellinger - D are two kids who live in P neighborhood. P leaves one day and hangs a canvas curtain over garage entrance. D enters garage and starts a charcoal fire which ignites the curtain causing the house to catch fire. Liability. The obvious intention to light the leaves causing the fire.
...
Buchanan v Rose [210] - D drives his truck across bridge and his rear wheels damage the bridge. He is informed by passing motorist of this but decides against putting up warnings. The plaintiff unsuspectingly crosses the bridge and is injured. No liability. While in many cases, D is liable when his own act causes injury from a dangerous situation he created. In the instant case it is hard to prove D is proximate cause. That is, the bridge was already in major disrepair and it only gave way when D used it in a usual and normal manner.
...
Bunyak v. Yancey (Fla. App. 1983) (defendant's manure lagoon overflowed into plaintiff's ponds—liability) ........................................................................................ 28 Strict Liability Non-natural use No precaution available to defendant
...
Burdette v Marks [302] - P is attacked by a third party at the scene of an accident. D police officer is present on duty and witnesses the attack but does nothing to subdue the third party. P is seriously injured. Liability. The police usually do not owe a special duty. In this case, it can be inferred that D has the capabilities to subdue the third party but did not. D could have foreseen that P was in danger and would be harmed. In this case, he owed a special duty. Same case as Schuster
...
DAVIS V CALIFORNIA ST CABLE R.R. (905)P tripped on a rail that D had left on the sidewalk in front of Ps residence. The rail had been there for several weeks and P knew of its existence. On the night in question, P went outside to inspect the location of a fire and tripped.No liability. Awareness of the hazard.
...
Burks v Madyun [256] -P is hired by D to stay at Ds home with her children while she attends to business. During her stay, P is harmed by gangs who enter premises. P alleges a special relationship existed and that D failed to inform P of the potential harm. No liability. While there is a special relationship between a landowner and their guest, nothing suggests D in this case knew or reasonably should have known gangs would have come to her property.
...
CALKINS V COX ESTATES [354] - P child and friend were playing on playground at Ds apartment complex. Behind the playground was an arroyo. The fence blocking the arroyo had fallen into disrepair and was not repaired. P and friend decided to climb through a hole and found their way to highway were child was killed. Liability. Duty to protect against known defects. Unlike in last case, the kids were playing in a place for children, where D knew or should have known children to be.
...
CAMPBELL V ANIMAL QUARANTINE STATIONS (889)Ps dog died when D failed to provide adequate ventilation in its transport van. Ps heard of death of dog over the phone the next day and their distress lasted some three weeks.Liability. Not necessary to actually witness the event. Distinguish from Thing.: In Thing, the defendant would have to pay damages (deterrence) whereas here if they get off the hook, there is no incentive not to do again. Inadequate
...
CAMPBELL V FIRST NATIONAL BANK (698)P are passengers on a rented plane that D piloted. The plane crashes and all passengers and the pilot die.No Liability. Because the plane is rented, no evidence that it was under control of D. Furthermore, in light of the fact that 83% of aviation accidents are a function of pilot error, not attributable to negligence.
...
CAPPS V BRASHEAR (572)Ps daughter is injured on Ds trampoline. There was no supervision and no fence around the trampoline to mitigate the possibility of injury. P was permitted to use the trampoline by both her parent's and the owner's of the trampoline.No liability. The fence could not be the cause in fact because P was an invitee and thus she was not to be kept out. Supervision is not a valid excuse either because P would have likely fallen with supervision.
...
CASTENEDA V OLSHER [397] - D is owner of a mobile home park. In one home, the Levarios lived and one was a gang member which was known by D. P lived in another mobile home but had just stopped home briefly to talk to his sister. The Levario member became engaged in an altercation with a rival gang member and shot a gun which hit P unintentionally . No liability. D does not have to refuse to rent to a party because he believes them to be gang members. Furthermore, simply because prior incidents of broken windows does not establish enough foreseeability for gun violence.
...
CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RY V PRICE (737)P was a passenger on Ds railroad but D failed to let P off. Instead P was let out at the last stop and was instructed to stay the night at a hotel. At the hotel, a lamp exploded causing a fire and injuries to her hands. No liability. D railroad is not liable for the negligence of the intervening tortfeasor hotel. D could not have foreseen this incident and even his highest levels of precaution could not have prevented it. IIT
...
CHADWICK V BRITISH RAILWAYS BOARD (874)Ds husband was shocked when Ps trains collided. Ps husband ran out to render aid to victims and when he finished was shaken by the incident. Liability. Within the zone of danger??
...
CHASE V WASHINGTON WATER POWER CO (841)P owned a farm and a barn. One of the fences was located near Ds power line. It was such that the barbed wire fence and the power line were closely related. It was ascertained that hawks must have been the connection between the two wires causing a fire that ultimately damaged Ps barn.Liability. D had ample notice of the wires and took no precaution to fix it. Also, hawks were relatively abound in this area. D should have known of this possibility of this sort of accident given the location of wires in proximity to the fence.
...
CHO YUN HO V FRYE - D performed surgery on P. During the surgery, D left a sponge in P and it wasn't until later that P discovered this and had to have surgery to get it out. Liability. D cannot impute this duty on his nurses or anyone else. Thus because he failed to meet the standard of care necessary, he is liable.
...
CHRISTENSEN V SUPERIOR COURT (892)Ps were emotionally harmed when Ds crematory sold decedent body parts to third party as opposed to proper cremation procedures.Liability. Not unlimited liability---some 900 plaintiffs. They were aware of the harm.
...
CHRISTY BROTHERS CIRCUS V TURNAGE (889)P was injured when Ds circus horse backtracked and evacuated his bowels into Ds lap.Liability. Within the zone of danger. Parasitic (emotional) damages
...
CHURCH EX REL SMITH V CALLANAN [451] - P falls asleep at the wheel and veers off the road where her son is injured. D was sub contracted to install a guardrail which it failed to do properly. Because of this there was no guardrail where P veered off. No liability. Limitless class of plaintiffs (correlated risk), more than 5 years after rail installment. Much time for precaution by other parties like the city. No inherently dangerous condition here.
...
CITY OF PIQUA V MORRIS (571)Ps farm was flooded when an unprecedented rainfall occurred. D maintained the city's hydraulic which contained a series of ponds on of which was near Ps farm. P alleges negligent maintenance by D.No liability. This is very analogous to the overflowing pond case from Chapter one. Act of God
...
CLAGETT V DACY [441] -P is the high bidder at a foreclosure auction but the sale was set aside because the attorney failed to follow proper procedure. No liability. The third party beneficiary rule is limited to those contractual obligations such that the party has hired the attorney.
...
CLOMON V MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD (880)D lets a mute deaf child off the bus in front of Ps car. The child darted out of the bus into the line of Ps car. P hit the child and killed him.Liability. She was present and aware.
...
COLCLOUGH V GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO (635)P is a patron (invitee) at Ds store. She pushes a grocery cart which stops suddenly causing her to break her finger. It turns out there was a black string tied around the wheel.No liability. There is no res ipsa issue here. There is no breach of duty—the black string is too speculative to determine how and when it go there. Too much speculation
...
COLE V GERMAN SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION (764)P is injured when a third party boy decides to impersonate the elevator boy. While the elevator was on an upper floor, the boy opened the door and beckoned P towards it. She walked through and fell down the shaft.No liability. D was the owner of the building/elevator. It is allowed to enjoy the limited liability to trespassers. It would never be able to foresee or prevent the criminal activity of others.
...
CONNELLY V MSMMOTH MOUNTAIN SKI AREA (946)P is injured when he runs into a tower on Ds ski course. There was nothing unusual about the conditions of the ski slope or skis. The ski slope he was on was designated as "more difficult. No liability. In the vain of Knight, skiing is the type of activity that implies inherent risk.
...
CONNOLLY V NICOLLET HOTEL (666)P is injured when a substance hits her in the eye causing her to go blind. Ds hotel had been overrun by a convention and chaos ensued. There was property damage on several floors and trash everywhere.Liability. Nothing suggests D did anything to calm the chaos. It seems reasonable that had D done so, it could have controlled the guests. It seems this is a specific negligence issue---whether or not D should have had better security.
...
COOLEY V PUBLIC SERVICE CO - During a storm, D electric cables fell one of which came into contact with the telephone line. This created an arc which burned through the messenger and halfway through the cable. P was on the phone at the time, and it created in the phone an explosive noise. P fell to the floor and was injured. No liability. The court reasons that due to the grounding of the wire there is no fear of electrocution and thus the only risk is this noise issue. However, the former is given greater weight than the latter and thus D is not required to undertake a duty to protect against the noise.
...
COOPER V BELLINGHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT - P is student in Ds class. During a class party, there is a piñata. D attempts to swing at the piñata but loses control of the bat and it hits P. Evidence suggests that D took many precautions to ensure the kids' safety. No liability. In this case, D took many precautions but still the bat slipped and injured P. Nevertheless, nothing in the record suggests D was negligent - it seems that this is one of those unexpected expected errors.
...
CORNELL V AQUAMARINE [358] - P is at Ds resort hotel. She is playing racquetball when she is injured. The cause is her inappropriate footwear. P claims D had a duty to inform her that her footwear was a hazard. No liability. Nothing suggests D knew or should have known that P was wearing said footwear. Had D known, she would have been liable.
...
CREDIT ALLIANCE CORP V ARTHUR ANDERSON & CO [443] A consolidation case in which to parties sue accountants for negligence in creating reports. The court establishes a three-prong test to determine liability of non contractual accountants for failure to provide accurate reports. Before accountants may be held liable in negligence to non-contractual parties who rely to their detriment on inaccurate financial reports, certain prerequisites must be satisfied: (1) the accountants must have been aware that the reports were to be used for a particular purpose (2) in furtherance of which a know party was intended to rely; and (3) there must have been some conduct on the part of the accountants linking them to that party which evinces the accountants' understanding of that party's reliance. Euro - Liability; Credit - no liablity
...
CULLEN V RAMBERG (728)P has neck surgery performed by D. He is intubated prior to the surgery. Following the surgery his throat is sore and he has trouble speaking. It is determined he has vocal paralysis. No liability. P fails to establish that (1) this is the sort of thing that only happens when there is negligence. Specifically, D presented evidence to suggest it was anatomically impossible for said injury to occur during this situation. (2) he failed to establish that it was under the exclusive control of D. He cannot recover under Ybarra because that is premised on group game theory.
...
CUNILLERA V RANDALL (798)P was pushed into an open hydrant by a friend. The pressure from the hydrant caused P to be forcibly pushed into the street. D was driving down the street at the same moment and P was pushed into the side panel of the car. The evidence indicates that the driver was speeding at the time of the incident. No liability. The fact that the driver was speeding was immaterial. If the driver had been driving even faster, he would have missed the child all together. [LT]
...
Cabral v Ralph's Grocery Store [188] -D driver pulls over on should of freeway. P veers of the highway and rear ends truck and dies. It was believed P either fell asleep at the wheel or passed out due to an unknown medical condition. Liability. By pulling off the road, D increases risk of accident. Unlike in Richards, the driver should have foreseen this increased risk and thus is liable.
...
Cambridge Water Co. v. Eastern Counties Leather p.l.c. (H.L. 1993) (defendants' industrial solvent drifted 173 miles and polluted plaintiffs' well—no liability)...... 49 Negligence No foreseeability - 167 miles away Though does NOT fall under natural use
...
Camp v State [294] - P is injured in automobile accident when the driver, drunk, crashes. A third party calls the police reporting no injuries. The police arrive on scene and ask if anyone is injured to which the officer gets at least two 'no' responses. P is lying on the ground. D asks if she is injured and she says no. D does not request medical attention for P and asks the victims to leave the scene. This directive causes P to be moved and to be further injured. No liability. Classic case of non-feasance. In this case the officer owed no duty to P. Furthermore, he in no way alter her position or risk. He inquired if she needed help and she declined. When he asked her to be move, he did so out of safety and with no negligent intention. There is no reliance here as a duty was never established.
...
Caporale v. C.W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc. (Conn. 1961) (defendant conducted massive pile-driving operations across street from plaintiff's premises, and vibrations damaged plaintiff's building—liability)................................................... 72 Strict Liability D performs pile driving operation that causes damage to Ps property Risk associated with said operations - not common Value to all of society—p should not be forced to incur costs Dif from Losee—their boiler was less risky and unforeseeable
...
Delano v. Mother's Super Market, Inc. (Mass. 1960) (plaintiff tripped on defendant's icy parking lot—no liability).................................................................. 30 Negligence Vis major like Nichols? Ice did not escape—stayed on property
...
Carmona v Padilla [195] **NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT CASE** - D is grandmother of a young child. He was playing with a homemade bow and arrow when his father takes it from his possession suggesting he might hurt somebody. The grandmother decides to give it back to him saying he is big enough to use it. The grandson subsequently shoots it hitting the P, a young child, in the eye. Liability. The grandmother knew that the father had just admonished his son for using the bow.. Nevertheless, she gave the bow back to him knowing the danger involved. (an affirmative act). The result was the injury to the child.
...
Carstairs v. Taylor (Exch. 1871) (plaintiffs' rice damaged by water escaping from Defendant's rain barrel, which rats had eaten through—no liability)..................... 20 Negligence Mutual benefit—rain barrel was not a wholly self-interested project Different from Rylands in this regard. Rylands involves the use of water for the defendants sole use
...
Carter v Kinney [338] - P is in study group that meets at Ds house. P slips on ice and is injured. Court reasons P is a licensee and not an invitee and thus D owes a no duty to unknown defects. P argues that court should do away with differentiation between invitees and licensees. No liability. Court holds that the distinction between the two is worthy and refuses to change.
...
Central Trust & Savings Bank v. Toppert (Ill. App. 1990) (plaintiff's decedent, a blasting employee, killed by premature explosion of blast he himself was setting up—no liability).......................................................................................................... 40 Negligence Implicit understanding of risk in using dynamite Uncontrollability Avoidable re Delano
...
Clayton v New Dreamland Roller Skating Rink --Plaintiff falls and injures herself a D roller skating rink --D acted as first aid for P but was not a doctor even though P refuses and causes harm Liability. Without consent or unwillingness of part of P
...
Cleveland Electric Illum Co v Van Benshoten [339] -P uses manhole cover without permission. In it, he lights a cigarette igniting gas from the sewer and was harmed. No liability. D had no way of knowing P was going to use property. Thus no duty is owed to warn of harm
...
Cohen v Smith -P sues D when P, a woman in delivery, asks the hospital staff that no male touch her per her religious beliefs. - A male nurse touches plantiff during delivery. Liability. Battery only deals with offensive touching regardless of harm. In the instant case, the defendant nurse touched P in offensive manner without consent.
...
Collins v Wilcock - P is accused of scratching D, a police officer, when D grabs Ps arm. No liability. D grabbed Ps arm under no statutory authorization and thus she committed a battery against P first. Apprehension of somebody is not lawful. He is liable for battery. She is not.
...
Commentators has suggested this is not the "but for" test but instead the "substantial factor" test. This may be a function of the sufficiency of the evidence and not necessarily a different test. CONCURRENT SUFFICIENT CAUSE
...
Coste v Riverside Motors, Inc. [310] -P is employee of D car shop. On day in question, D lets all employees go due to impending snow except mechanics. P does not leave until 5:30 where in he crashes on the highway. No liability. No duty. There cannot be established a proximate cause between his leaving at 5:30 and the crash.
...
Coxhill v. Forward (Q.B.D. 1986) (plaintiff's car destroyed by fire started by novel liquefied petroleum gas fuel system on defendant's Volvo—liability) ..................... 46 Strict Liability Akin to Musgrove—new technology—high risk of harm
...
Crist v. Civil Air Patrol, Inc. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1967) (defendant's airplane crashed onto plaintiffs' lawn—no liability)............................................................................. 13 Negligence Low risk of unavoidable harm
...
