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;
38 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Vosburg v. Putney
|
a. The Story
i. The Kick b. Battery > Intended Contact |
|
|
Garratt v. Dailey
|
a. The Story
i. The Chair b. Battery > Intended Contact |
|
|
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel
|
a. The Story
i. Plate was snatched from Black Man b. Battery > Harmful or Offensive |
|
|
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.
|
a. The Story
i. Smoking in Glass Cage b. Battery > Harmful or Offensive |
|
|
O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship Co.
|
a. The Story
i. Vaccine to Immigrant b. Battery > Privileges |
|
|
Barton v. Bee Line, Inc.
|
a. The Story
i. Young Girl has sex with driver b. Battery > Privileges > Consent > Age of Consent |
|
|
Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital
|
a. The Story
i. Surgery on bladder and cut spermatic cord) b. Battery > Privileges > Consent >Informed Consent |
|
|
Kennedy v. Parrott
|
a. The Story
i. Cysts on ovaries b. Battery > Privilegs > Consent > Informed Consent |
|
|
Hackbart v. Cincinati Bengals, Inc.
|
a. The Story
i. Football kick in the head b. Battery > Privileges > Non-Consent > Assumption of Risk |
|
|
State Farm Fire v. SS & GW
|
a. The Story
i. Guy Gives Girl a VD b. Battery > Exception > Fraud or Duress |
|
|
Courvoisier v. Raymond
|
a. The Story
i. Mistaken Identity of Cop b. Battery > Exception > Defenses > Self Defense |
|
|
Katko v. Briney
|
a. The Story
i. Springloaded Shotgun b. Battery > Exception > Defenses > Defense of Property |
|
|
Ploof v Putnam
|
a. The Story
i. Storm, Poor folks, dock b. Battery > Privileges > Exception > Defenses > Necessity c. Battery > Privileges > Non –Consent > Emergency or Necessity |
|
|
Vincent v. Lake Erie
|
a. The Story
i. Boat Captain leaves Boat tied to dock b. Battery > Exception > Defenses > Necessity > Private |
|
|
Reed v. Coker
|
a. The Story
i. Man is circled by a group of men who were going to fight him b. Assault |
|
|
Beach v. Hancock
|
a. The Story
i. Unloaded Gun Snapped in His Face b. Assault |
|
|
Hoyt v. Jeffers
|
a. The Story
i. The Mill sets the hotel on fire ii. Couldn’t be proven but there were holes in shirts due to the amber b. The Rule i. It doesn’t have to be proven to a scientific certainty ii. Post hoc ergo propter hoc – after the thing, therefore because of the thing (not sufficient reasoning) c. Negligence > Elements > Actual Causation |
|
|
Smith v. Rapid Transit Inc.
|
a. The Story
i. Lady swerves into a car to avoid a bus b. The Rule i. statistical evidence alone is insufficient to avoid a motion for directed verdict and necessarily a motion for a summary judgment c. Negligence > Elements > Actual Causation |
|
|
Summers v. Tice
|
a. The Story
i. Hunting accident. Man gets shot in the eye by one person but two could have shot the defendant ii. Joint and Severally Liable iii. They are Joint Defendants but not Joint Tortfeasors b. The Rule i. We don’t know which one caused the harm but they were both negligent therefore they both pay. ii. Two of them are negligent in firing in the direction of a third person who is injured thereby, both of those so firing are liable for the injury suffered by the third person, although the negligence of only one of them could have caused the injury. iii. Where two hunters are negligent in firing in the direction of a third hunter who is injured thereby, but who is unable to establish which of the other two caused the harm, the burden is on each of those so firing to absolve himself if he can. iv. If two hunters are negligent and liable as independent tort feasors for firing in the direction of a third hunter who is injured thereby, the innocent wronged hunter should not be deprived of his right to redress where the matter of apportionment of damages is incapable of proof. The wrongdoers should be left to work out between themselves any apportionment. c. Negligence > Elements > Actual Causation |
|
|
Ybarra v Spangard
|
a. The Story
i. Plaintiff goes to the hospital for an appendix to be removed and comes out with a jacked up arm. b. The Rule i. ii. Neither the number nor relationship of defendants alone determines whether doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies. c. Negligence > Elements > Actual Causation |
|
|
Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.
|
a. The Story
i. The kid falling off a bridge grabs a wire. The wire kills him but he would have dies from the bridge fall anyways b. The Rule i. A P will not recover when there is an intervening cause ii. D is only liable for what P would have lost (in this case, a seriously injured child) c. Negligence > Elements > Actual Causation |
|
|
Kingston v. Chicago & NW Ry.
|
a. The Story
i. Two separate fires started indepdenalty. ii. Both fires were started negligently. iii. Only one of the starters are known, therefore that one must pay for all damager b. The Rule i. Had the second fire been started by an act of god, the D would be off the hook ii. Each fire is responsible for all of the destruction iii. Each tort-feasor is responsible for entire damage from concurring acts of negligence. iv. Each wrongdoer is responsible for entire damage where separate acts of negligence concur in producing injury and either would produce it alone. v. c. Negligence > Elements > Actual Causation |
|
|
Brown v. Kendall
|
a. The Story
i. Dogs and stick b. The Rule i. Classic: P can recover only if P is not negligent and D is negligent… otherwise P cannot recover c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Reasonable Person d. Negligence > Defenses > Contributory Negligence |
|
|
United States v. Carroll Towing Co.
