Life of a Law Student » Torts

Torts (Marc) #6: Trespass to Land

Marc — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:03:41 +0000

Trespass to land is the next intentional tort on my agenda and here we see that the intent requirment for an action of trespass to land is less exacting than in the forms of actions previously discussed.

Dougherty v. Stepp
Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.

Torts (Marc) #5: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Marc — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:02:57 +0000

In this episode I discuss a form of action that has been recognized by the courts relatively recently, intentional infliction of emotional distress.

State Rubbsish Collectors Ass’n v. Siliznoff
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida
Harris v. Jones

Torts (Marc) #4: False Imprisonment

Marc — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 07:01:35 +0000

As we have seen intentional torts differ from actions based on negligence in that the plaintiff is not required to show damages. This basis for this distinction is that intentional torts involved the invasion of a inviolable right. False imprisonment address an invasion of one’s freedom to exit a location that has become undesirable.

Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v Newman
Parvi v. City of Kingston
Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing C.
Enright v. Groves
Whittaker v. Sandford

Torts (Marc) #3: Civil Assault and Battery

Marc — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:09:15 +0000

In this episode I examine two related forms of intentional tort, battery and assault, and attempt to illustrate that in the world of civil litigation, the terms assault and battery do not have the same meaning as they do in a criminal context.

Wallace v. Rosen
Fisher v. Carrousel
Western Union Telegraph C. v Hill

Torts (Marc) #2: Intent

Marc — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:08:19 +0000

Before beginning an examination of the specific causes of action for intentional torts, I discuss a number of cases that illustrate the two prong test that civil courts have adopted in determining if conduct can be considered intentional under tort law.

Garrat v. Daily
Spivey v. Battaglia
Ranson v. Kitner
McGuire v. Almy
Talmage v. Smith

Torts (Marc) #1: Liability Based on Fault

Neil — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 01:07:35 +0000

Modern tort law recognizes three bases for finding liability: intentional conduct, negligence and strict liability. In this episode I provide a brief overview of how this framework developed and evolved in our legal system.

Weaver v. Ward
Brown v. Kendall
Cohen v. Petty
Spano v. Perini Corp.

Torts #54: Defenses to Intentional Torts

Neil — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:02:00 +0000

Just because you have committed an intentional tort doesn’t mean that you are going to be found liable. There are several affirmative defenses to an intentional tort, and we will look at consent and self-defense / defense of property.

O’Brien v. Cunard SS Co.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
Mohr v. Williams
Katko v. Briney

Torts #53: Trespass to Land or Chattels / Conversion

Neil — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0000

Trespass to land is entering onto someone’s property without permission. Trespass to chattels is temporary or partial interference with someone’s ownership of movable property. Conversion is the complete interference or destruction of movable property. We will look at these torts with specific cases.

Dougherty v. Stepp
CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.
Parish v. Machlan

Torts #52: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Neil — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:56:00 +0000

Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a relatively new tort. Springing about from assault, it allows recovery for activity that is intentional and beyond all bounds of decency.

State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siiznoff
Green v. Chicago Tribune

Torts #51: False Imprisonment

Neil — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:54:00 +0000

False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual against their will. We will discuss this relatively straightforward tort in this episode.

Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman
Hardy v. Labelle’s Distributing Co.
Whittaker v. Sandford

Torts #50: Assault

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:47:42 +0000

Assault is distinct from battery, as the former does not require physical contact. We’ll look at some cases to familiarize ourselves with the elements of a civil assault.

I de S et ux v. W de S
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill

Torts #49: Battery

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:46:09 +0000

Battery is perhaps the simplest intentional tort, but still has its share of complexity. We will discuss the elements of battery, the distinction between single intent and dual intent requirements, and how mentally ill defendants are treated in regards to battery.

Wallace v. Rosen
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications
Manning v. Grimsley
McGuire v. Almy
White v. Muniz

Torts #48: Introduction to Intentional Torts

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:44:57 +0000

We now move from negligence to the study of intentional torts. These intentional torts make up approximately 5% of tort actions today, and comprise assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. We will also discuss the concept of transferred intent.