Cucinotti v Ortmann - D threaten to injure P unless they vacate premises. On one occasion d took blackjacks out of pocket and showed them to P. No liability. There is no indication that there was ever an immediate apprehension of harm or of the serious harm a black jack could do.
...
Cuppy v Bunch [230] - White is driving himself and Bunch home from a day fishing. Upon arrival at Bunch's car, White asks him if he is ok to drive to which he responds yes. White tells Bunch to just follow him. Bunch swerves all over road eventually hitting P. P believes White had a duty to prevent injury. No liability. White is not responsible for actions of a third party when there is no duty. Nothing suggests the relationship falls in one of the special categories of duty.
...
DANIELENKO V KINNEY RENT A CAR, INC - P security firm regularly rents cars to transport money from D. On the day in question, Ps employee went to D and rented a car. He took it back to the office and picked up the other employees. When P and his co-workers were on the way to their destination, the car blew up from a bomb located under the driver seat. No liability. Not foreseeable. While the harm is great, the precautions possible are almost 0. There is no reason to expect D to know that someone would conceal a bomb in one of its cars.
...
DANNA V UNITED STATES (633)Ds Navy plane dropped a fuel tank on Ps fruit stand. There was evidence that the planes were routinely checked but the inspector had no recollection of the safety check and the records had been destroyed.Liability. Even though there is no specific untaken precaution, this sort of activity is fraught with the gravest danger and anyone who undertakes this activity is liable for harm.
...
DAVIDSON V MIELE SANITATION CO (827)P was assisting a fellow employee back into a bay. He got caught on a guardrail. P instructed the driver to pull forward to disengage. Unbeknownst to P the guardrail was sharp causing the tire to explode. P was injured. No liability. D is not liable for extreme supervening causes.
...
DAVIES V MANN (912)P puts his donkey on the highway in such a manner as to prevent the donkey from avoiding oncoming accidents. D riding his horse negligently runs into the donkey.Liability. Even though Ps donkey may have been on the highway unlawfully, D could have avoided the accident through due care. See Butterfield where same set up yet no liability. In that case Ds negligence is first whereas here P is negligent first. Thus it seems that the 2nd person has duty.
...
DAVIS V CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP - P inspects train cars for Ds train. On day in question, a train pulls up and unloads. P thinking he needs to inspect, crawls under the train. Without very much notice, the train moves several lengths. Ps leg and other foot are severed. Liability. Posner used Hand Formula to argue that while the undue precaution of blowing the horn is very slight in light of the magnanimous injuries that would occur from such train accidents.
...
DE LA CRUZ V OCK WEE LEONG - D struck P car in a chain collision. He did not maintain an acceptable distance as mandated by the vehicle code. Liability. Without a valid explanation, failure to maintain distance is negligence per se.
...
DEHAEN V ROCKWOOD SPRINKLER CORP (851)D fails to follow a statute that when using a hoistway during a construction project, that the shafts must be enclosed or protected. Ds worker knocked a radiator down the safe killing Ps decedent.Liability. While it appears the purpose of the statute is to protect workers from falling down the shaft, it cannot be said that it was not within the view of the legislature that other instrumentalities could also fall through.
...
DELGADO V TRAX BAR & GRILL [385] -P entered Ds bar where he was stared at by a third party. D has two guards—one inside and one outside. P informed D guard of the possible issue and the guard asked P to leave. When P left, the third party followed and assaulted P. Liability. D has a duty to take reasonable, minimally burdensome precaution to prevent these altercations. Because there was foreseeability here, there is a special relationship duty.
...
DELLWO V PEARSON - D kid drove powerboat over Ps fishing line causing the line to release into Ps eye causing injury. Liability. Minors are held to same care standard as adults. In situations where one is operating some vehicle, the injured cannot determine the age of the driver and thus cannot take appropriate caution→ only adult standard applies.
...
DERMATOSSIAN V NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (772)P is injured when he hits head on bus grab handle. He contends that it was placed at the wrong angle. No liability. Not within the exclusive control of D. Victim precaution§
...
DICAPRIO V NEW YORK CENTRAL R.R. (850)D failed to follow a statute to have fences surrounding its railroad for the protection of animals who may wander onto the railroad. Ps child wandered onto the railroad and was killed.No liability. Ps child is not within the class of people protected under the statute.
...
DILLON V LEGG (869)P sued for emotional distress when D struck with his car and injured Ps child. The trial court held summary judgment for D in light of the fact that P was not within the zone of danger.Liability. P makes a prima facie case of liability.
...
DIPONZIO V RIORDAN (863)P was at Ds gas station when another patron pulls in to the station and begins to fill his car with gas but fails to turn the car off. When the patron goes inside to pay, the car starts to move in the direction of P. The car pins P between his car and that patrons' car. A statute provides that D was to provide signage warning people to turn their cars off.No liability. Not within the view of the statute. Meant to prevent fires or explosions.
...
DONEHUE V DUVALL (750)P child was injured when another child threw a clod of dirt at him that originated in a dirt pile in Ds yard.No liability. Dirt is an attractive nuisance to children but because dirt is not inherently dangerous → harm not reasonably foreseeable.
...
DONNELL V CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF LAW [369] - P attends Ds law school. D did not provide parking for students. On night in question, P was leaving the school and walking down the sidewalk when he was attacked. There were no exterior lights, and no security was present. No liability. No duty to provide security? Does not seem foreseeability is a factor for the court. If so, it seems liability would have been present.
...
DOUGHTY V TURNER MANUFACTURING CO (828)P is injured when an asbestos mixture heats to a point that it undergoes chemical change and causes an eruption.No liability. D had no reason to know that the eruption would occur. (unknown to science)
...
DULEIU V WHITE & SONS (873) P was standing behind the bar at her saloon when Ds servant negligently drove his car into the saloon causing P shock. She prematurely had her child.Liability. P within the zone of danger.
...
DUNN V EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP (906)P was a shopper at Ds store. She saw the boxes of whiskey aligning the aisle. She was approached by Ds employee and informed of a sale of Vienna sausage. When she went to reach for the sausage, she walked backward and tripped over the whiskey display.No liability. P was aware of the risk and had to take due care to avoid it.
...
DUNN V TETI - P and D are six year olds. D strikes P with stick and P is injured. No liability. (1) minors under the age of seven years are conclusively presumed incapable of negligence; (2) minors between the ages of seven and fourteen years are presumed incapable of negligence, but the presumption is a rebuttable one that weakens as the fourteenth year is approached; (3) minors over the age of fourteen years are presumptively capable of negligence, with the burden placed on the minor to prove incapacity.
...
Davidson v City of Westminster [286] - P is stabbed 4 times at Laundromat by a serial stabber. Police were at Laundromat attempting to identify stabber. On night in question, a man resembling the suspect appeared and for 15 minutes, police made no attempt to notify P. No liability. There is no special relationship or undertaking here. A mere visual appearance does not create a duty. Furthermore, the police never assumed a duty of care.
...
Davies v McDowell National Bank [322] -P visits D at his business only to find him unconscious. They summoned a doctor who revived him. Later a sheriff shows up to check and finds P and D dead. It turns out that Ds heater emitted CO killing them. No liability. It is established that P was a social visitor. To this class, landowners owe a duty to protect against latent dangerous conditions which D knows of. Nothing here suggests D knew of the leak.
...
Davis v. Niagara Falls Tower Co. (N.Y. 1902) (plaintiff's museum struck by ice falling from defendant's novel observatory tower—liability) ................................... 38 Strict Liability Escape of ice Must take into account proximity of Niagara Falls in precaution Some inherent expectation of escape Unlike Delano, there is escape
...
Delong v County of Erie [240] - P calls 911 in need of help. Dispatch tells her that help in on the way. Dispatch misnotes the address and medical personnel cannot find her. 8 minutes later she runs outside seeking help, collapses and die. Liability. Undertaking when told help is on the way. P relies on help and failure to help increases the risk of injury,'
...
Dragoo v Niland Fire District No D057565 [290] - P calls 911 in need of assistance against Africanized bees. The dispatcher send four officers nearby. However these officers were not properly protected and two were allergic to stings. P alleges that the fire department could have called a more able neighboring department. Furthermore he alleges that by not doing so, they created the appearances of assisting without doing so---hence P relied on D. No liability. Fireman's rule. There is no duty of care owed here. If we forced this to be a liability situation, the public services would either never respond or have to devote all resources to all issues thus slowing down services tremendously. This is wholly inefficient. Furthermore, nothing suggests D created on increased the risk of peril to P.
...
EAST TEXAS THEATRES INC V RUTLEDGE (574)P is hit in the head by a bottle at Ds movie theatre. During the entirety of the show, patrons were rowdy—throwing objects and shouting. D did nothing to remove these patrons.No liability. Nothing suggests that even if D removed the patrons, the bottle would not have been thrown. Perhaps the bottle thrower did not engage in the shouting and previous object throwing.
...
EAVES BROOKS COSTUME CO V YBH REALTY CORP [445] - P leases several floors of D building who has contracted with sprinkler system and alarm company. One of the sprinklers errantly discharges and the alarm system does not detect this. Water is released until P employee comes to work on Monday and discovers the extensive damage. No liability. In this case P can purchase insurance to guard against this risk. To hold the companies liable would be to increase premiums for everyone.
...
EINHORN V SEELEY [444] - P moves into her fiancé's apartment where the front lock is broken. D is hired to fix it but does so negligenty such that an assailant was able to enter. No liability. D locksmith owes no duty to the non contractual party in this case.
...
ELBERT V CITY OF SAGINAW (757)D dug a hole on an excavation site in a residential area. Children regularly played there and the perimeter was not well blocked. P young child escaped from his mother and entered the water filled hole. He was not rescued until he has suffered brain damage.Liability. Failure to take precaution against children in the streets.
...
ELDEN V SHELDON (877)P decedent was killed when their car was negligently hit by D. P was not legally married to the decedent.No liability. Not married to the decedent and thus not a close relation to establish negligent infliction of emotional distress.
...
ELGIN, AURORA & SOUTHERN TRACTION CO V WILSON (771)D owned and operated a rail line. It used the sideline to store commuter trains for the express purpose of taking people to the baseball stadium. When these trains were parked it shut off that sideline. When the switch tender left, kids came alone and switched the sideline on. An approaching train on the main line was diverted to the sideline where it hit a parked train. P passenger was injured.Liability. D had a duty either to lock the switch or provide an employee at all times to manage the switchboard. [EFR]
...
ELLIS V LOUISVILL & NASHVILLE RY - P works for D railroad. As a part of Ps job he was required to check sanding apparatuses. Part of this required him to turn on the air causing a cloud of sand to blow in his face. He was not given a mask to protect himself. No liability. It was not custom for railroads to provide such equipment to their employees and thus there is no negligence in this case. At the time, there was no knowledge that the inhalation of dust could cause silicosis.
...
ERIKSSON V NUNNINK (979) P was killed in a horse jumping event when D allowed her to ride a horse that had previous and continuous injuries. During the race, the horse fell on P killing her. Liabilty. Even though there was a liability agreement which P signed, P alleges that D intentionally withheld information relating to the horse's condition. In doing so, D increased the risk of injury to P.
...
EVANS V HEARD (715)P is injured when a tire on the truck D is driving flies off and hits his car.No liability. The truck was not owned by D and furthermore it is not established that D was in charge of inspecting and maintaining the vehicle. Absence this proof, it cannot be established that the truck was under Ds exclusive control.
...
Eastburn v Regional Fire Protection Authority [243] - Ps child is electrocuted during bath. D fails to give prompt medical care. Ps child was severely debilitated. No liability. Unless gross negligence there is no duty because of the immunity to public personnel. See Zepeda or Wanzer.
...
Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (Cal. App. 1991) (defendant delivered sulfuric acid to wrong tank, which caused fumes that hurt plaintiff—no liability) ............. 74 Negligence D mixes chemical tanks causing reaction and injury to P Given due care, low proability of risk D to Luthringer - no due care possible
...
Edwards v. Post Transportation Co. (Cal. App. 1991) (defendant delivered sulfuric acid to wrong tank, which caused fumes that hurt plaintiff—no liability) ............. 74 Negligence D mixes chemical tanks causing reaction and injury to P Given due care, low proability of risk D to Luthringer - no due care possible In re Chicago Flood Litigation (Ill. 1987) (defendant city's contractor, which was a co-defendant, negligently breached tunnel wall under
...
Ehret v Village of Scarsdale [340] -P takes shelter in an abandoned house. The watchman guarding the house and P are both found dead and it is determined that the death's were asphyxiation by leaking gas from a gas main 400 feet away belonging to D. Liability. Constructing a pipe in a manner to create a danger. While P assumed risk for dangers on land, he does not for those 400 feet away.
...
Elliman v Gombar [342] - P goes to Ds house to ascertain status of friend. As he approached the porch he fell into a hole Ds had made for construction purposes. No liability. The only duty in this case was actively creating pitfalls or negligence. This is not established here.
...
Ellis v D'Angelo - P injured by D, a four year old child. He pushed impelled and knocked her to the floor causing injury. Liability. Even though he is not of age to recognize behavior - still a battery - parents jointly liable?
...
FARBER V OLKON (709)P is in a mental hospital and is given shock therapy treatments. During the second treatment a cracking noise is heard. X-rays are given and it is determined Ps legs have been fractured. No liability. It cannot be concluded that the shock therapy was the cause of the injury. It is stated that fractures are common in this treatment and thus some are inherently going to happen. In this sense it is not the sort of thing that happens only when there is negligence.
...
FENG V METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (944)P and his mother went to Ds rail station to catch a train. They decided to descend to the track and while there P was struck by Ds train.No liability. Their behavior was such that it supersedes Ds duty.
...
FIELD V EMPIRE CASE GOODS CO [425] -P purchases bed that collapses on her within a year while she is pregnant. She sues the manufacture under a MacPherson argument. No liability. A bed is not something that is imminently dangerous or likely to cause great bodily harm even when negligently built.
...
FLYNN V CITY OF NEW YORK (907)P is injured when in execution of his duties, he tries to place the trash cans out but falls in a hole created by Ds trash trucks. P said that he did not remember the hole but did see it before.Liability. The court determined that P was only 10% liable due to his forgetfulness. D was liable in that it created the hazard through negligent behavior.
...
FOOD PAGEANT INC V CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO [435] -D electric company was to provide electricity to the city. On the incident in question two lightening bolts shut down the entire electric grid. P argues that D negligent behavior and failure to maintain its systems was the direct and proximate causes of Ps injury. Liability. The court found D acted grossly negligent in its maintenance of the electrical grid.
...
FORD V GOUIN (938)P is injured when the ski boat D is driving runs too close to a tree limb and P is clipped.No liability. Analogous to Knight, in rigorous activity situations, only liability if the conduct is extremely reckless or intentional.
...
FRANCES T. V VILLAGE GREEN OWNERS ASSOCIATION [369] - P was burglarized. In response she asked homeowner's association to install lighting but they refused. She decided to install her own but was subsequently asked to remove it. She was robber again and sued. Liability. Affirmative action by D not installing lighting and not allowing P to. When crime happens again, they are liable.
...
FRANCONIA ASSOCIATES V CLARK (671)P is at Ds mall when an associate tells him he has been robbed. P chases the robber out of the mall but is injured when the mall door shuts on his foot. The evidence shows that the door was not in working order.Liability. The expert testified that the door in working order would shut no faster than it opened. It was observed that many patrons had issued with the door. Thus, D had an obligation to recognize the danger and fix it.
...
FREDRICKS V CASTORA - P is passenger in truck driven by D Terwilliger. The truck hits D Castora's truck and is jackknifed by third D Whiteacre. Liability. Terwilliger is liable because under a due care standard, u-turning on a turnpike is inherently dangerous. The other parties are not liable. The due care standard is not increased given the experienced nature of the drivers.
...
