Torts
Archived Posts from this Category
Torts #50: Assault Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:47 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:46 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:44 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:26 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:24 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:23 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:22 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:21 am
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 Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:20 am
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 Sunday, Nov 27 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:17 pm
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