Ranson v. Kitner

Torts #47: Statute of Limitations

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:26:09 +0000

A statute of limitations (and its cousin the statute of repose) serve to put a time limit on when a tort action can be brought. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the merits of an individual lawsuit become irrelevant.

Teeters v. Currey

Torts #46: Privileges and Immunities

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:24:00 +0000

Certain types of actors are granted legal immunity from torts. For example, children generally cannot sue their parents, and sovereign immunity is often used by the state. We will examine these privileges and immunities, and see how they have evolved over the years.

Torts #45: Defenses

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:23:04 +0000

Just because a defendant has fulfilled the black-letter law elements of the tort doesn’t mean that they will have to pay out. Assumption of the risk and the open and obvious doctrine can provide relief to such a defendant.

Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.
Thompson v. McNeill
Rees v. Cleveland Indians
Armstrong v. Best Buy

Torts #44: Comparative Negligence

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:22:59 +0000

The historic common law rule was that any negligence on the part of the plaintiff will operate as an absolute bar to recovery. This was the doctrine of contributory negligence. That rule has given way to the more forgiving doctrine of comparative negligence.

Butterfield v. Forrestor
McIntyre v. Balentine

Torts #43: Landlords and Tenants II

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:21:19 +0000

We continue to see the landlord-tenant relationship evolve. A pair of Ohio cases once again show the softening of deference, and a DC case will concern itself with landlord liability for foreseeable criminal acts.

Thrash v. Hill
Shroades v. Rental Homes
Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apartment Corp

Torts #42: Landlords and Tenants I

Neil — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:20:55 +0000

The common law has historically given great deference to landlords in relation to injuries sustained by their tenants. We will see that deference highlighted in the first case, and see the deference be questioned by the second case.

Borders v. Roseberry
Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America

Torts #41: Trespassing Children

Neil — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:17:30 +0000

Children are special, and not just in the “let me pinch your cheeks way.” The law imposes a higher duty on landowners in regards to trespassing children. We’ll look at what has been called the “attractive nuisance” doctrine, as well as see it applied to two cases involving swimming pools. We’ll also look at privileged individuals (ie police or letter carriers) and what duties they receive in Ohio.

Elliot v. Nagy
Bennet v. Stanley

Torts #40: Licensees and Invitees

Neil — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:15:34 +0000

Licensees and invitees are owed elevated duties. What are those duties, and under what circumstances can you flip one status to another?

Balmore v. Elmore
Campbell v. Weathers
Whelan v. Van Natta

Torts #39: Trespassers

Neil — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:13:49 +0000

Generally a trespasser is owed practically no duty by a possessor of land. That duty is slightly elevated if the trespassers in question are frequent and tolerated by the landowner. We’ll see how this plays out for two trespassers, one from 1896 and the other from 2005.

Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth RR Co.
Humphrey v. Glenn

Torts #38: Intro to Property Duties

Neil — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 00:09:00 +0000

The law has traditionally given significant deference to property owners, not requiring much of a duty towards those that are on their land. What duties are required, and how are those duties determined? This episode will begin our several episode discussion of property-based duties.

Taylor v. Olsen
Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc.

Torts #37: Bystanders

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:56:00 +0000

What duty is owed to bystanders? Or better said, under what circumstances can a bystander to the “main negligence” recover for their own emotional pain from witnessing the accident?

Thing v. LaChusa (no link available)
Dillon v. Legg
Graves v. Estabrook

Torts #36: Purely Emotional Damages

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:52:00 +0000

Can you recover for purely emotional damages? The answer is increasingly becoming “yes.” We will examine the history of purely emotional damages, and see the transformation of the impact rule along the way.

Daley v. LaCroix (no link available)

Torts #35: Duty to Act, Warn, or Protect II

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:46:00 +0000

We continue our discussion of the duty to act, warn, or protect another from a third party by examining two cases involving bars.