FRYE V CITY OF DETROIT (622)P is waiting for a streetcar when an automobile negligently strikes him causing him to land on the tracks where an oncoming streetcar struck him. He dies of a hemorrhage moments later.No liability. Successive causation which seems to overrule the previous case. If it is the case, P died moments after the train stopped, it is not clear how much damage the first caused and how much the second caused.
...
FUENTES V CONSOLIDATE RAIL CORP - P is injured when railroad fails to stop in time to avoid hitting impediment on the railroad track Liabibilty. D failure to stop in time caused the injury. This simple precaution could have prevented the injury.
...
Fials v Rains [281] - P is Ds roommate. Ds boyfriend has shown a propensity for violence on several occasions. On the night in question, the boyfriend broke into Ds home and injured both P and D. P settled with D. No liability. There is a lack of foreseeability. Nothing prior to the incident suggests that D should have reasonably known of the potential for harm to P. Furthermore, there is no special relationship here.
...
Fitch v Adler [328] - P is dinner guest at Ds home. P leaves room and goes out door to deck. It is dark and as P walks onto deck, she does not realize there is no rail and steps over the edge injuring herself. Liability. Plaintiff is a licensee not a social guest in terms of law. The defendant had a duty to refrain from active or affirmative negligence and to warn her of any trap or pitfall actually known to the defendants which might be expected to cause plaintiff injury despite her exercise of reasonable care. In this case, D neglected to warn P of trap. It is reasonable to assume decks above ground have rails.
...
Fowler v. Lanning (Q.B. 1959) (defendant shot plaintiff, his hunting companion—no liability).................................................................................................................. 62 Negligence Hunting accident-P shoots D Due care taken and low risk of injury
...
Fox West Coast Agency Corp v Forsythe [320] -P sues D movie theatre when her seat collapses under her. P weighed 285 lbs. Liability. D had the ability to observe Ps weight prior to selling the ticket. The D further had ushers who could observe this. Thus there is a sufficient connection between the sale and the accident.
...
Freedman v Superior Court -P goes into labor and is given a drug by D. -D tells P that drug is for infection prevention even though D knows its for labor inducement No liability. The mistake must extend to the character of the act. In this case, the character was right—to induce labor - which happened. No harm?
...
Fuller v State - D and victim were good friends who often one another. On this occasion, D was visiting victim when he went up to her and made a kissing sound but made no attempt to kiss her. No liability. Assault requires both words as well as imminent threat of harm. In the instant case, there may have been sounds but it is not true that the immediate intention was for him to kiss her.
...
GARCIA V JOSEPH VINCE CO (614)P was engaged in fencing match when opponent's saber penetrated his eye. P claims that the saber had been manufactured by D or one other possible supplier. No liability. This is a case of alternative causation. P cannot establish that either D or another supplier manufactured the defective blade → not 51%
...
GARCIA V PARAMOUNT CITRUS ASSOCIATION [402] - Third party takes farm road and does not realize he has crossed into a public road. He hits P who is injured. P sues D a farm owner for failing to place a sign explaining the existence of the roadway. No liability. Non permissive negligent use of land. No foreseeability and the precaution is much greater than minimally burdensome.
...
GARDNER V NATIONAL BULK CARRIERS, INC (585)P is a passenger on Ds boat. At some point he goes missing and by the time the ship reaches its destination, he is never located. It is concluded that he must have gone overboard. Liability. D could have gone back and looked for P. It is argued that often those who fall off boats last for many hours. It was costless for D to turn around and search minus the time involved. It is very possible that turning back, P could have been saved.
...
GEE V METROPOLITAN RY (662)P was passenger on Ds train. Halfway through trip he got up to point out a certain sight and when he put his hand on bar attached to door, the door flew open and he fell out.Liability. No intervening cause here. The last case would be similar had P fallen out on the first door opening.
...
GIBSON V GARCIA (762)P is injured when D negligently crashed into a city bus pole that was rotten.Liability. The city is liable for even unforeseeable consequences of its negligent behavior.
...
GILLILAN V PORTLAND CREMATION ASSOCIATION (662)P and her son are visiting Ds crematorium and Ps son finds his way to one of the vaults which is open. In climbing on the vault, one of the marble shutters collapses on top of him. His mother attempts to remove the boulder but cant—she injures herself in so trying. He is uninjured.Liability. It is immaterial that D could not foresee P would be injured because her son got stuck by boulder, it is only important that D could foresee someone getting injured because of his negligence.
...
GLANZER V SHEPARD [429] -P buys beans which D weighs in order to determine cost. P discovers D miscalculated the weight and sues for overpayment. P has contract with third party who has contract with D. Liability. D has a duty to P to weigh correctly. D knew P would rely on its accurate weighing and is thus liable.
...
GORDON V AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY - P slips on a piece of wax paper he encounters on Ds stairs. He alleges it came from the food court and D had a duty to notice it and clean it up. No liability. Nothing suggests D saw the piece of paper prior to the incident. P does not offer anything to suggest it was there for any length of time and thus to assume such would be speculation
...
GORRIS V SCOTT (848)A animal statute held that sheep entering the country must be in pens and battens for the purpose of limiting the spread of disease. Ds ship did not have these pens and the ship sunk and the sheep were lost.No liability. While it may be true that the sheep may have been saved, it is not the purpose of the statute.
...
GREENE V SIBLEY, LINDSAY & CURR - P is at store counter waiting for her change. Adjacent to her, a mechanic is fixing another cash register. He bends down to look into it with his legs straddled into the aisle. P unknowingly trips over his legs and is injured. No Liability. No negligence here. There is very little precautionary measure D could take to limit this sort of very rare injury.
...
Garibaldi & Cuneo v O'Connor [181] - P slips and falls on banana on sidewalk in front of D fruit business. D blocked sidewalk as to force passersby to walk through a narrow opening. On one occasion P slipped and fell. Liability. By forcing pedestrians to walk through the narrow opening, D assumed a duty to take due care to keep sidewalk safe. It is evident that the banana came to be on the sidewalk via D. Regardless, D is liable if he does not take due care.
...
Garratt v Dailey - D is five year old visiting neighbor D's sister. P stands up from sitting on lawn chair and D subsequently removes it out from under her so that when she again tries to sit she falls down. Liability. D had knowledge that the performance of the act was substantially likely to cause harm.
...
Gilmore v Shell Oil Co. [197] - P visits friend who is an employee for D gas station. While there, he goes behind counter and finds a loaded handgun left behind by a third party employee. He takes the gun puts it to his head and kills himself. No liability. It has been held that D is not liable if there is no foreseeability associated with the said event. This unforeseen agency is known as "intervening efficient cause." There is nothing to suggest D knew P was suicidal or would use the gun in said manner.
...
Gomes v Commercial Union Insurance Co [279] -P own gas station next door to Ds hotel. A guest at the hotel hears noise and believes it to be coming from robbery at gas station. She notifies the front desk who says they will take care of it. Later guests smell smoke and notice the gas station is on fire. Again front desk does nothing. P sues because D has duty to not prevent others from rendering aid. No liability. D in no way prevented the guests from calling 911. It is not analogous to those cases where one party has isolated and prevented another from rendering aid.
...
Gomez v Superior Court [263] - P was passenger on D, Disney's rollercoaster. P is severly harmed on the ride and believes D owed a special duty to passengers. Liability. Carriers of persons for reward are subject to a heightened level of duty. Rollercoasters are built for profit and thus this special relationship exists.
...
Goode v Walt Disney World [319] - P sues WDW when Ps son gets lost at park and his body is found several hours later in the moat surrounding Cinderella's Castle. Liability. D was negligent in the building of the fence surrounding of the moat.
...
Gray v American West Airlines [259] - P is at airline ticket counter attempting to get her boarding pass. Behind her, another customer places a box. When P turns to leave, she trips over box injuring herself. No liability. No special relationship and no duty.
...
Great Lakes Dredging & Dock Co. v. Sea Gull Operating Corp. (Fla. App. 1984) (defendant's giant rock-crushing machine disturbed plaintiff's hotel guests—no liability)....................................................................................................................... 86 Negligence D rock crushing machine causes nuisance and is noisy No expressed potentiality of harm Any harm done was outside the abnormal risk posed by the behavior
...
Guille v. Swan (N.Y. 1822) (defendant ascended in a balloon over rural section of old New York and attracted large crowd that damaged plaintiff's garden crops when defendant made emergency landing on plaintiff's farm—liability)............10 Strict Liability Uncontrollability of balloon=high risk of harm Does not follow Blackburn's Rule? No escape
...
Gulden v Crown Zellerbach Corp. -Ps are employees of D -D faulty transformer releases toxic substance. D tries to clean up -D asks Ps to clean up toxic mess which causes harm Liability? Ds intented to harm Ps when he asked Ps to clean up mess. He knew the mess was toxic and thus he should have known the mess would cause harm.
...
Guzy v Gandel - P was babysitting four year old D. He was affectionate and hugged her legs while she was holding baby sister. When he released she was knocked off balance and fell. No liability. There was no intent to cause harm. He was only acting as would any reasonable affectionate four year old.
...
HAASMAN V PACIFIC ALASKA AIR EXPRESS (696)Ds plane disappears and nobody knows what happened. There was some evidence that one of the co-pilot's was not licensed to fly the plane.
...
HAFT V LONE PALM HOTEL (586)P and her decedents were staying at Ds hotel. The hotel had a pool with no lifeguard and no sign indicating the non-existence of a life guard violating state regulations. P went shopping and left her husband and child at the hotel to go swimming. The pair were eventually found drowned in the pool.Liability. The failure of the hotel to provide lifeguards or in the alternative to provide a sign indicating the lack of a lifeguard is negligence as a matter of law. Even though with the sign does not suggest that P would not have gone in, the legislature did not intend that this alternative could be ignored. Failure to provide lifeguard services was the proximate cause without evidence to suggest otherwise. Concurrent efficient cause.D: Stacy v Knickerbocker Ice Co.: None of untake precautions would have saved the day.
...
HAILEY V OTIS ELEVATOR CO (692)P is injured when she gets on Ds escalator and is thrown forward by an unknown thrust. No one else on the elevator fell.No liability. Not enough evidence to show that these type of accidents only happen in light of negligence.
...
HAIRSTON V ALEXANDER TANK & EQUIPMENT CO (790)P purchased a vehicle from D. The following day when he went to pick it up, it did not have the wheels P requested. D replaced the wheels but did not test drive prior to Ps departure. P left and while on the highway one of the wheels fell off. He pulled over as did another party attempting to help. A car travelling down the highway slammed into the truck and killed P.Liability. D is liable for those results of his negligence such as would occur in the sale of cars. In this instance, traffic is something D should be aware of and the possibility of negligent driving. [DCE]
...
HANDLEY V HALLADAY (919)P insisted on riding on top of Ds car as D drove home. D tried to get P to get off but he would not so D started to drive home. P fell off.No liability. Not a helpless or inattentive plaintiff. P knew of the risks.
...
HANTON V PACIFIC ELECTRIC RY **Alternative Causation** - P wanted to ride Ds bus. He hurriedly ran for the bus but missed before it started to take off. Nevertheless, he attempted to board while it was in slow motion and injured himself. No liability. Because the bus was in motion, it does not have a duty. Had D started the train as P was boarding, this would be liability.
...
HARPSTER V HETHERINGTON (820)P went to Ds home to feed Ds dog. She let the dog out to the back yard. But then she noticed that the dog had escaped through a hole in the fence. In looking for the dog, she went to the neighbor's house and slipped on ice.No liability. Very unforeseeable. The facts are only the occasion and not the cause. It's much like saying the cause is the fact that you woke up in the morning.
...
HASKINS V GRYBKO [355] - D went out to his yard to shoot woodchucks but instead shoots Ps son and kills him. No liability. Because P was a trespasser, D only had a duty not to intentionally injure or act in a reckless, and willful manner. Mere negligence is not sufficient.
...
HASTIE V HANDELAND (751)P had shoulder soreness that came and went for some period. He was free of pain when D crashed into him. Following this, Ps pain came back and he received treatment for several months. He was referred to a neurosurgeon where he was recommended for surgery. Following surgery, complications arose causing him to reach a fever as high as 108 . He died following thisLiability. Reversing the court, the appellate court held that the evidence is sufficient to suppose that Ds negligence was the proximate cause of Ps death. It is not necessary to show negligence by the hospital. If it was an inherent risk, it is possible to attach liability to D.
...
HEATH V SWIFT WINGS, INC - D is killed when P crashes plane. D argues P was not using ordinary care expected of a pilot when operating the aircraft. Liability. The standard of care is that of a reasonable person under similar conditions. Thus, a reasonable pilot in the situation
...
HERMAN V MARKHAM AIR RIFLE CO (762)P works as a stocker at a store that purchased an air rifle manufactured by D. He was injured when another employee pulled the trigger. It is claimed that D sent the gun loaded without warningLiability. Dependent intervening cause.
...
HERRICK V WIXOM [356] - P sneaks into Ds circus show and is injured by firecracker. Liability. D is liable to trespassers as if they are licensees once D knows him to be such. Thus once the audience was decided, D has a duty against negligent activity with regard to P. This case limits the trespassor to someone unknown to be a trespasser?**
...
HIGGINS V WHITE SOX BASEBALL CLUB (647)P was at Old Comiskey Park watching a game. The concession stand had a door flap that stood open. This open door swung shut striking P in the head and injuring him.Liability. This is a case of res ipsa because the door was under the complete control of D.
...
KAHN V EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (961)P is injured in shallow dive while practicing for a relay as a member of Ds swimming team. The evidence shows that P stated her fear of diving in shallow water and that D allowed her to start her relay from in the pool. On this occasion however, D told P that she would have to dive in which P asked not to do. D said she had to or she could not compete so she decided to get help from fellow teammates. On her 3rd practice dive, she broke her neck.Liability. This was a foreseeable accident. D knew she did not want to and knew the risk associated, and let her do it anyway.
...
KATELY V WILKINSON (875)Ps friend dies when the ski boat P was driving locked up causing P to run over the decedent friend. Liability. Within the zone of danger. It is foreseeable that the owner would be distressed when the negligently made product malfunctioned.
...
KERR V CONNECTICUT CO - P is deaf and walks proximately close to Ds trolley line. The trolley approaches and sounds its horn but P cannot hear. D tries to brake but it is too late and it strikes P killing him. No liability. P knew that walking where he walked was dangerous given his condition. Under a reasonable person standard, P should have known that doing this would be likely harmful.
...
KESEWAA V KEY FOOD SUPERMARKET (641)P is shopping at Ds store when shopping carts stored on top of a freezer fall on top of her as she tries to retrieve frozen vegetables.Liability. Res Ipsa Loquitur does not apply because D did not have exclusive control over the carts. However P has shown a case of negligence as a matter of law. D stored the carts in a dangerous manner.
...
KINGSTON V CHICAGO & NW RY (593)Ps land is destroyed by a converging fire that was initiated by a spark from Ds locomotive. Liability. The court establishes that in a case where there is a converging set of fires. One is not liable if the other fire is greatly larger than his fire so as to be a superseding/intervening cause or if the other fire is one ignited by natural causes i.e lightening. In this case that cannot be established.
...
KIRINCICH V STANDARD DREDGING CO P fell of Ds barge. Two other deckhands threw him a line but he could get ahold of it and was taken out by the tide.Liability. In this case the line was only a couple feet from the victim. Had D supplied better safety gear, P could have been saved.
...
KNIGHT V JEWETT (928)P and D are at Super Bowl party together. During halftime they and some other friends play a game of tag football. During which P is injured due to Ds rough tackling.No liability. Assumption of risk. The court holds that in sports situations, a defendant can only be liable when he intentionally injures or is so reckless as to be outside the ordinary range of ordinary activity.
...
KNOTTNERUS V NORTH PARK ST, RY (584)P is injured when her rollercoaster car derailed. The amusement park was owned by D but the rollercoaster was owned by a third party. It is contended that defective work could have been the cause.No liability. No cause in fact. It could have been negligent work as much as it could have been the wind.