|
a. The Story
i. Captain Left for a long time (B < PL ) b. The Rule i. B=Burden; L=Liability; P=Probability; ii. If B > L * P - Unreasonableness iii. If B < L * P - Negligence c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Reasonable Person |
|
|
Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.
|
a. The Story
i. Radio Station Contest b. The Rule i. All people use ordinary care when foreseeable risk exists it establishes an element of duty c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Reasonable Person d. Negligence > Elements > Causation > Foreseeability |
|
|
Martin v. Herzog
|
a. The Story
i. Buggy with no lights, no recovery because they didn’t have lights b. The Rule i. Negligence Per Se has 2 different views which depends on the jurisdiction 1. View 1: Violation of Statute = Negligence 2. View 2: Violation of Statute = Negligence is evidence ii. It establishes Negligence iii. It shows evidence of Negligence c. Negligence > Defenses > Contributory Negligence d. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Negligence per Se |
|
|
Tedla v. Ellman
|
a. The Story
i. Dead Deaf Mute, recovered even though they broke the statute ii. Consider reasonableness of statute violation b. The Rule i. Court will enfoce statute where folloing it would cause harm c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Negligence per Se d. Negligence > Defenses > Contributory Negligence e. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Reasonable Person |
|
|
Brown v. Shyne
|
a. The Story
i. Chiropractor is not licensed and injures a person… but his actions didn’t cause the injury so there is no recovery. ii. Dissent says: Statute’s purpose was to protect this event from happening iii. Opinion: Violation of statute must be what leads to the injury b. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Negligence Per Se |
|
|
Trimarco v. Klein
|
a. The Story
i. Glass shower door shattered b. The Rule i. Custom is standard unless its not reasonable, then the court sets the standard c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Professional |
|
|
Helling v. Carey
|
a. The Story
i. Eye doctor didn’t do a pressure test for glaucoma. She got glaucoma and did recover b. The Rule i. Custom is standard unless its not reasonable, then the court sets the standard c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Standard of Care > Professional |
|
|
Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Ass’n
|
a. The Story
i. Bleachers fall, lady gets hurt. It was the school’s responsibility to maintain the bleacher. b. The Rule i. Res Ipsa is used when the P can’t show a link between the D and the injury ii. To use Res Ipsa, the D must have exclusive control iii. To use Res Ipsa, the P must prove that the occurance would not have happened if D used ordinary care c. Negligence > Exceptions > Res Ipsa Loquitur |
|
|
Shutt v. Kaufman’s, Inc.
|
a. The Story
i. Shoe rack falls and hits a guy on the head. They said he had a good negligence case but sued on Res Ipsa Loquitur. b. The Rule i. Res Ipsa is used when the P can’t show a link between the D and the injury ii. To use Res Ipsa, the D must have exclusive control iii. To use Res Ipsa, the P must prove that the occurance would not have happened if D used ordinary care c. Negligence > Exceptions > Res Ipsa Loquitur |
|
|
City of Louisville v. Humphrey
|
a. The Story
i. Guy is thrown in the drunk tank and dies in the city. No recovery. b. The Rule i. Res Ipsa is used when the P can’t show a link between the D and the injury ii. To use Res Ipsa, the D must have exclusive control iii. To use Res Ipsa, the P must prove that the occurance would not have happened if D used ordinary care c. Negligence > Exceptions > Res Ipsa Loquitur |
|
|
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
|
a. The story
i. Coca-Cola Blttle Breaks in ladies hand. She did recover. b. The Rule i. Res Ipsa is used when the P can’t show a link between the D and the injury ii. To use Res Ipsa, the D must have exclusive control iii. To use Res Ipsa, the P must prove that the occurance would not have happened if D used ordinary care c. Negligence > Exceptions > Res Ipsa Loquitur |
|
|
Rowland v. Christian
|
a. The Story
i. A guest of the rentee is injured when bath room faucet handle breaks… he sues owner and does not recover ii. D is liable if he knows of danger b. The Rule i. There is a duty to warn Licensees and Invitees of danger ii. Knowledge of harm creats duty for invitees and licensees c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Licensees |
|
|
Errie R. Co. v Stewart
|
a. The Story
i. Man is hit by a train due to his reliance on a railroad man b. The Rule i. Can’t terminate a gratuitous service if others rely on that service c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Absence of Duty to Rescue |
|
|
Tubbs v. Argus
|
a. The Story
i. Car runs into the tree and man fleas when the passenger gets injured b. The Rule i. No duty created unless there is a special relationship ii. Since he caused the harm, he owes the girl a duty to rescue. iii. If the actor knows that by his conduct, whether tortuous or innocent, he has caused such bodily harm to another as to make him helpless, he is under a duty to exercise reasonable care. c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Absence of Duty to Rescue |
|
|
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of Califronia
|
a. The Story
i. The patient threatens the life of his girlfriend, doctor notifies police but not parents of girl threatened b. The Rule i. Foreseeability of harm creates duty if there is a special relationship c. Negligence > Elements > Duty > Absence of Duty to Rescue > Foreseeability of harm creates duty |