Rhudy v. Bottlecaps (PDF)
Delgado v. Trax Bar and Grill (no link available)

Torts #34: Duty to Act, Warn, or Protect I

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:30:00 +0000

Generally the common law will assign no duty to act, warn, or protect others from the conduct of a third party. However, the law has carved out some exceptions based on “special relationships.” One such special relationship is between a psychiatrist and her patient. We will examine that duty with a case that has been called “the Palsgraf of its generation.”

Hegel v. Langsam (no link available)
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

Torts #33: Public Policy and Pre-Conception Duties

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:20:00 +0000

We return to the DES daughters to examine what public policy considerations play into pre-conception duties. This case serves as a good overview of conflicting public policies as well as the hesistancy of the judiciary in general to rule on questions of when life (and hence legal duty) begins.

Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co. (no link available)

Torts #32: Alcoholic Duties

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:13:00 +0000

The law is a lot like relationships: once you add alcohol things can get weird. We’ll look at the duties imposed on social hosts who serve alcohol to their tortfeasing guests.

Kelly v. Gwinnell (no link available)
Hanley v. Wertz (no link available)

Torts #31: Take a Plaintiff As You Find Them

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 07:05:00 +0000

As an example of the subjective nature of damages, we will examine a case involving minor whiplash that turned into an acute psychotic breakdown. And yes, recovery was allowed.

Bartolone v. Jeckovich (no link available)

Torts #30: Damages Overview

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:46:00 +0000

Damages are how the legal system attempts to make whole one who has been the victim of negligence. This making whole is executed by taking large sums of money from the defendant and giving it to the plaintiff. To paraphrase Churchill, it’s the worst recovery system out there, except for all the others.

Torts #29: Rescue and Rescuers II

Neil — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:32:00 +0000

We continue our discussion of rescuers and the rescue doctrine in this episode.

McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp. (no link available)

Torts #28: Rescue and Rescuers I

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 06:16:00 +0000

A tortfeasor is negligent, and someone is put in harm’s way as a result. What happens if a rescuer is damaged as they try to extricate that person from (further) harm? The illustrious Judge Cardozo tells us the state of the law.

Arthur Wagner v. International Railway Company (scroll down past questions)

Torts #27: Subsequent Criminal Acts

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:25:00 +0000

We’ve discussed subsequent acts, and whether or not they are simply “intervening” or cut off liability as “superceding.” But when the subsequent acts are criminal? We will look at several examples in this episode.

Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & RR Co. (no link available)

Torts #26: Acts of God

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:46:00 +0000

In this episode we will examine Acts of God, and how they play into our discussion of intervening and superceding acts.

Torts #25: Intervening and Superseding Causes

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:42:00 +0000

Our first actor acts negligently, but before damage occurs a second unrelated tortfeasor also acts negligently. Do we cut off liability for our first tortfeasor, or are both liable?

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. (no link available)

Torts #24: The Palsgraf Case

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:31:00 +0000

We now turn to perhaps the most famous tort case of all time: Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Co. Judge Cardozo writes the majority opinion in an inordinately cited 4-3 decision.

Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Co.

Torts #23: Proximate Cause II

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:30:24 +0000

We continue our discussion of proximate cause, now focusing on the direct test.

Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd. (”Wagon Mound No. 1″) (no link available)

Torts #22: Proximate Cause I

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:21:00 +0000

Proximate cause is perhaps THE issue of contention within tort cases. How attenuated do breach and damages have to be before we cut off liability? The general tests that courts will use are directness and forseeability, with this episode focusing on the latter.

Ryan v. NY Central RR Co. (no link available)
In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd. (no link available)

Torts #21: The DES Market-Share Liability Case

Neil — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 04:06:00 +0000

A mother takes a pill during pregnancy that causes cancer to develop years later in her daughter. The mother knows the drug formulation, but not the manufacturer. Can the daughter recover? If so, how?

Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories

Torts #20: More Causation, Apportioning Damages

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:11:09 +0000

We continue our discussion of causation in general, and transition into alternative theories of liability. Along the way, we begin to look at how mulitple tortfeasors, who might have varying degrees of culpability for an incident, are held financially liable for a judgment.