...
KOHL V DISNEYLAND INC (657)P was a passenger on Ds horse drawn carriage ride. The horses at some point got frightened and ran away causing the carriage to tip. D established that the horses had never been frightened before and had histories of being calm.(propensity test).No liability. Horses had no propensity for harm and D took due care in picking the horses.
...
KOHLER V ASPEN AIRWAYS (693)P is a fare-paying customer on Ds airline. In flight, the plane hits turbulence and plummets 500 feet in 2 seconds. P sustained neck injuries.No liability. Air turbulence is common and very uncontrollable. Not under Ds exclusive control.
...
Kahle v. Glosser Brothers - P is leaving a grocery store when security approaches and alleges shop lifting. The search turns of negative. P daughter goes after the security when immediately the mother collapses and dies from known medical condition. No liability. No proximate cause?
...
Keffe v Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co [344] - P is a child who gets leg caught in train turntable. His leg is amputated. Liability. D knew that keeping the turntable unfastened made it rotate. This made it enticing to curious children. D should have or did know this. §339. Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children. A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
...
Kent v. Gulf States Utilities (La. 1982) (plaintiff's decedent's aluminum rake touched defendant's power line and electrocuted him—no liability) ....................... 47 Negligence Common usage of electricity - akin to water case ** Risk inherit in job aka Central Trust
...
Knight v Jewett - P was playing two hand touch football with D. The game was entered into voluntarily. During the game, D accidently stepped on Ps finger and broke it. - No intention to perform said act (like golf case) No liability. There is no intent to touch- a requisite for assault and battery.
...
Koos v. Roth (Ore. 1982) (defendant's intentionally set grass field fire spread across property line and destroyed plaintiff's adjoining crop—liability) ..............................5 Strict Liability Uncontrollability of wind (See Guille). High risk of spread (1 in 8) Intentionally set fire Plantiff had to way to take precaution.
...
LANGRIDGE V LEVY [418] -D sells gun to Ps father for Ps use. The gun blows up in his hand and he is injured. D misrepresented the gun. Liability. As the previous case suggested, this case is different because there is a fraud perpetuated here. D knew of this fraud and represented as safe anyway.
...
Louis v Louis [331] - P is guest at Ds pool party. D has a slide in his pool that goes into shallow end. P decides to try a headfirst slide and hits the bottom fracturing his rib. Liability. If harm is known or obvious. Known meaning it is known to exist and one must appreciate the harm. Obviousness being an objective standard of the condition and the risk.
...
Lubin v. Iowa City (Iowa 1964) (defendant's public water main burst and flooded plaintiff's property—liability)................................................................................... 27 Strict Liability Known high risk of damage (left until burst as opposed to replace) Hold's liable the person most capable of bearing the risk Does not enforce negligence ----why?
...
Lugtu v California Highway Patrol [287] - P is pulled over by officer for traffic citations. He is pulled over ito the middle lane. During the stop, an oncoming truck does not realize the situation and hit's Ps car injuring four passengers inside. Liability. While it is true in general that D does not owe a duty of care to P as there is no special relationship, in this case the affirmative act on the part of D, namely having P pull over into the median lane, created a substantial risk to P. From RKO, any affirmative act which INCREASES the risk to P creates a duty.
...
Luthringer v. Moore (Cal. 1948) (defendant's fumigation gas escaped to next door and hurt plaintiff—liability)...................................................................................... 65 Strict Liability Use of hydrocyanic acid to exterminate cockroaches Use of said gas is high risk Low transaction cost to inform neighbor to vacate Similar to Rylands - low transaction cost situation
...
MACDOUGALL V PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT CO -P was hired by third party to go on roof and fix the roof. Adjacent to this D maintained an electrical box. On day in question P hit his head on this box causing him to be electrocuted and fall 25 feet. Liability. When something is inherently dangerous, it requires an extremely high level of caution.
...
MACKEY V ALLEN - P is at Ds hair salon when one of the stylists gets sick and is taken to doctor across the street. At some point D asks P to go across the street and check on the sick stylist. Unbeknownst to P there were two doors next to each other - one to the office and another to an unlighted stairwell. P chose the latter and fell. Liability. It was determined that D knew of a similar incident previously and did nothing to remedy. In light of this, the court held D had a duty to take precaution.
...
MACPHERSON V BUICK MOTOR CO [419] -P buys a car from D. Unbeknownst to both, one of wooden wheels is defective. When the wheel collapses, P is injured. He sues D but the wheel was manufactured by another party. Liability. 'If the nature of a thing is such that it is reasonably certain to place life and limb in peril when negligently made, it is then a thing of danger. Its nature gives warning of the consequence to be expected. If to the element of danger there is added knowledge that the thing will be used by persons other than the purchaser, and used without new tests, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully. That is as far as we need to go for the decision of this case . . . . If he is negligent, where danger is to be foreseen, a liability will follow.
...
MACY'S CALIFORNIA V SUPERIOR COURT (890)P was trying on a coat in Ds store when she stuck her hand in the pocket and was pricked by a hypodermic needle. She feared Hepatitis and HIV infection but never tested positive.No liability. Nothing suggests P was actually harmed.
...
MADDEN V CEGLIO (836)D gives a piggyback to his friend. At some point he slips and they fall through Ps glass window. P is informed and enters the building to call the manager. While standing there, a piece of the window comes loose and cuts her arm.No liability. The breaking occurred well after the breaking- after the point at which P had the opportunity to observe the situation.
...
MADDUX V DONALDSON (618)P is driving on the highway when he notices an approaching vehicle skidding. She tries to avoid this driver but fails and the two cars collide with extensive damage. Following this, P is again hit by a car following her. Liability. The court holds that where there is successive causation and the injuries can not be distinguished as caused by one accident as opposed to the other, the two tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. This is a break from the past where when the injuries were indistinguishable, there was no liability. If the jury can distinguish, they should do so.
...
MAECHERLIEN V SEALY MATTRESS CO. [427] -P purchases a bed with a 10 year warranty. Five years after purchase a spring comes loose and injures her. Liability. Res ipsa loquitur. The preponderance of the evidence shows that D did not take ordinary care in the manufacture.
...
MAHONE V BIRMINGHAM ELECTIRC CO (856)D failed to follow an ordinance that required buses to let passengers off only at curbs or in marked zones. It let P out in the street where she slipped on a banana.No liability. The purpose of the statute seems to protect from the possibility of getting hit by a vehicle NOT from the possibility of banana slippage.
...
MANGAN V FC PILGRIM & CO (856)P is injured an subsequently dies from her injuries she sustained when a rat jumped out of her oven startling her and causing her to fall and injure her hip. She alleges D failed to follow code by allowing the apartment building to become infested with rats.Liability. By allowing such infestation, D necessarily opened itself up to the possibility that any person would be startled and injured by the appearance of a rat.
...
MARENGHI V NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (821)D had just alighted from Ps train when another passenger came running down the stairs hoping to catch the train. In the process the passenger knocked over and injured P.No liability. No way to foresee that the passenger would run directly into P.
...
MARQUEZ V MAINFRAME (956)P was a private security guard at building leased by D. When he was making one of his rounds, he went into a generator rooms and slipped on a puddle of water.Liability. P was not employed by D directly and there was no relationship as defined in Neighbarger. It was not a function of Ps duty to ensure against leaks from generators.
...
MARS STEEL CORP V CONTINENTAL BANK NA - Easterbrook criticizes Holmes theory that courts should be able to slowly reduce tort law to objective readily applied rules. He says "this is not one of him more astute opinions"
...
MARSHALL V NUGENT (801)P was driving on the icy highway when D truck swerved causing him to run off into a snow bank. D stopped and agreed to pull Ps car from the bank. P agreed to go to the top of the hill to notify oncoming traffic. As he was climbing the hill, he was hit by another oncoming car.Liability. There was no intervening cause here. The extra risk from Ds negligence had not terminated at the point of the 2nd accident. [FH]
...
MARTIN V HERZOG - D crashes into P when P does not have headlight on. Liability. Cardozo holds that when D fails to use precaution for which said precaution would help the class of people for which is D is a member, he is liable. Lights are needed to protect travelers.
...
MARTIN, WISE & FITZHUGH V TEXAS & PACIFIC RY (920)P was storing cotton on a platform for it to be compressed when sparks from Ds train caused a fire destroying the cotton.No liability. There is no reason to assume D knew or should have known the situation of the cotton. Would be making D the insurer of P. What if it was something extremely valuable?
...
MATHIS V GRANGER BRICK & TILE CO (747)Two children played in a brickyard where they enjoyed looking for lizards. On one occasion, they found a box full of dynamite caps. They took these to school where Ps child got a hold of one and took it home. At home, P mother noticed the cap but did not know what it was. Eventually it exploded in Ps child's hand.Liability. In this case, the mother's recognition was not an intervening efficient cause.
...
MATTHEWS V GREYHOUND LINES - P was a passenger on Ds bus. It is testified that before the accident, D was falling asleep at the wheel. Evidence shows that at a previous job D was involved in other on the job driving accidents. Liability. The departure of a vehicle from the roadway is negligence as a matter of law unless there is a reasonable explanation of which there is none in this case.
...
MCCLURE V ALLIED STORES, INC (782)P was a customer in Ds shopping mall. Two men were in the process of shoplifting items when Ds security officers attempted to apprehend them. The two men ran off and were chased by the officers. One of the shoplifters collided with P causing her injuries.Liability. Against store policy, the officers pursued the shoplifters after the failed peaceful arrest. This caused the shoplifters to frantically run off causing injury to P. [EFR]
...
MCCOMAS V AL G. BARNES SHOWS CO. (659)P is injured when the howdah on the elephant he is riding is not securing attached. It slips off taking P with it and P is injured.Liability. The elephant and the howdah were under the complete control of the trainer. It was incumbent on the trainer to properly secure the howdah. Failure to do so would imply the failure to use due care.
...
MCGONIGAL V GEARHART INDUSTRIES, INC (711)P are supervision a grenade training. During this P attempts to throw a grenade but it explodes prematurely in his hand. It was ascertained that it had a defective fuse and D was in charge of inspecting the grenade fuses. Liability. P only needs to show that more likely than not it was Ds negligence that caused the harm. In this case, P offered evidence to suggest the defect could be seen via Xray.
...
MELTON V BOUSTRED [410] -D advertised a party he was hosting on MySpace. P accepted the request and attended where he was injured. No liability. When a homeowner opens a home to a party is not liable on an ordinary negligence standard. There is no special relationship here and the precautionary measures suggested do not lend themselves to lessening the supposed risk.
...
MILES V HICKSVILL UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT (724)P is injured when a broken desk basket injures her. No liability. P fails to establish that the basket was under the exclusive control of D. Given the number of students who use the desk, cannot ascertain the control factor.
...
MILLIGAN V COUNTY LINE LIQUORS INC (858)D sells a six pack of beer to a minor. The minor proceeds to get in his car an attempt to open one of the bottles. In so doing he crashes his car killing Ps decedentNo liability. Outside the purpose of the statute to protect from the dangers of alcohol.
...
MINDER V CIELITO LINDO RESTAURANT (673)Ps eat at Ds restaurant. Following this, they both get sick. The doctor diagnoses them with a bacterial disease. Ps ate at several restaurants during this period.No liability. Food poisoning cases are hard because the food is ingested and not available for analysis. In this case, Ps friend also ate at the restaurant and did not have any ill effects. It thus cannot be established that D was the cause in fact of the harm.
...
MONZON V SOUTH'RN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY (883)Ps decedent is killed when the group she is hiking with walks onto a rail track thinking it to be abandoned. Ds train is on the track and is unable to stop and hits P.Liability. D failed to create adequate barriers to the railway and thus was willfully negligent in its duty.
...
MOREJOHN V RAIS CONSTRUCTION CO (637)P was employed by D to deliver materials to Ds job site. When he arrived at the site, roofing materials fell on his head. D alleges that he was not actually working at the site and the owner concurred with this. D also alleges he never hired P and was only informed of the incident sometime later.No liability. (1) the event must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; (2) it must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; (3) it must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff.
...
MORGAN V FUJI COUNTRY USA INC (954)P is injured at Ds golf course when an errant ball hits him. He alleges that the location he got hit was a common place for golfers to encounter risks of getting hit. The tee box was set up such that the golfers on the previous tee box were likely to hit or come close to hitting golfers on the next tee box.Liability. This is not primary risk because P is suing the golf course. The golf course has a duty to provide a safe golf course which it failed to do in this situation.
...
Miller v Arnal Corp [223] - P hikes with group on Humphrey's Peak. Four members of the group went to a lodge after a snowstorm developed. P and a companion needed help. At the lodge the group got the assistance of snow patrol who began preparations for a rescue. A higher authority determined it was too risky and prevented the rescue attempt. By the time the sheriff got to P and his companion, the companion froze to death and P was severely injured. No liability. There was no undertaking. No act of D causes harm—they are independent. There is no promise or forbearance by D. Nothing suggests that D owed a duty to P. D placed P in no worse of a situation by not acting.
...
MORRIS V DE LA TORRE [389] - P is outside Ds restaurant when he is accosted by third party gang members. One gang member enters the restaurant and retrieves a knife which he uses to stab P. He follows P a way and proceeds to stab again. D never calls 911 to aide P. Liability. Rowland v Christian factors are "the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved." All of these but the italicized one are present. Like in Delgado, there is an identified, individual victim unlike in many where it is a group.
...
MUCSI V GRAOCH ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [352] - P is entertaining guests at the apartment clubhouse. It has recently snowed- enough to shut down the local mall. P notices the side exit is snow free and decides to use it to exit the clubhouse. Unknowingly, it is covered in ice and P slips and falls. Liability. D has a duty to protect against known dangers that it believes tenants will fail to protect themselves against.
...
MULLEN V ST. JOHN (654)D owned vacant building. P, walking by, is injured when bricks from the façade fell on her. Liability. Negligent repair. Accident which does not happen sans negligence. Under the control of D?
...
Madden v DC Transit System, Inc. - P is sitting in traffic island and inhales toxic fumes from D buses. No liability. Some expectation of fumes if in traffic? No intention.
...
Madsen v. East Jordan Irrigation Co. (Utah 1942) (defendant's blast incited plaintiff's mother minks to eat valuable young—no liability).................................. 47 Negligence 3rd party interference No forseeability
...
Maher v Voss [324] -P gives coat to D who puts it in a closet above the cellar. P thinking it a typical closet goes and retrieves coat. In so doing she discovers the cellar and falls. Liability. It is a foreseeable risk and one that the landowner is expected to warn guests of. Creation of a trap.
...
Manning v Grimsley - D is an Orioles relief pitcher who was in the bullpen being heckled by persons sitting in the area of P. D gave dirty looks to hecklers. When his catcher left, he wound up to pitch but instead pitched toward the hecklers hitting D (not a heckler). Liability. (Transferred Intent) Even though P was not a heckler, battery statute allows a third party to recover if the accused was intending to harm but instead harms said 3rd party. As an expert pitcher, there is no doubt that the pitcher intended to cause harm and so did.
...
Markley v Whitman --Both parties attend same high school where a game ensues unbeknownst to the plaintiff in which the D and friends "rush" P. --Causes neck injury to P Liability- P was lawfully traveling on sidewalk taking due care while D was participatory in act
...
Marsalis v LaSalle [216] -P is shopping and is scratched by D cat. For fear of rabies, P asks D to quarantine cat for two weeks to determine its rabidness. During this time, the cat escapes. P decides to seek help of her neighbor a doctor. The doctor administers to her the Pasteur treatment to which she has ill effects. The cat eventually returns in good health. Liability. By volunteering to quarantine cat, D agreed to use all reasonable precaution to prevent the cat from escaping. Failing to do this, the P was forced to get the treatment causing her injury. Ds actions were the proximate cause of Ps reaction.
