Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
44 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daniels
|
Addressing the need for a proximate cause standard
|
|
|
Ryan v. New York Central R.R. Co.
|
∆ neg’ly started fire to their own woodshed - spread to multiple houses, including π’s - 130 feet away.
|
|
|
Bartolone v. Jeckovich
|
∆ neg’ly caused auto accident. Afterwards, π’s preexisting “paranoid schizophrenic condition” is aggravated.
|
|
|
In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd.
|
∆’s employee neg’ly kocked a heavy plank onto a ship’s cargo of pertol, causing the ship’s explosion.
|
|
|
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (“Wagon Mound No. 1”)
|
∆’s ship spilled oil into Syndey harbor and onto π’s wharf. After a fire, the spilled oil cause serious damage to the wharf.
|
|
|
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. (“Wagon Mound No. 2”)
|
Same facts as previous case on the grounds of nuisance and negligence by owners of ships which were docked on the wharf.
|
|
|
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
|
2 railway workers pushed a man into a buggy to help prevent him from falling. He was carrying a package (unknown by appearance) of fireworks, which went off and injured π on other end of platform.
|
|
|
Yun v. Ford Motor Co.
|
After spare tire fell off his van, a man got out to retrieve, and while crossing a busy road was hit an killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
|
At a construction cite, a driver had an epileptic seizure and hit a worker (π) who was splattered with 400 degree liquid
|
|
|
Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. Co.
|
∆ railroad negligently spilled gas onto the roadway. A third party either accidentally or maliciously lit a match which ignited it and caused injury to the π. Criminal Conduct and the Causal Connection.
|
|
|
Fuller v. Preis
|
π’s decedent committed suicide following months of insanity brought on by an automobile accident where his head was injured.
|
|
|
McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
|
π rescues car who swerved off the road, and while redirecting traffic was struck and injured. Many ∆s, including Suzuki, who made the car which originally swerved off.
|
|
|
Kelly v. Gwinell
|
∆ neg'ly served more alchohol to a guest who was already drunk. Guest gets in accident and π sues the host.
|
|
|
Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.
|
π's mother took drugs during her pregnancy and π's child is born w/ birth defect. π sues drug manufactor.
|
|
|
Winterbottom v. Wright
|
∆, a maufacturer and repairer of mail coaches contracts w/ the Postmaster General to keep coaches safe, which he fails to do. A driver (π) is injured when a vehicle broke down due to lack of repair. [H:∆].
|
|
|
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
|
Buick (∆) sells car to dealer. Dealer sells car to customer (π). Customer suffers injury because of a car defect that could have been detected by Buick's reasonable inspection.
|
|
|
H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.
|
π sues defendant, a water works company, for its failure to supply adequate water to stop a fire from spreading to his warehouse. ∆ had a contract with the city to supply water.
|
|
|
Clagett v. Dacy
|
-
|
|
|
Hegel v. Langsam
|
University (∆) is accused of allowing student to "become associated w/ criminals, to be seduced, and to become a drug user."
|
|
|
L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks
|
π (6 yr. old boy) gets fingers caught in ∆'s escalator. His injuries were exacerbated due to ∆'s slow reaction to stop the escalator.
|
|
|
J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H.
|
Defendant's husband sexually abused the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that the defendant should have known of her husband's actions and was negligent by not preventing him.
|
|
|
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daniels
|
Because cause and effect can trace so far back (even to the offending party’s birth), there must be another standard: the courts ask: “was the wrongful act the proximate cause?”
|
|
|
Ryan v. New York Central R.R. Co.
|
A negligent actor “is liable in damages for the proximate results of his own acts, but not for remote damages.” MIN - The first-building test; MAJ - A more substantial distance
|
|
|
Bartolone v. Jeckovich
|
“A ∆ must take a π as he finds him and hence may be held liable in damages for aggravation of a pre-existing illness.” MIN - only pre-existing physical conditions; MAJ - also pre-existing emotional and/or mental conditions - The Thin-Skulled π Rule
|
|
|
In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd.
|
An actor is liable for his negligent acts, even if the damage caused “is not the exact kind of damage one would expect.” Direct Causation Rule
|
|
|
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd. (“Wagon Mound No. 1”)
|
“The area within which liability is imposed is that which is within the circle of reasonable foreseeability.” (fn #1)
|
|
|
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co. (“Wagon Mound No. 2”)
|
The burden of eliminating risks is a factor when a court determines foreseeability and by extension liability.
|
|
|
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.
|
Unless it’s a inherently dangerous activity, a duty of care is owed to foreseeable plaintiffs. "The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” *The dissent would have a much broader view of the duty - proximate cause should extend to more people despite lack of foreseeability.
|
|
|
Yun v. Ford Motor Co.
|
1) Prox. Cause must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. 2) If reasonable ppl could differ as to whether it was proximate, it should go to the jury
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
|
A intervening act by a third party doesn’t always break the casual connection. If ∆’s negligence could still be foreseeably hazardous, and something does happen, ∆ could still be liable.
|
|
|
Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. Co.
|
If [an] intervening agency is something so unexpected or extraordinary as that he could not or ought not to have anticipated it, he will not be liable, and certainly he is not bound to anticipate the criminal acts of others by which damage is inflicted and hence is not liable therefor." Criminal Conduct does not automatically interrupt a causal link, but it will make it “more likely to be considered independent.”
|
|
|
Fuller v. Preis
|
"[S]uicide, as a matter of law, is not a superseding cause in negligence law precluding liability”
|
|
|
McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
|
“Rescuers should not be barred from bringing suit for knowlingly placing themselves in danger to undertake a rescue.” “The Rescue Doctrine allows a injured rescuer to sue the party which caused the danger requiring the rescue in the first place.”
|
|
|
Kelly v. Gwinell
|
Social Policies are considered when determining proximate cause
|
|
|
Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.
|
The victim of ∆'s neg'nce can't be too far removed. A drug manufactor can only be liable to the person taking the drug.
|
|
|
Winterbottom v. Wright
|
A party of a contract can only be held liable in tort law to other parties in the same contracts, and not third parties.
|
|
|
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
|
Manufacturer negligence liability is based on three elements: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 1) THING OF DANGER. If to the element of danger there is added 2) KNOWLEDGE THAT THE THING WILL BE USED BY PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PURCHASER, and used 3) WITHOUT NEW TESTS, then, irrespective of contract, the manufacturer of this thing of danger is under a duty to make it carefully."
|
|
|
H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.
|
"A member of the public may not maintain an action [for breach of contract]... against one contracting with the city ... unless the intention appears that the promisor is to be answerable to indvidual members of the public..." A duty of care is not owed to the public by the promisor that contracts with a city to supply water; failure to supply adequate water is merely a denial of a benefit.
|
|
|
Clagett v. Dacy
|
An attorney's duty extends only to his clients, and not third parties.
|
|
|
Hegel v. Langsam
|
A university is not a nursery, a boarding school, or a prison. It will not be held liable for the bad choices made by it's students.
|
|
|
L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks
|
There is typically no legal duty to assist others in peril. But, "[t]here may be a legal obligation to take positive or affirmative steps to effect the rescue of a person who is helpless or in a situation of peril, when the one proceeded against is a master or invitor, or when the injury resulted from use of an instrumentality under the control of the defendant."
|
|
|
J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H.
|
"Foreseeability as a component of a duty to exercise due care is based on the defendant's knowledge of the risk of injury and is susceptible to objective analysis. That knowledge may be an actual awareness of risk. Such knowledge may also be constructive; the defendant may be charged with knowledge if she is 'in a position' to 'discover the risk of harm.'"
|