Hill v. Edmonds (no link available)
Summers v. Tice (no link available)
Hall v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. (no link available)

Torts #19: Cause in Fact, Substantial Factors

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:03:39 +0000

We continue our exploration into causation by exploring two cases. The first highlights the need to ensure that your medical expert knows that “probability” is required for causation, not a string of words that can be interpeted as less than probability. The second is set in a dark and stormy night, which is a perfect setting for concurrent tortfeasors to go drag racing.

Shumaker v. Cannon & Sons, Inc. (no link available)
Bierczynski v. Rogers (no link available)

Torts #18: Intro to Causation

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:55:33 +0000

The four essential elements of a tort are 1) duty 2) breach 3) causation 4) damages. We will begin to focus on how we determine the third element when the fact pattern is not nice and neat.

Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Ry. Co (no link available)
Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch, Inc. (no link available)
Kramer Service. Inc. v. Wilkins (no link available)

Torts #17: Res Ipsa Loquitur Wrap-Up

Neil — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:12:15 +0000

Chairs falling out of the sky and random unexplained medical injuries are fodder for res ipsa loquitor. We’ll see whether or not these plaintiffs were successful as we finish up our discussion of the doctrine.

Larson v. St. Francis Hotel (no link available)
Ybarra v. Spangard (no link available)

Torts #16: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Neil — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:37:57 +0000

A barrel falls out of the sky and hits you in the head. Can you recover with no additional evidence whatsoever? The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor says that you can. We’ll begin looking at this very narrow doctrine that serves as the ultimate plaintiff’s shortcut.

Byrne v. Boadle (no link available)

Torts #15: Slip and Fall Wrap-up

Neil — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 06:12:00 +0000

In this episode we wrap-up our collection of slip and fall cases.

Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. (no link available)
Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (no link available)
Jasko v. F.S. Woolworth Co. (no link available)
H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Resendez (no link available)

Torts #14: Customary Duties, Slip and Fall

Neil — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 05:54:33 +0000

What can we infer from the customary actions of certain professionals? What would our ordinary person of reasonable prudence do in the light of these? We also begin looking at slip and fall cases, including more than one banana.

Trimarco v. Klein (no link available)
Lipman v. Super-X Drug Corp. (no link available)
Goddard v. Boston and Maine RR Co. (no link available)
Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. (no link available)

Torts #13: More on Statutory Duties

Neil — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 04:19:15 +0000

We continue our discussion on determing common law duties from satute. In doing so, we examine a case from Texas that turned on the non-reporting of child abuse.

Martin v. Herzog (no link available)
Perry v. S.N. and S.N.

Torts #12: Tort Reform and Statutory Duties

Neil — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 04:07:28 +0000

We close out our examination of medical cases by considering the issue of tort reform and how the state of Ohio has handled that subject. We then transition into the rules for applying statutes as common law duties.

Osborne v. McMasters (no link available)

Torts #11: Moore v. Regents of University of California

Neil — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 03:57:38 +0000

In an incredibly interesting case, a man sues his doctor for removing his spleen and undertaking extensive research on it that is eventually strongly monetized. Theories of recovery are conversion, lack of informed consent, and breach of fudiciary trust.

Moore v. Regents of University of California

Torts #10: Local Medical Standards and Informed Consent

Neil — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 04:31:35 +0000

In this episode we determine whether a local or national standard of care applies to health care professionals. We also define and examine what exactly “informed consent” is.

Morrison v. MacNamara (link unavailable)
Scott v. Bradford (link unavailable)

Torts #9: Professional Negligence and Medical Malpractice

Neil — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 04:20:42 +0000

Doctors, lawyers, and engineers are held to a different standard of care as professionals than laypeople are. What are those standards? What do we do when those standards are breached (especially in a medical malpractice sense)?

Boyce v. Brown (link unavailable)

Torts #8: Negligence and Liability of Children

Neil — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 04:12:03 +0000

What happens when a child commits a tort? We will answer that question as to the standard of negligence and whether the child’s parents can be held liable.

Robinson v. Lindsay (link unavailable)