...
Marshall v Ranne - Plaintiff is neighbor farmer to D. D's hog escapes to P's land for several weeks where it several times attacks P. P never informs D of this until the day of the incident in question. The boar charged at P and bit his hand. Liability. The defendant is strictly liable for his animals. Take due care? Propensity for violence.
...
Maximin v. Rivera (V.I. 1990) (defendant's asphalt truck collided with plaintiff—no liability)....................................................................................................................... 64 Negligence Struck by truck carrying asphalt who fails to yield Carrying asphalt not ultra-hazardous more than any other vehicle Attempt at Strict liability so that D cant escape via third party negl. rule
...
May v Yappen - P and D own adjacent gold mines. P alleges D crossed property line and stole as a result. D claims ignorance as to true property line and had no intent to steal. The court instructs jury to take ignorance into consideration and they find not liable. Liability. Ignorance is not a valid excuse.
...
Maytnier v Rush - P attends Cubs game, and is struck in the head by wild pitch from bullpen. No liability. There was no intention and D knew the risk he inherited by sitting in said location. (No protective nets)
...
McCue v Klein - D challenges P, a drunkard, to drink 3 pints of alcohol. - After two pints, D was to the point of loss of all self control - Upon consumption of the third, he died Liability. Even if consent allowed for the consumption of the first 2 pints, D should have known that consumption of the 3rd pint was certain to cause severe bodily injury.
...
McGuire v Almy - P is caring for mentally ill D. D has a propensity for violence. And during the encounter in question, D was breaking furniture in his room. P attempted to take this furniture away but instead was struck in the head by D. Liability. Even though the defendant was insane, he is still liable in the same way a mentally competent person is. That is, he intended to strike P and so did. (See Seals v Snow - insane D liable)
...
Menu v Minor [281] - D cab driver picks up a stranded motorist that crashed his car blocking one lane of traffic. D did not advise passenger to move vehicle. P ultimately hits the car. No liability. No special relationship here. Third party with no duty of care owed.
...
Michael R v Jeffrey B. [203] - P is struck in the eye by marble D and friend were shooting. Liability. Adherence to claim grounded in affirmative act which creates an undue risk of harm. Creation of unreasonable risk of harm.
...
Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc. (Ill. App. 1995) (plaintiff injured by stray bullet from defendants' firing range—no liability).............................................................. 63 Negligence Guns are common usage and low risk when due care Social utility via police Sullivan different in that no common usage and no social utility
...
Mink v University of Chicago - UChicago administers drug DES to patients with out patients knowledge - Patients contend that the drug caused problems in them and their children Liability. Whether or not there was consent or not is a point of contention. But there is a battery claim, if no consent was given.
...
Mohr v Williams - P consults D, a surgeon, about issues with her ears. He advises that her left ear has no problem but that her right ear needs surgery. During the course of this surgery, D recognizes that in actuality the left ear has issues. In consultation with her physician who is present, he decides to operate on her left ear. Subsequently she complains of hearing issues and sues. Liability. Even though the doctor acted in good faith and performed a skillful surgery, it does not excuse him from obtaining her consent to perform the operation prior to the performance. In not doing this, he did what amounted to assault and battery. Civil battery does not require intent. It is enough to show wrongful and unlawful.
...
Montgomery v National Convoy & Trucking Co [207] - P is driving in hazardous conditions on highway. D is trucking company whose truck is stuck on highway. As P rounds crest of hill, he notices Ds struck stalled but cannot stop due to inclement conditions. Liability. They were creating a risk on the highway to save themselves. Increasing risk of harm to other drivers. Did not take due care to prevent harm.
...
Morgan v County of Yuba [241] -P was threatened by Ashby who was arrested. The Sheriff was to tell P when Ashby was released. In not so doing, P was killed. Liability. Detrimental reliance. Special relation.
...
Morgan v Loyacomo - D believed P had stolen an item from his store. He pursues her for a block and snatches the package from under her arm and discovers he is wrong. Liability. Snatching anything from Ps hand or touching anything connected with his person, when done in a rude or insolent manner, is sufficient.
...
Morgan v Pistone - P and D are neighbors. D is a doctor to which P calls him a quack. During the conversation, D claims to have touched P in order to get her attention to voice his disapproval of the comment. No liability. No intention to harm.
...
Mukthar v Latin American Security Service [250] -P is employee of store who is injured by patrons who attempt to shoplift. D was contracted to provide security services to the store but failed to do so. Liability. D undertook to provide security services but failed to do so. Negligent Undertaking Doctrine: (a) the failure to exercise due care increases the risk of harm or (b) the other person reasonably relies upon the volunteer's undertaking and suffers injury.
...
Musgrove v. Pandelis (C.A. 1919) (defendant's novel car blew up, ignited plaintiff's apartment above—liability)....................................................................................... 46 Strict Liability New technology—high risk of harm Ignorant user—high risk aka Guille Unlike Walker where technology old
...
Muslow v AG Edwards - P visits Ds manager office to use its information services. D invites P into his office and when P is seated across the desk, D lunges toward the P with his finger extended. No liability. Nothing suggests an apprehension of harm.
...
NEIGHBARGER V IRWIN INDUSTRIES (950)D employees negligently start a fire in Ps factory when D tries to repair a broken pipe. D caused a leak in the pipe. P in attempt to fix it moved toward it. The pipe exploded causing injury.Liability. D in no way paid for Ps services as a firefighter and thus cannot expect P to fight fires negligently started by D.
...
NELSON V AMERICAN AIRLINES INC (694)P was on Ds flight. The auto pilot was engaged but it malfunctioned causing a sudden jerk motion—causing passengers to be injured. There was a positive pre-flight inspection. Liability.
...
NEVAREZ V THRIFTIMART - P child is taken to a carnival by his grandmother that is located across the street from their house. In attempting to cross the street he is struck by motorist. No liability. This is unlike the street vendor cases where a vendor invites people to do business in a particular area has a duty to protect his patrons.
...
NEW YORK CENTRAL R.R. V GRIMSTAD P sued the D railroad for her husband's death. Her husband was the captain of Ds barge. The barge was in the harbor when it was bumped. The wife saw nothing but then realized her husband was in the water. She had no life saving equipment and by the time she found something, he had drowned.No liability. There is nothing to suggest that supplying such equipment would have saved the day. Would the wife have used it in time? Would he have been able to reach it?
...
NEWING V CHEATHAM (699)P deceased is passenger on Ds plane. The plane never returns and is discovered to have crash at the exact time it was to run out of gas.Liability. The plane was owned by D. It was under his control and it was his obligation to keep the gas tank sufficiently full.
...
NORFOLK & WESTERN RY V ANDERSON (630) Ps crops are ruined when Ds spray train moves by and sprays weed killer on its crops. The trial court instructed the jury on res ipsa loquitur and the jury ruled in favor of P. No liability. The court holds that res ipsa loquitur is saved for those cases where P cannot ascertain the cause of the harm. In this case it is clear that P alleges that the cause was the spray train. D counters that the cause was blight. This is a specific negligence case.
...
NOVAK HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING V CARRIER CORP (615)P orders an air conditioning unit from D. D had it delivered via a common carrier. When P received it, it was badly damaged. P brought suit against both Carrier and the common carrier.No liability. This is a case of alternative causation. Either Carrier caused the damage or the carrier did. Not both. It is the burden of P to prove which one did it.
...
PALKA V SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES CO [448] - D is contracted to provide support services at a hospital where P is a nurse. P is injured when a fan falls on her. Liability. The group that D owes a duty to is clear here - hospital employees. D knew that its negligent care would cause injury. The contract was substantial unlike in Eaves Brooks where there was a limited obligation
...
New Meadows Holding Co. v. Washington Water Power Co. (Wash. 1984) (defendant's gas pipeline leaked and seven years later blew up plaintiffs' house—no liability)....................................................................................................................... 69 Negligence P stove explodes when natural gas leak surfaces Not abnormally dangerous—third party rule Unlike Siegler—gas is underground
...
Nichols v. Marsland (C.A. 1876) (defendant's ornamental pools overflowed during storm and destroyed plaintiff's bridges—no liability) ................................... 22 Negligence Vis Major - act of God caused flood not the act of defendant No practical precaution possible
...
Nigg v Patterson [312] -D owns a Laundromat. He agrees to hire juvenile criminals at his Laundromat in an agreement with a local rehab center. One employee has a past including robbery and molestation. He is in charge at night one evening when he beats up the defendant. Liability. There is foreseeability here. P should have employed a more rigorous screening process.
...
O'Brien v Cunard Steamship Co - O'Brien is vaccinated in order to enter US - She has an adverse reaction No liability. She consented to the vaccination and thus avails themselves of the provision.
...
O'Neill v Montefiore Hospital [254] - P takes husband to hospital who is having symptoms of heart attack. The nurse on duty informs P that they do not accept her insurance and a third party doctor tells P to come back at 8a when a doctor affiliated with their insurance will be available. P goes home and the husband collapses and dies. Liability. When a doctor undertakes to care for a patient, he is liable for malpractice that may occur.
...
O'Toole v Carlsbad Shell Service Station [196] - P drove into D gas station in a drunken state. D encouraged P not to drive but nevertheless sold P gas and let her go. P got on highway and rear-ended motorcycle killing its two passengers. Liability. Affirmative act to allow P to drive off. Extremely dangerous for P in drunken condition to be driving.
...
OBRIEN V EVERFAST INC (668)P is shopping at Ds fabric store and requests several fabrics for cutting. D stores its fabrics such that each is attached to a bolt. When a patron asks for a fabric, D employee removes the bolt and takes the fabric and then replaces the bolt. In this case the employee put the bolts on the table. In the process, one rolled off striking P in the foot.Liability. When P is an invitee, D has an obligation to disclose open and obvious hazards. In this case, the bolt is one of those dangers. There was no way for P to know the danger. But the foreseeability to D is great. It is incumbent upon him to inform P or prevent harm to P.
...
OCHOA V SUPERIOR COURT (879)Ps child dies when D failed to provide him adequate medical care. Ps mother told Ds staff several times that her sone was in sever pain and was not receiving proper care. She asked to have him transferred to their personal doctor but was refused. She was asked to leave and the child died the following morning. Liability. Undertaking and affirmative act. The negligent behavior seems to be the cause in fact of the death as it seems to have been curable.
...
ODONNELL TRANSPORTATION CO V M&J TRACY INC - P hired D to take care of his barge. D negligently handled the barge and put a hole in it. Ps bargee did not recognize the hole but when he returned it was visible. No Liability. Nothing suggests Ps bargee was negligent. Thus D is liable for its own negligent behavior.
...
ORTEGA V KMART CORP (685)P was shopping at Ds store when he slips on a puddle of milk. P had no evidence how long the milk had been there. D said that employees cleaned up every 15-30 minutes.Liability. P is allowed to use circumstantial evidence to prove how long the milk had been there. In this case, because D had not cleaned it up, it is evidence enough to show that D failed in his duty.
...
OSBORNE V MCMASTERS (849)D failed to label a poison it sold to P and P in ignorance took the drug and died.Liability. Neglecting to follow a duty imposed, D is liable for the consequences of his error.
...
OVERSEAS TANKSHIP LTD V MORTS DOCK & ENGINEERING CO (806)
...
Ocotillo West Joint Venture v Superior Court [229] - P is sued by a man who while at its golf course was drunk. P took away his keys but the man's friend suggested he would drive the man's car and drive him safely home. The man was injured and sued the golf course. The golf course believes the friend is liable. Liability. Using the Good Samaritan's rule, the court reasoned that when the friend assumed a duty to care for the man, he took on all liability resulting from his failure to reasonably care.
...
Ornelas v Randolph [345] - P child and friends enter Ds farmland and play on old farm equipment. P is injured in the process. No liability. There is limited liability when a recreational user enters one's land. If the land is suitable for the purposes than in lieu of willful negligence, D has immunity. Obviously the purposes are suitable here.
...
PADIlLA V RODAS (581)P lived with Ds for a time but did not at the time of the incident. D invited P and her son over to stay the night. During the stay only P and D were adults watching the children. Ps son was out front playing with other children while D was in the side yard taking a phone call. P went inside to get the child water only to return to her son missing. Eventually she found the son face down in the water—he died on the way to the hospital.No liability. Ds do not have a duty to watch the child. Even if D took on that duty as P suggests, P acknowledges that she knew D abandoned that duty when he went to the side yard to take the phone call. P cannot establish that a self latching gate would have prevented the harm as there are 3 places the child could have accessed the pool. Ps duty seems to be a supervening cause.
...
PAINE V GAMBLE STORES, INC (566)P mysteriously fell down Ds stairwell. Part of the stairwell railing had been missing for some time and Ps lifeless body was found directly below where the missing rail was located.Liability. A jury determined that the evidence suggested by a preponderance of the evidence that but for the missing rail, P would have not fell. D gives several theories including heart attack, fell down the stairs and perhaps even a third party intervention. Nothing in the record supports this.
...
Parker v Asher -P is an inmate under the care of D, a correctional officer. He is ordered to move his stuff under the threat of being tased. When he complies, the officer still threatens. Liability. Apprehension of harm from taser for no apparent reason.
...
PALSGRAF V LONG ISLAND RR (810)A passenger on Ds rail bought a ticket and rand toward the railcar. He was carrying a package. As he tried to jump on board, he began stumbling. A guard both in front and in back of him attempted to help him aboard but in the process dislodged the package. The p ackage contained fireworks. It exploded causing injury to bystander PNo liability. Cardozo. Essentially, D could never have known that the unsuspecting package was a bomb liable to cause injury to P. To P herself, she never expected or foresaw that the events would unfold the way they did. Dissent argues that the knocking of the package was the proximate cause. He defines proximate cause as the cause that links continuously to the result. [LT OR CTC]
...
PARSONS V CROWN DISPOSAL CO - P is riding his horse in the same area that D is picking up trash. D moves to pick up a dumpster which makes a loud noise enough to scare Ps horse and he is injured. No liability. No reasonable precautionary measure to be taken here. Furthermore, the extensive list of noises which could frighten a horse make it unreasonable to impose a duty as such.
...
PENA V WOMEN'S OUTREACH GROUP (687)P is injured when she is exiting Ds medical van after receiving a mammogram. She said she was going down the steps when her foot got stuck but she cannot establish what exactly her foot got stuck on. She notes that there was no handrailNo liability. P fails to establish the cause of the harm. Nothing P presents offers the existence of a defective condition.
...
PHILCO RADIO & TELEVISION CORP V J. SPURLING LTD (774)D delivers five crates of flammable scrap accidently to Ps business. Nowhere on the crates was there a warning about the flammability of the scrap. An employee came along smoking a cigarette, which caused the scrap to ignite and explode causing damage to Ps premises.Liability. Ds failures to deliver the crates correctly and to add warnings lend themselves to negligence. Nothing suggests the employee appreciated or knew the risk of the material. [DCE]
...
PITRE V EMPLOYERS LIABILITY ASSURANCE CORP - P and son were at D insured's carnival—firefighter's carnival. He was at the baseball stand where contestants could throw dolls at stuffed animals. A 17 year old contestant was wind ing up to throw and hit Ps son in head and he died. No liability. The probability of accident is low while the severity of the accident is likely to be great. The only precautions available to D would be to limit age or to shut the whole thing down. The former seems nominal while the latter too burdensome.
...
PITTSBURG REDUCTION CO V HORTON (744)Child found and took home a tin cap from Ds mining operations. His father was in the mining business and his mother knew about mining operations. Nevertheless, the mother was aware her son had the cap but continued to allow him to play with it. A week later, the child took the cap to school and gave it to Ps son. The son, playing with it caused it to explode destroying his arm.No liability. The negligent behavior of the child's parents was a supervening cause to Ds negligence.
...
POKORA V WABASH RY. - P was struck by Ds train. He stopped 15 feet from the track but his vision was blocked by a line of box cars. When he approached the actual rail line, he was struck by a train. No liability. A duty to make an additional stop is only required if possible safely. IN this case, it was not possible for it can be argued he was in the zone of danger at the point he first stopped.
...
PORTILLO V AIASSA [359] - P is making a delivery at liquor store on property owned by D. The liquor store's dog bites P. Liability. D on a simple inspection of the premises would have seen the "beware of dog" sign as well as the news article describing the dogs vicious nature. A mere failure to inspect does not relieve a landlord of liability.
...
POUNCEY V FORD (612)P was injured when a blade on his car broke off and struck him. D had purchased the blade from a manufacture prior to the assembly of the car.Liability. Testimony showed that Ford's manufacturer used dirty steel to create the blade. This blade should have been expected to give prematurely given the amount of inclusions.
...
POWELL V HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS, INC (684)P is eating at Ds restaurant. He goes to use the bathroom and steps in a pool of water. D said the restaurant had flooding problems but had not had any in a week.No liability. It is just as likely that a patron put the water on the ground.
...
PRADO V CITY OF NEW YORK - P trips over D outstretched leg when he is attempting to make a delivery on the sidewalk. No liability. D could not have reasonably foreseen that a pedestrian would trip over him as he was pushing a cart and attempting to make a delivery.
...
PRIDHAM V CASH & CARRY BUILDING CENTER (824)P is injured at Ds store when paneling falls on him. An ambulance picks him to take him to the hospital. The driver has a heart attack on the way to the hospital and veers off the road and crashes into a tree. Ps deceased was killed.Liability. Normal effort of third persons in rendering aid.
...
PUBLIC SERVICE CO V ELLIOTT (909)P school went of a field trip to Ds electrical substation. There was very little signage warning of the high voltage danger. They wen to the high voltage room where there were no warning signs and no special instructions given. P asked a question about a specific object in the room and pointed at it. His finger came within a couple inches of the item, and he was shocked and made unconscious. Liability. High risk requires higher precaution. In this case, there was no special instructions given nor adequate signs warning P.
...
PURTLE V SHELTON - 17 year old D shoots and injures his hunting partner P. P believes D is liable to a standard of care attached to an adult. No liability. In order for an activity of a minor to be regulated at the adult standard, the activity must be dangerous but it also must be an activity an adult normally participates in. In the instant case, hunting is not an activity only engaged in by adults. Dissent does not see distinction between car driving and rifle shooting. If car driving is regulated at an adult standard so too should shooting.
...
Palumbo v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission (Fla. App. 1986) (alligator bit plaintiff who was recklessly swimming in defendant's alligator-infested lake—no liability)....................................................................................................................... 70 Negligence P swims in lake disregarding signs not to swin due to crocidiles Warning signs provided—due care taken Low transaction cost victim precaution No escape like in Rylands
...
RE PEOPLE EX REL VON SCHAICK (835)D taxi cab is driving recklessly on the highway when it crashes into another vehicle and is hurled across the highway and lodges itself in Ps building. A tow truck is called to dislodge the vehicle. Upon dislodgment a piece of the structure falls on P owner and kills her.Liability. D should have foreseen that by driving in said manner its car could be hurled across the highway. It furthermore should have foreseen that its removal could cause parts of the building to crumble and injure passersby.
...
REGENTS OF UNIV. OF CALI V ROETTGEN (948)P decedent is killed when the rope he is using to rock climb fails and he falls 90 feet to his death. Two ropes were set up, one by P and another by a third party. The third party's rope was negligently set up such that when P went to use it, the rope released.No liability. No showing that the results were beyond the inherent risk associated with rock climbing.
...
REINZI V TILYOU (653)P goes to D amusement park and wishes to ride the steeplechase. P and her husband are larger individuals and ask to ride separate horses but are asked to ride on the same horse and are assured safety. During the ride Ps stirrup broke loose and she was injured.Liability. Affirmative act by D. Res Ipsa? Paid performance relationship.
...
REYNOLDS V TEXAS & PACIFIC RYP is waiting for D train at the station. The station stairway has no lighting. When P attempted to move to the train she missed a step and was injured.Liability. When the negligence of D greatly multiplies the chances of accident and is of a character naturally leading to its occurrence, the mere possibility that it might have happened with the negligence is not sufficient to break the causal chain
...
RIDLEY V GRIFAIL TRUCKING CO (825)D was driving a loaded truck in an area littered with rocks. During this maneuvering, Ds truck tire blew out throwing a rock in the air which struck and injured P.Liability. A reasonable person could have known that the faulty condition of the tire operated under the given conditions might blow out.
...
ROBINSON V BUTLER (792)P is driving and D is driving in same direction. D attempts to pass P by pulling to the left and increasing his speed. At the same time a cattle truck comes in the opposite direction. P veers right into the shoulder but his passenger takes ahold of the wheel and pushes them left into a ditch causing P injury.No liability. The passenger's act was an intervening cause. He pushed them right and avoided both D and the cattle truck. [IIT]
...
ROBINSON V POST OFFICE [784]P is employed by D as a carpenter. He slipped on Ds ladder due to a pipe leaking oil. Following this injury he went to his doctor who advised him to get a tetanus shot. He had a bad reaction to the tetanus shot and was severally injured.Liability. Even though no test dose was given, nothing suggests that the disease would have manifested in the time in between the test dose and the full dose. Thus, given it was proper to administer serum, the post office is liable. [NIT]
...
ROBISON V SIX FLAGS THEME PARK (777)P is injured when a third party drives through an intersection in Ds parking lot and hits the picnic area at Ds amusement park. The set up was such that it would not be very hard for a car to accidently veer into the picnic area and injure people. D contends that the driver of the vehicle presented a unique case because she did not know how to drive and proceeded to anyway.Liability. D is liable for the foreseeable consequences of its negligence. In this case, it should have foreseen that someone would drive his car into the picnic area. [DCE]
...
RODRIGO V KORYO MARTIAL ARTS (960)P was injured while participating in Ds tae kwon do class. While standing in line waiting for her turn to kick, somebody kicked her in the leg rupturing her tendon. She did not know who did it.No liability. Assumption of risk in dangerous sports.
...
ROMERO V NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION - D employee uses gun at his work and stores the gun in a locked closet there. Burglars broke in to Ds building and stole the gun. Three days later the burglars used it to assault P. The gun was unlicensed. No liability. Nothing suggests that a gun owner is responsible for burglars who steal a gun and then use it in criminal acts.
...
ROSE V MELODY LANE OF WILSHIRE (679)P patron at Ds bar is injured when the bar stool he is sitting collapses. D claims he checked the stools almost daily but at least once every 2-3 days.Liability. This is only something that happens because of negligence and there is no way for P to know why it may have happened. Perhaps D forgot to inspect?
...
ROSE V MORRIS - P is on the first tee while D is on the 2nd tee some 125 yards away. D slices is ball and hits P without shouting fore. No liability. There is an assumption of risk issue here. Golfers must know that they could be hit from time to time. This does not however take away from the fact that golfers should give notice to other players.
...
ROZZ V VILLAGE AUTO BODY WORKS, INC (865)P son was injured when he veered to avoid some debris on the highway and crashed his car into a highway median. It was determined that a license plate was left in the roadway. The plate belonged to D who had crashed several days prior. P alleges that D failed in its duty established by the vehicle code which provides that debris must be cleaned after accidents.No liability. Not the type of debris required by statute. Necessarily forcing parties to clean all debris creates an unreasonable risk of harm.
...
RUSSO V GRACE INSTITUTE [445] - D erects a scaffold next to Ps apartment allowing robbers easy access. Liability. By erecting a scaffold it is foreseeable that robbers might take advantage of this.
...
Rainham Chemical Works, Ltd. v. Belvedere Fish Guano Co. (H.L. 1921) (defendants' factory for producing highly explosive war munitions blew up damaging plaintiffs' adjoining property—liability) .................................................. 45 Strict Liability Ammunition creation falls outside natural use This production carries with it high risk of harm
...
Rains v Superior Court - D induces Ps to enroll in trial in which P would be harmed under the understanding of its aid as psychiatric treatment.. Liability. Coercion or deception is equivalent to force for assault. Just because P is coerced to harm, does not avail him of battery claim
...
Reed v Ford - D in a drunken state assaults P neighbor with curse words and threats. P is a pregnant women who argues that as a result she was bedridden for 10 days and almost suffered a miscarriage. No Liability. Walls in between two parties. No way an immediate apprehension of harm could exist.
...
Richard v Mangion - schoolyard fight between two kids. One waits at ropeswing for the other as do many spectators. - P is hit in the eye by D and is harmed. No liability. P consented to the fight when he showed up and waited for D at rope swing. -Battery ---voluntary act ---intent - only a general intent (only a touching. ) -----did you desire to produce contact Exercise 4 up to p 150 §
...
Richards v Stanley [183] - P is struck by D's car which is being driven by a thief. D leaves car unlocked with key in ignition on street outside her home - a violation of CA civil code. No liability. D owed no duty to protect P from negligent driving of a thief. While she may have foreseen her care being stolen, there is nothing to suggest she should have expected an incompetent driver to steal said vehicle and hit D.
...
Richardson v Ham [185] **CONSTRUCTIVE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT** - P is injured when D bulldozer driven by thief crashes into her house. The D did not lock properly one of the bulldozers and 3 teenagers started it eventually causing the injuries to P. Liability. Bulldozers are different than cars in that they are uncommon and the results of leaving them unlocked are more obvious harm. Curious individuals are very unlikely to know how to operate a bulldozer and they are at that quite large.
...
Rickards v. Lothian (P.C. Austrl. 1913) (third party stopped up defendant's sink and flooded plaintiff's store—no liability)................................................................. 25 Negligence Mutual benefit of water use Water use seems to be a natural use (Duty) No practical precaution possible 3rd party intervention- not liable
...
Riss v City of New York [236] - Ps suitor threatens to kill her if she does not give in to him. She gets engaged to a third party and he again threatens. She tells the police who take no action. The third party follows through and injures P. No liability. No duty. Third party no duty rule. Forcing on the police a duty like this would be a dangerous precedent. Given amount of crime in cities, it would be extremely costly to cities.
...
Robertson v Le Master [308] -P works for D railroad. He works an extremely long shift with no breaks. Eventually P is so exhausted he must go home. Another employee drives P to his car. On his way home, P crashes into third party. Liability. There was a foreseeable risk here. D should have known that by making the affirmative act of forcing P to work such a long shift that he would likely cause harm.
...
Rogers v. Elliott (Mass. 1888) (defendant's church bells sent hypersensitive plaintiff into convulsions—no liability)..................................................................... 55 Negligence Not problematic to reasonable person (peculiar)
...
Rowland v Christian [335] - P is guest a Ds house and injures self on broken faucet. A month earlier D notified the landlord of the problem but there was contention over who should fix it. Liability. Court does away with common law trespasser, invitee, licensee rules. Instead uses factor test including: closeness of harm and Ds conduct, moral blame, policy preventing harm, prevalence of insurance. In this case,, a reasonable person would not have seen harm but the landowner had a duty to warn.
...
Rubio v Swiridoff [204] - Third party and D are in a stormy relationship. ON the evening in question, D storms out of restaurant in car at high speeds and his girlfriend pursues. At one point she passes him and eventually crashes causing death of P. P claims death a function of the events and D owed a duty to drivers. No liability. Proximate cause issue? Nothing he did increased the risk P died.
...
Rylands v. Fletcher (Exch. Ch. 1866) (defendants' private reservoir burst and flooded plaintiff's coal mine below; defendants themselves lacked knowledge of risk—liability)..........................................................................................................15 Strict liability Using land outside of natural uses --- carries all risk No victim precaution possible Blackburn's Rule: We think that the true rule of law is, that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape
...
SAELZLER V ADVANCED GROUP [377] -P attempts to deliver a package to Ds apartment complex when she is accosted and severely injured by 3 men. There is security at night and D submits that it did everything to protect premises. She argues that there is foreseeability due to previous incidents and findings that security was necessary. No liability. There is no sufficient causal link between Ds act and Ps injury. Even if D provided security, nothing suggests the harm would have been prevented. **Seems there is a lower liability in poor areas where burden is greater?
...
SALEVAN V WILMINGTON PARK, INC [361] - P is walking in the area of Ds baseball park. She is struck by an errant foul ball. It is testified to that fouls balls regularly come out of the park onto the sidewalk. Liability. Duty to protect against known hazards. In this case, while D did take some precaution the court holds that it is not sufficient to be reasonable.
...
SAPP V UNITED STATES (699)P is injured when a B-47 on descent veers off course and lands near a trailer park and explodes. Liability. The plane was under the exclusive control of D, because the B-47 has been improved, this accident is such that only exists in light of negligence and nothing suggests P caused the harm.
...
SATCHER JAMES H DREW SHOWS (756)P was a paying customer on Ds bumper cars ride. During the ride a group of 15 mental patients repetitiously bumped her. By the time the ride was over, she had injured her neck.Liability. D owed a duty to P to insure her safety in such a dangerous ride.
...
SCHNEIDER V MACARI (917)D driver saw two kids in an alleyway running toward the street. One was P. She thought they would slow down before entering the street. They did not and P ran into Ds car.No liability. There is no evidence D knew or should have known that P would be negligent.
...
STEINHAUZER V HERTZ CORP (846)P were driving in one direction and another party driving a car owned by D were driving the other direction. Ds car crossed the double yellow and hit P. Ps child started acting bizarrely and became non communicative.Liability. While Ps child had some pathology prior to the incident, the incident activated this into schizophrenia by the emotional trauma.
...
SCHROERLUCKE V MCDANIEL FUNERAL HOME, INC (678)P is feeble and uses a wheelchair to get around. She is to attend her husband's funeral and Ps son asks the funeral manager to take his mother's wheelchair to the church. He instructs the manager how to collapse the chair. When P and her son arrive, they locate the chair erect. When the son puts P in the chair and begins to push her, it collapses. He is unsure if the mechanism was in place.No liability. The wheelchair was under the control and owned by P, the son knew how to collapse and operate it and P had an opportunity to inspect it before using it.
...
SCHULZ V PENNSYLVANIA R.R. (702)P is in Ds employ and is charged with checking tug boats. Following preliminary inspection, P changes from street clothes to work clothes. Headed toward the dock, P disappears. Several weeks later he is found barely clothes with a flash light in his hand.Liability. Negligence to make P work in the dark under the given conditions. It is inferred that he would have slipped on ice.
...
SEITH V COMMONWEALTH ELECTRIC CO (775)D power lines broke and fell to the ground. After being notified, police officers in the area went to the scene of the down lined. P an unknowing passerby was injured when one of the officers flipped the wire in Ps direction and P unknowingly caught it. No liability. Intervening cause. Nothing suggests D could have reasonable foresaw that an officer would use his club to flip the wire at another party. [IIT]
...
SELGER V STEVEN BROTHERS, INC - D failed to clean the dog droppings from the sidewalk in front of his property, and P slipped. No Liability. The statute only creates a duty to the owner of the municipality—not to pedestrians as a whole.
...
SHARON P V ARMAN, LTD [374] - P pays for parking spot in Ds subterranean garage. During incident in question, P is forced into her car and is sexually assaulted. P alleges D failed to take sufficient precaution to prevent such attacks. No liability. No foreseeability as a matter of law. Just as in previous case, nothing in the police record would indicate that D should have reasonably expected this event. To require such security is too great burden in light of these facts. This case extends Ann M. because there is no liability even when there seems to be some easy precautions like fixing broken light.s
...
SHARP V LABREC INC (719)D was contracted to move a boiler using its crane. During this move the load shifted and hit P.Liability. It is reasonable to infer that the load was under the exclusive control of D and that it is not the sort of accident that happens unless there is negligence.
...
SHIPMAN V BOETHING TREELAND FARMS [356] - P drives ATV to Ds farm without permission to look at the pond. D employee is leaving work and strikes Ps ATV. No liability. D is immune if P is using his land for any recreational purpose. While not enumerated, ATV riding would surely be a recreational purpose under this statute. Even when D uses active negligence, there is immunity.
...
SINN V FARMER'S DEPOSIT SAVINGS BANK [364] - Bomber enters bank with note he gives to teller. P enters and is waiting while D deals with bomber but is never informed of the situation. Eventually a guard tries to disarm the bomber causing an explosion that kills the bomber and the guard and injures P. Liability. The bank had a duty to warn of known hazards and dangers.
...
SINRAM V PENNSYLVANIA RR (754)P sued D for causing the sinking of its barge. D bumped into Ps empty barge. The bargee then negligently checked the damage and allowed the barge to be loaded anyhow. The boat then sunk.No liability. D is only liable for the incidental damage to the boat from the original collision. The bargee failed to take adequate precaution in assessing damage.
...
SMITH V AMERICANIA MOTOR LODGE (590)Ps children left to go to the Laundromat with their cart of dirty laundry. Instead they ended up at Ds pool where they drowned. Outside the pool was a warning sign indicating there was no lifeguard and children need adult supervision. The pool failed to follow regulation in that it did not have a rope delineating the deep end from the shallow end. No liability. In this case, P was negligent in that they failed to follow the directions of the sign. In this case, the lack of rope cannot be established as the proximate cause as can the lack of lifeguards in the previous case.
...
SMITH V CAPLAN (655)P was injured on Ds merry-go-round. How she hurt her foot is unknown.No liability. Not a situation where negligence only possibility. (Prong 1 error)
...
SMITH V LAMPE - D owns boat which is caught in heavy fog. P intervenes unknowingly. Ps boat hits ground and sinks. No liability. P had no knowledge of the situation and thus could not know that his act would lead to injury.
...
SNYDER V COLORADO SPRINGS & CRIPPLE DISTRICT RY (765)P is travelling in Ds crowded rail car. The conductor attempts to push his way through. Another passenger becomes irritated and shoves P out of the rail car and P is injured.No liability. D cannot predict that a passenger will take such extreme steps as to physically force someone from the rail car. [IIT]
...
SOILEAU V SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE CO (900)P was injured when he tripped on a wire laid by D telephone service. D had laid a temporary above ground wire to connect service to Ps house. When P went to feed is animals in the middle of the night, he tripped on the wire and was injured.Liability. It could be inferred that P was using ordinary care when he tripped. It is not necessary that P remember moment by moment that the wire was there. The evidence shows that he did not cross paths with the wire for some 2 months.
...
SOUTHEWESTERN TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE CO.V ABELES - P is on phone during rainstorm when he hears a loud noise in the receiver. The noise emanated from a lightening strike outside that had hit the phone line. The noise caused damage to Ps hearing Liaibility. The evidence suggests that D failed to ground its phone lines. This untaken precaution, the court reasons, was the proximate cause of Ps injury.
...
STACY V KNICKERBOCKER ICE CO (570)Ps two horses were hired out to D for its ice removal operation. During the operation, the horses ran off into the iced over pond and drowned. No liability. The horses were uncontrollable. No amount of precaution could have prevented the horses from drowning.
...
Sullivan v. Dunham (N.Y. 1900) (plaintiff's intestate hit by tree that defendants blasted—liability)....................................................................................................... 38 Strict Liability High probability of harm No precaution available Akin to Guille re unpredictability
...
STIVER V GOOD & FAIR CARTING & MOVING, INC [458] - P strikes car parked in the middle of the highway hitting his head and permanently injuring his eye. P car stalled when transmission broke down. A couple months previous the driver took car to D for general inspection. No liability. Three exceptions: (1) launching an instrument of harm. Not present here as nothing suggests the inspection increased the risk or create a risk of harm. (2) detrimental reliance. P did not know of D inspection before the accident. Did not even know the driver. (3) where contracting party displaces other parties duty to safetly maintain premises. Not present here. Furthermore, unlimited risk issues. Adverse selection problem? If D has to insure against these risks, price goes up - D has no way of knowing what the risk is.
...
STOSKIN V PRENSKY (652)P is injured when coke bottle under her seat rolls out and she steps on it. P was in Ds vehicle when unbeknownst to her D had placed coke bottles under the seat. No liability. No inherent danger in coke bottles. Further, res ipsa does not apply in this case. It is not clear the only fault is that of D.
...
STRAUSS V BELLE REALTY CO [437] - P was tenant in Ds building. The electricity was supplied by 2nd D Con Edison and on night in question the electricity went off. Ps water was generated electrically and thus P went to the basement to get water but fell in the dark in a common area. No liability. No gross negligence here as in previous case. Nothing to suggest the failure to take due care or precaution.
...
SUMMERS V TICE (607)P was hunting with D. During this, D shot in direction of P and hit him in the eye. Because there were two Ds who both shot it was unknown who caused the harm. Liability. The court holds that when there are multiple tortfeasors and it is unknown which is liable it is up to them to apportion liability amongst themselves. P can sue any or all of them and then Ds must determine liability amongst themselves. Both Ds shot in this case and thus both breached a duty. Both liable.
...
Schuster v City of New York [301] - P observes police wanted poster and helps D find the wanted criminal. Subsequently, there are threats on Ps life and police provided no protection. P is killed. Liability. Police owe a special duty to those it calls forward to help in finding a criminal if there arises a situation where one needs protection.
...
Schwartz v Helms Bakery Co [191] - D owns bakery truck. P, a young child, wants to buy a doughnut from the D. He tells D to wait while he goes and gets a dime to buy. D tells him he will meet him closer to his house. When P returns, he crosses street without looking and is struck. Liability. It seems D knew the high risk of harm from crossing said streets. The initial encounter, P was barely missed and D knew that on his return trip he would have to cross a major thoroughfare. Knowing this, D being the adult owed a duty of care.
...
Seaber v Hotel Del Coronado [193] -P is struck at a crosswalk near Ds hotel. P believed D was liable because it had promoted the necessity of the crosswalk and knew the danger inherent in said crosswalk. No liability. It would be unreasonable to require a duty to hotel to maintain safe crosswalk simply because it is near the hotel. It had not control over the crosswalk. ***first amendment element (petitioning govt.)
...
Selger v Steven Brothers [180] - P slips and falls on dog droppings outside of D business. Claims the D had duty to keep sidewalks clean. No Liability. The defendant did no affirmative act to create the hazard. While the defendant is to keep clean sidewalks, this duty is owed to the city NOT to passersby.
...
Sides v Cleland - P purchases a tract of land through which a logging trail runs. Eventually this logging trail becomes commercialized at which point P felled a tree across the path and would not move it. D decides to group together a couple friends with chainsaws and attempt to remove tree. He says "bring on the chainsaws" in the presence of P. Liability. Clear apprehension of imminent harm from chainsaw.
...
Siegler v. Kuhlman (Wash. 1972) (defendant's gasoline tanker truck exploded and killed plaintiff's deceased—liability)...............................................................56 Strict Liability High risk of harm driving oil tanker on roads Unavoidable for P Escape?!
...
Smith v Gowdy -P's husband and son live in the back of D grocery. P husband gets sick and dies and D demands return of premises or he will nail her up. He commences with threat but stops when P asks No liability. No apprehension of harm? He stops when asked and does not suggest in any way to harm P.
...
Smith v Stone Smith sues Stone for trespass --Stone argues he was not there voluntarily but was there by force/violence --Judge refers to man who drives cattle unto another's land is the trespassor not the owner No liability
...
Smith v. Lockheed Propulsion Co. (Cal. App. 1967) (defendant's rocket test shook plaintiff's neighboring water well, destroying water supply—liability) .................. 85 Strict Liability Rocket test destroys Ps well Rocket test unusual danger Ultra hazardous behavior
...
Sorichetti v City of New York [237] - P divorces husband from whom she has a protective order. He has visitation with their daughter Dina. P takes Dina to father's home where they both are threatened. P goes to police who fail to take action on her protective order. Father severely harms Dina. Liability. Affirmative act on part of court giving visitation to father. A special duty is owed because of the protective order and the police's knowledge of the father's violent past, their response to her complaint, and the totality of their conduct toward the mother.
...
Stagl v Delta Airlines [261] - P is passenger with D airline. At baggage claim she is injured when another bag topples onto her. Liability. Because this is private area, court holds that the traditional landowner special relationship holds. Thus, Delta was required to take all steps to ensure that Ps trip was a safe one.
...
Stangle v Firenan's Fund Insurance Co [268] -P buys a sapphire ring in Hawaii and wishes to sell it in the States. He gives it to his girlfriend to sell. She locates a buyer. At the purchasing point, the buyer steals the ring and is never seen again. P asks to use office phone but is denied. P sues the company. No liability. There is no special relationship.
...
Swift v American Mutual Insurance, Co [233] -P is killed by ailment incurred at work site. D is insurance company who inspected the workplace but did not tell the company about the risk from Ps ailment. No liability. Failure to notice risk not act that creates risk. (non feasance)If the insurance company is forced to take on tort liability, it could simply stop doing the safety checks all together. Thus, we want them to perform these checks without fear of tort liability.
...
TAYLOR V OLSEN [360] - Ps car strikes tree that had just fallen on the road. Liability. It is Ds duty to inspect his premises and inform himself of potential hazards. Had he done so, he would not be liable. It is a question for the jury.
...
TEDLA V ELLMAN - P is walking on the highway eastbound, in the eastbound lane late at night. Statute dictates that people walking on the highway should walk in the opposite direction of traffic. Nevertheless, P argued that it was safer to walk in the eastbound lane because there was less traffic. While walking, he is struck by D. No Liability. P while walking on the wrong side of the road, did it because he knew it would be less trafficked than the other side.
...
TEXAS & PACIFIC RY V MCCLEERY (799)P was driving when he was struck by an oncoming train. The train was travelling over the speed limit and neither the truck nor the train saw the other. No liability. Regardless of the trains speed, P acknowledges that he did not see the train until it was right up on him. His failure to detect the train's presence indicates that even if the train was travelling slower, he would not have been able to stop. [LT]
...
THE KATHRYN B GUINAN - D boat had been lying for four days and filled with water causing it and Ds boat to sink. D alleges that Ps negligence in not providing a nightwatch caused the sinking. No liability. To force D to provide nightwatch is much too onerous a precaution. The master is already there so adding a second employee would have a diminishing return on the risk decrease.
...
THE T.J HOOPER -D tugboats were pulling Ps coal barges. During the trip a storm occurred causing the barges to be lost. While D had an antiquated radio, they were insufficient. Had D had a modern radio, it would have received a report of the possible storm. Liability. While it was not yet customary to have a radio, Hand argues it is OK to penalize those who have yet to come to the realization that such a custom is necessary. In this case, a radio would have prevented this accident.
...
THE WAGON MOUND (NO 1)D negligence causes oil to leak into the harbor. Unknowing of its flammability P carries on as usual. Eventually the oil catches fire and ruins Ps dock. No liability. There is no foreseeability of the consequences in this case [SDK]
...
THEISEN V MILWAUKEE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO - P was driven home by D after an after party for their school play. On the commute, D fell asleep at the wheel causing the car to crash and causing injury to P. Liability. Falling asleep at the wheel absent some extreme circumstance is negligence as a matter of law. --
...
THING V LA CHUSA (879)P child is injured and she is informed post accident of his death. She sues for NIED.No liability. She was not contemporaneously present and aware at the time of injury.
...
THURMOND V PRINCE WILLIAM PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL CLUB (944)P is injured when a foul ball is batted toward and hits her. There was ample signage stating the danger and assumed liability of the spectators.No liability. Assumption of risk. P assumed the risk when she bought the ticket.
...
TINGLE V CHICAGO, B&Q - D train ran over Ps cow. Statute provides that no trains are to be run of Sundays, and this incident happened on a Sunday. No liability. Even though the accident would not have happened but for the operation of the train, it is not negligence that caused that accident.
...
TROISI V MERIT OIL CO (722)P uses Ds gas station when hose explodes and sprays gas all over him.No liability. Not under Ds exclusive control given its continuous use by patrons.
...
TUCKER V KFC NATIONAL MANAGEMENT CO [367] - P becomes engaged in a fight with another party who he accuses of stealing his wallet. KFC calls the police and the other party is apprehended but not before P is seriously injured by the other guy's knife. No liability. There is no duty for fast food restaurants to provide security. To require this would force every establishment to have security. This case differentiates from RKO because the court sees duty as wholly a question of law. RKO saw it as mostly law but also saw foreseeability as a question of fact for the jury,
...
Tarasoff v Regents of University of California [271] -P is killed by Ds psychiatric patient. The patient informed her therapist of her intent to kill P but the therapist did not attempt to inform P of this. Liability. The doctor/patient relationship is a special one. When a doctor takes on a patient, he does so with a duty of due care not only to the patient but to others.
...
Taylor v Hesser - P and D playing paintball together at paintball factility -P is shot when he tries to clean out goggles when D shoots him. No liability. Inferred possibility of harm. He was informed not to remove goggles. Easy to minimize liability.
...
Tenant v. Goldwin (K.B. 1705) (defendant's privy overflowed into plaintiff's neighboring cellar—liability)..................................................................................... 19 Strict Liability Analogous to Ryland in that something invades someone else's space
...
The "Hand" Formula
...
Thomalen v. Marriott Corp. (D. Mass. 1994) (plaintiffs injured by fire-eating act at defendant's hotel—no liability).................................................................................. 83 Negligence Flames engulf D when P catches fire during fire breathing act No escape akin to Rylands Like Delano in that it stayed on property
...
Thomas-Kincannon-Elkin Drug Co. v Hendrix - D is a pharmacist for which P is employed. P drinks a malt that D had, as a joke, mixed in a box of Ex-lax. Upon consumption, P gets sick. Liability. Obvious intention to do harm, even jokingly, and said harm occurs.
...
Todd v Dow [284] - P and D engage in gun horseplay at Ds parents home. P is severely injured (paraplegia); P alleges that Ds parents owed him a duty of care. D was 18 and had moved out of parents house by the time of the incident. No liability. D is 18 years of age. That is a fatal fact to liability. There is no special relationship. The court holds that a special relationship in not a condition but a conclusion. That is, simply because a special relationship exists does not conclude a duty is owed. Rather given facts, it can be concluded there is a special relationship for which a duty is owed. Also, no affirmative act here. Ds did nothing to create peril
...
Transco p.l.c. v. Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (H.L. 2003) (defendant's burst water pipe undermined plaintiff's gas pipeline—no liability...... 31 Negligence Pipes= negligence? Providing water is natural use? No high risk or expectation of harm P can take proper precaution and buy insurance What's left of Rylands?
...
Tuberville v Savage - P tells D he is lucky that P would not harm him. No liability. P is saying he will not assault ⇒ no apprehension of harm.
...
ULTRAMARES CORP V TOUCHE [442] - D is hired by third party business to create a balance sheet to determine its credit worthiness. D errs and the business is unable to pay P its creditor. No liability. Such business transactions are subject to some errors. Only those errors where it can be shown that the conduct was so egregious as to disregard that it was certifying something.
...
UNITED NOVELTY CO V DANIELS (839)D employer allowed P employee to clean its machine with gas while there was a natural gas heater nearby. Using the gasoline disturbed a rat that was underneath. The gas soaked rat caught fire and landed under the machine causing an explosion which killed P. Liability. It seems that not letting employees use gasoline for cleaning in these circumstances would be the first precaution to take.
...
UNITED STATES V CARROLL TOWING CO - P barge is tied up in New York Harbor with a bargee on board. The bargee goes to land for no apparent reason. During this time, another barge needs to be moved so Ps barge is unmoored and then negligently re-moored. Subsequently, the barge comes loose and runs into another boat. It is punctured and sinks. Liability. Hand comes up with the Hand Formula. P*L> B where P is probability of negligence, L is the gravity of the resulting injury, and B is the burden of adequate precaution.
...
United States v Lewis - P is security guard who begins to hassle D by making references to her race. In return, she threatens to kick his ass if he does not stop. No liability. Conditional threat. Court argues that the apprehension of harm in conditioned on him continuing the racial taunts.
...
VASQUEZ V RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENTS, INC. [382] - P lives in an apartment with her daughter and parents. The front door to the apartment contains glass panes, one of which is missing and has been replaced by a wood block. P asks D to fix the window. On night in question, D, the boyfriend of P attempts to enter but is refused entry. He realizes the missing pane gives him easy access. He enters and fatally stabs P. Liability. When an omission requires a small cost relative to the mitigated risk, then a duty to fulfill this act arises. In this case, it would cost $15 to replace the pane which is very minimal.
...
VAUGHN V MENLOVE - P builds haystack on his land and then builds a chimney through it. The haystack catches fire which spreads to Ps property. Liability. D is required to use reasonable precaution, the precaution an ordinarily prudent person would take.
...
VELTRI V. STAHL (656)P is injured by a falling storm window from Ds apartment building.No liability. P fails to establish prong #2 that the window was under complete control of D. It can not be established that it was the duty of either the landlord or the tenant to maintain the windows.
...
VETRONE V HA DI CORP (766)P was hired to act as security guard at Ds New Years party. D overbooked the event and was forced to turn away pre paid customers at the door. These customers got angry when P attempted to shut the door and he was injured.Liability. It is foreseeable in this case that pre paid customers to a party would become angry when the party is overbooked. [EFR]
...
VILLAGE OF CARTERVILLE V COOK (761)P is walking on Ds raised sidewalk when he is pushed over by a third party. Liability. Failure to put up a railing is negligence on part of D. There is no difference is he was pushed or if he just simply fell.
...
Van Houten v Pritchard - D is bitten by P cat. The cat never had a propensity for violence. No liability. The cat never had shown a propensity for violence that would require the plaintiff to take higher levels of precaution. Thus the owner can let its animal to run at large.
...
Vaughan v. Taff Vale (Exch. Ch. 1860) (defendant's railroad locomotive spark destroyed plaintiff's adjoining woods—no liability) Negligence rule. Vaughn seems to have ample time to take victim precaution but does not. Legislated/public good aspect
...
Vietnamese Fishermen's Assoc v Knights of Ku Klux Klan --KKK organizes a ride of a fish boat to protest increasing number of Vietnamese fisherman. No liability. Not in proximity enough to constitute assault.
...
Vosburg v Putney - D sues for battery - D kicked P in shin during class which aggravated a prior injury causing a lame leg Liability- the act was intentional given class was in order and there was no license to perform said act
...
W. H. Smith & Son, Ltd. v. Daw (C.A. 1987) (defendant's sewage pipe burst and flooded plaintiff's premises—no liability).................................................................. 26 Negligence Mutual benefit Common usage Sewage pipe carries filth away similar to gutter in Carstairs?
...
WAGNER V INTERNATIONAL RY [786]P and friend are riding on Ds train when the friend is thrown off. The train stops and P goes to look for his friend when he falls and is injured himself. He sues D for negligenceLiability. Rescue if reasonable and in the moment is attributable to D. P knew that atrain was to come and that he needed to find his friend. In the moment, he went ahead and fell. [DCE]
...
WALSTON V LAMBERTSEN (697)P was on Ds crab vessel. The vessel sunk and the cause of the sinkage could not be ascertained. The boat was not equipped with a life boat.No liability. Unavoidable accident
...
WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE CO V MATLOCK (860)D is sued by P for contribution. D, 17 year old minor, is provided two packs of cigarettes by a third party. He gives one pack to his friend. While they are climbing in a storage facility, the third party drops his cigarette. The cigarette eventually causes major damages to Ps client's property.No liability. Simply because a statute was violated does not mean that D fell within the statutory purposes. In this case the statute exists to prevent early addiction to tobacco NOT to protect against fires.
...
WHITE V SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ED CO [439] - P is injured when he crashes in an intersection where a public street lamp is not working and has not been working for several weeks. D was contracted by city to maintain these lamps. No liability. There is no duty between a consumer and a public utility. P is not a third party beneficiary to the contract. The rationale is that utilities are of a status such that there are fixed rates to provide a service and they do not contemplate the liability as such when constructing these rates.
...
WIDLOWSKI V DURKEE FOODS (833)D employee enters a gas tank for the purposes of cleaning it but fails to wear protective gear. The tank had nitrogen gas inside causing D to become delirious. He was taken to the hospital where he bit off a portion of Ps finger.No liability. Not foreseeable that D in his state would bite of Ps finger.
...
WIENER V SOUTHCOAST CHILDCARE CENTERS INC (780)Ps children were injured when a third party negligently drove his car through a chain link fence onto Ds property and hit a group of children killing two. Ds property was a child care facility located very near to a major thoroughfare.No liability. D could not have foreseen the driver's behavior. Even though they were located so near to the highway, no way could D have predicted a driver would commit intentional murder on children. [IIT]
...
WILKS V HOM (880)P asks her child to unplug the vacuum when an explosion occurs causing P to be blown out the front. The child is severely injured and eventually dies from the injuries.Liability. Sensorially aware of accident and is personally affected by it.
...
WILLIAMS V HARRISON (914)P and D were driving through subdivision with P in front of D. Both were speeding. As D went over a hill, he saw smoke emanating from Ps tires as P braked. D tried to swerve left but so did P and thus D crashed into P.No liability. The LCC doctrine applies to two situations: (1) injured party who is in a position of peril from which he cannot extricate himself; (2) injured party who is able to remove himself but is unconscious (inattentive) of his peril. These are not present here.
...
WILLIAMS V HAYS - D sails Ps boat through a storm but becomes ill and essentially unaware of his actions. His negligent conducting of the ship causes the ship to run ashore. The owner sues. No liability. The appeals court ruled in favor of P arguing that an ill plaintiff is liable in the same manner as a non-ill plaintiff. However when remanded the trial court directed a verdict for P and D appealed. The second appeals ruled in favor of D arguing that the principles of equity and justice suggest that a P who mans a ship in a storm for 72 hours is using as much precaution as any person would and to force otherwise would be unreasonable.
...
WILLIAMS V SWISSOTEL NEW YORK, INC (691)P is injured when Ds elevator plunges nine floors.Liability. Res Ipsa Applies. Only when there is negligence, does such an accident happen. The elevator was under the control of D.
...
WILLIAMSON V BENNETT (873)D attempts to enter the roadway from his driveway when he hits P. P thinking he hit a child goes into shock. Following the accident she is not the same.No liability. Her fear was irrational and unfounded.
...
WILLS V WISCONSIN-MINNESOTA LIGHT & POWER CO - P is at Ds amusement park when her daughter wanders off to the baseball field. When P goes looking for her daughter she finds her at the baseball field. A game is going on and a foul ball hits Ps daughter. Liability. In this case there seems to be low cost precautionary measures like placing up a wire net to prevent foul balls from leaving the park.. Placing this field in this location was dangerous.
...
WIMS V CHEVRON USA, INC (643)Ps car is struck by a falling piece of Styrofoam from Ds truck. Following this, P and D pulled over at which point D removed the Styrofoam and left the scene. P was uncertain how the Styrofoam got lodged in his car.No liability. P fails to show a breach of duty. On appeal, P asserts res ipsa loquitur but the court rejects it saying that because he did not bring it up in the trial court he cannot assert it on appeal.
...
WINN DIXIE STORES INC V PARKER (680)P was guest in Ds grocery store. While she was checking the price of an item, she slipped and fell. She determined she had slipped on a snap bean.No liability. Nothing suggests anyone associated with the grocery store put the bean on the store.
...
WINTERBOTTOM V WRIGHT [414] -D is a mail-coach producer who contracted with the postmaster general to provide coaches for delivery. P is a delivery driver. P is injured when the coach breaks down due to unknown defects. No liability. Privity of contract. Only those directly involved in the contract can sue. This limits the number of lawsuits possible. Adverse selection argument. Exactly same case as Haynesworth.
...
WOLF V KAUFMANN (566)P falls in the stairwell in Ds apartment building. There was no lighting in the stairwell against local statute. It was indeterminate whether the fall happened before or after sunset.No liability. Because the time of accident is unknown it is impossible to know if lighting would have actually saved the day.
...
WRIGHT V PRITCHARD INDUSTRIES (649)P is injured when the bathroom stall's door falls off its hinge and injures her. She believes both that D owed her a duty of care as an invitee but also on appeal raises an argument of res ipsa.No liability. As an invitee, D has a duty to uncover all reasonable defects and inform P. Nothing suggests D knew or should have known about this defect. Furthermore, res ipsa does not hold because the incident cannot be attributed directly to negligence and the instrumentality cannot be said to be in the exclusive control of D.
...
Walker Shoe Store v. Howard's Hobby Shop (Iowa 1982) (defendant's heating oil tank burst, and fire spread to neighboring plaintiff's property—no liability)......... 29 Negligence Had take due care and precaution Not a high risk for harm unlike in Koos
...
Walt Disney Productions v Shannon [192] - Disney television show demonstrates how to put BB in balloon to make the sound of a tire coming off a car. P attempts to replicate with a piece of lead and instead pops the balloon sending the lead into his eye causing injury. No liability. There has to be a clear and present danger. There is nothing here to suggest that Disney created any imminent danger. ***first amendment element (programmatic speech/artistic expression)
...
Wanzer v District of Columbia [238] -P calls 911 complaining of headaches. Dispatch tells him to take aspirin to solve them. 8 hours later a neighbor calls with same complaint. Two days later P dies of a stroke. No liability. Very similar to the Zepeda case but more extreme. In this case, D seems to take control of Ps condition. If we expected the dispatch to be liable for every oversight it would be costly.
...
Warner v. Norfolk & Western Ry. (W.D. Va. 1991) (defendant's train struck plaintiff's truck at grade crossing—no liability) ....................................................... 64 Negligence P struck at grade crossing by train Trains are common usage Can use due care to minimize risk Limits Koos v Roth
...
Weirum v RKO General, INC.[175] -P is killed when parties chasing a vehicle involved in D radio station's promotion causes him to crash and die. D radio station sent DJ in bright red car on the road to various locations and asked listeners to find him. When two young listeners encountered said vehicle on the highway, they gave chase at high speeds. When the vehicle proceeded to exit, one of the vehicles caused P to crash. Liability. D had a duty to take due care. Furthermore, there was much foreseeability in this situation. The notion of putting a bright red vehicle on the road, and encouraging young listeners to go and find it during the summer brings with it the implication that people will give chase. In this case the risk is unreasonable given there were other ways to promote not involving such high risk. ***commercial speech---not covered totally under 1st amend.
...
West v. Bristol Tramways Co. (C.A. 1908) (plaintiff's adjacent nursery plants unforeseeably damaged by creosote fumes coming from defendants' creosoted tracks—liability)......................................................................................................... 41 Strict Liability Other options beyond creosote available. Inherit risk from that choice Unlike Taff Valle, statute does not specify material—not relevant
...
Western Union Telegraph Co. v Hill -Hill went to P who works for Western Union asking for help with her clock. He tells her he will help if she will let him pet her to which he attempts to reach over the counter. No liability. Because what Sapp did was for his own ends, the telegraph company is not liable.
...
Wise v Superior Court [313] - D husband mounted a shooting rampage from his roof injuring several including P. He then killed himself. P alleges D wife is liable because she knew of his drug past and his propensity for violence. No liability. Nothing suggests D entrusted P with the weapons. Nothing could have foreseen the harm he did There is no undertaking and no special relationship.
...
Wlasiuk v McElwee [212] -P and D are driving together to a friend's house and get lost. They pull off into a bad part of town. P calls his friend who informs him he is in a bad section of town and to leave. D sees a man approaching the car, talks to him and finds out he wants a ride. P suggests they not give him a ride but D insists and lets the man come. Shortly upon leaving, the stranger pulls gun and shoots P. Liability. The duty relationship between driver and passenger has long been held. It is clear there is an inherent risk in picking up strangers aka a foreseeable risk that driver should have been aware of.
...
YANCEY V SUPERIOR COURT (942)P was enrolled in a physical education course with D. In the course they were learning to throw the discus. P threw her discus and went to retrieve it. D then negligently threw his and hit P.Liability. Unlike in Knight and in similar cases, discus is such that taking precaution to check the area is possible.
...
YANIA V BIGAN [199] - D is coal mine owner who asks P to help start a pump. P encourages D to jump in. D jumps from a height of 16 feet and drowns. No liability. P had control of all his mental faculties and thus took responsibility for all effects of his actions. In this case, he died. He reasonably should have known that his actions could have caused what in actuality happened.
...
YAZZOLINO V JONES [348] - P is young child who is visiting his friend at his flat. There is a stairwell that leads from the lower flat to the upper flat where the P and his friend are playing with a gun. During this, the railing P is leaning on breaks loose causing P to fall and be injured. Liability. P, while an licensee of the tenants, is an invitee of D. Benefit to D if P is there—having guests over encourages renters to rent. Thus, D owed a duty to protect against defects in the property.
...
YBARRA V SPANGARD (704)P is under Ds care for an appendectomy. Following the surgery he has pain in his arm that persists for some time until it atrophies. It is unknown what the cause is but P believes it is the result of negligence on part of D.Liability. Res Ipsa applies to cases like the one at bar. If it did not P would never be able to recover unless D voluntarily admitted to the negligence. Furtherore, the court holds that exclusive control can be excepted in certain cases and replaced by right of control
...
YU FANG TAN V ARNEL MANAGEMENT CO [405] -P lives at Ds apartment complex. His family has one assigned parking spot and can park in any open spot or at the leasing office if they remove the latter before 7am. P decides to park his second care in the leasing office lot when he is accosted by a carjacker and shot in the neck rendering his paraplegic. Liability. The precautions vouched for are minimally burdensome and the 3 cases discussed give rise to a certain level of foreseeability.
...
Yukon Equipment, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (Alaska 1978) (third parties blew up defendant's explosives dump, and concussions damaged plaintiffs' nearby homes—liability)............................................................................................ 80 Strict Liability Ds magazine storage exploded by 3rd party Had been robbed several times prior Explosives create unusual risk for others D from Rickards—mutual benefit
...
ZABUNOFF V WALKER - D is driving and was able to look one way for approaching traffic but sneezed before being able to look the other way. P unknowingly keeps driving and hits D. No liability. The sneeze is a reflex that no reasonable person would foresee. This is an intervening cause similar to a fainting spell.
...
Zelenko v Gimbel Bros [228] - P interstate falls ill in Ds store. D while he has no duty, attempts to render medical aid. In doint so, he confines P. She dies. Liability. While he has no general duty, once he assumes a duty, he must render aid as would a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have summoned an ambulance. Ds behavior prevented this aid. Seclusion case.
...
Zepeda v City of Los Angeles [233] - P sues D city for it's paramedics failure to render aid to P's decedent. P was shot and injured. D was summoned to the scene but failed to act. No liability. The paramedics have no duty to P. They cannot negligently perform a duty they have not undertaken. Thus no undertaking or voluntary duty has been assumed.
...
MARKWELL V SWIFT & CO (896)Ds were charged with removing some equipment from a restaurant. In order to accomplish the task they had to remove a pane of glass from a window. P was an employee who was standing outside the restaurant when two passersby caused her to back up into the open window and trip.No liability. The danger is obvious and P clearly knew of the danger.
5
PEASE V SINCLAIR REFINING CO (899)P wrote to Ds oil company responding to its promotional display for teachers. The display contained various bottles, one labeled kerosene. P tried to preserve sodium in the bottle when a great explosion occurred. It turned out that the bottle had colored water in it. Liability. Mislabeling of a product? Analogous to the poison case?
5
b.
Judge-made rules
