torts flashcards for cases

cases as of after 9/21 class.

Brown v. Kendall (1850) - Supreme Judicial Court of Mass.

A landmark case establishing the standard of care in negligence. The court ruled that a defendant is not liable for accidental injury if they acted as a reasonable person would under the circumstances. Established that the burden of proof for negligence or carelessness is on the Plaintiff. Dog and Stick

Cohen v. Petty (1933) - Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia

Cohen sisters flew out of the roof of a car when Petty fainted at the wheel. The court held that a driver is not liable for injuries caused by sudden medical emergencies that are unforeseeable. Damages cannot be awarded if the action was not unlawful.

Spano v. Perini Corp (1969) - Court of Appeals of New York

A case regarding blasting in an urban area and strict liability. Liability is taken on by the blasting company regardless of negligence if the damage crosses over someone’s property.

Garratt v. Dailey (1955) - Supreme Court of Washington

The defendant was a child that pulled a chair out from an elderly woman and caused her to fracture her hip. The court ruled that children can still be help liable like any other person. Wrongful act = battery + intent or substantial certainty. The dismissal was reversed and the trial remanded.

Wagner v. State (2005) - Supreme Court of Utah

A mentally disabled person attacked Wagner in the grocery store and the Wagners filed against the state for negligence by the state employees accompanying the person. The court ruled that intent does not need to be present for a battery tort only deliberate contact that is harmful or offensive. Tort battery = deliberate contact + harmful or offensive. The court ruled in favor of the state because the mentally disabled person did not have the capacity for intent, but still caused deliberate harm and contact.

McGuire v. Almy (1937) - Supreme Judicial Court of Mass

Talmage v. Smith (1894) - Supreme Court of Michigan

Ranson v. Kitner (1889) - Appellate Court of Illinois

Wallace v. Rosen (2002) - Court of Appeals of Indiana

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc. (1967) Supreme Court of Texas

In this case, Fisher (P), while in line at a buffet luncheon, had his plate snatched from his hands by an employee of the Carrousel Motor Hotel (D), who shouted at him that he will not serve a black man. Fisher was not injured through the incident but was heavily offended and sued for damages for battery. The issue here was whether someone can recover for battery without physical contact, only contact with something in plaintiff’s hand. Here, the court held for the plaintiff, reversing the trial and appellate courts decisions, as battery involves an offense to the person's dignity, not just a physical injury; an unpermitted contact with something closely identified with the body, may be just as offensive as an unpermitted contact with the person.

I de S. and Wife v. W. de S. (1348) (England)

In this case, W (D) was striking the door of I’s tavern, and when I’s wife stuck her head out the window to tell him to stop, he struck at her with a hatchet, but missed her. The issue for the court to decide was whether an act that causes an apprehension of harm, without harm, constitutes assault, and if plaintiff may recover damages when there was no physical harm. This was a landmark case that held for the plaintiffs, and was one of the earliest decisions to recognize mental injury and the need to compensate for such. The holding set the precedent that: an act that causes another to be fearful of a harmful or offensive contact is known as an assault, and the plaintiff may recover damages, physical contact or harm is not required to recover damages for a tort of assault.

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill (1933) Court of Appeals of Alabama

In this case, Mrs. Hill went to get her clock repaired at Sapp’s work, and Sapp (while intoxicated) said he would fix her clock if she came behind the counter and let him love on her and pet her and then allegedly made a grab for her over a counter. Mrs. Hill jumped back despite evidence finding that the dimensions of which made contact virtually impossible. Sapp was an employee of western union at the time, so the Hills filed an action to recover for assault against Western Union, rather than Sapp specifically, per respondeat superior. The issues for the court were whether assault can be committed when the actor lacks the apparent ability to carry out his threat, and whether WU would be liable if an assault occurred, by Sapp- an employee, while Sapp was managing the WU office and conducting company business. The court found that apparent ability to carry out a threat is necessary for assault, and Sapp did not have that here so there was no assault, and WU would not be liable as Sapp’s conduct served only his personal desires, did not further Western Union’s business, and therefore fell outside the scope of employment.

Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman (1970) Civil Court of Appeals of Texas

FACTS- Newman, 67, was admitted to Big Town Nursing Home by his nephew, who signed papers and paid one month. The agreement said he would not be forced to stay. On September 22, 1968, Newman tried to leave, but staff forced him back, placed him with disoriented and disturbed residents, restrained him in a chair repeatedly, denied him phone and visitors, and held him without legal process until he escaped on November 11. He then sued for false imprisonment and damages.

ISSUE- 1. Did the Trial Court err in holding Big Town Nursing Home liable for the false imprisonment of Mr. Newman when it restrained Mr. Newman for 51 days and refused to let him leave the premises even after Mr. Newman requested to leave?

A. Did Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. commit the tort of false imprisonment against Mr. Newman?

RULE- False imprisonment is the intentional and unlawful restraint of a person that confines them to a bounded area

Parvi v City of Kingston (1977) NY Court of Appeals

FACTS- Responding to a complaint, the police found three men who showed signs of intoxication. The police placed the men in the police car and took them to an abandoned golf course, a place where the police had taken others who were being “run out of town” because they showed signs of intoxication. The police did not arrest the plaintiff or the other men. During the trip to the golf course, the men requested to be released at a designated place. Their request, however, was refused. Within an hour of letting the men out of the police car, the men had wandered 350 feet and onto the New York State Thruway, where Parvi was struck by a car and severely injured.

ISSUE- Did the Appellate court err in affirming the Trial Court’s holding that the Defendant, City of Kingston, did not commit a false imprisonment against Mr. Parvi, when at the time of trial, Mr. Parvi had no actual recollection of his confinement or anything that had happened on the night of his injuries?

A. Did the City of Kingston police commit a false imprisonment of Mr. Parvi when they placed him in the squad car without arresting him and took him to an abandoned golf course to “dry out,” where Parvi wandered on a busy highway and was struck by a car?

RULE- A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case for false imprisonment if they can show intentional confinement without consent and without legal privilege or justification, even if they later have no memory of the confinement.

Hardy v. LaBelle’s Distributing Co. (1983) Supreme Court of Montana

In this case, Hardy (P), a temporary employee of LaBelle's Distributing Co. (LaBelle) (D), was asked by another employee to tour the store. She was then taken to the manager's office where she was allegedly detained and informed that she had been accused of stealing a watch. Hardy (P) denied the accusations and voluntarily underwent a polygraph examination. She passed and was given an apology. She then brought suit for false imprisonment, contending that she had been detained against her will, although at trial, Hardy (P) testified that she voluntarily stayed in the office to attempt to exonerate herself. The jury returned a verdict for LaBelle (D), and Hardy (P) appealed. The issue for this court is whether false imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual against his will, as Hardy claimed happened to her. The court determined that false imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual against his will. Yet, this case, Hardy (P) admitted that she felt restrained from leaving the office, yet would have stayed anyway to exonerate herself. Thus, she was not restrained against her will and was not falsely imprisoned. The lower court’s decision, against Hardy, was affirmed.

Enright v. Groves (1977) Colorado Court of Appeals

State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff (1952) Supreme Court of California

In this case, Siliznoff (D) was not a member of the State Rubbish Collectors Assn. (P), and worked outside of the union, his action prompted the Association (P) to threaten to injure Siliznoff (D), ruin his truck, or destroy his business unless he attended their board meeting and joined the ranks of their membership and paid them dues. After two hours at the board meeting Siliznoff agreed to join the Association and pay for the Acme account, and signed notes indicating such. Siliznoff was so frightened from what occurred during the dispute that he became ill, vomited several times, and missed work for several days. The Association sued Siliznoff to collect on the notes, and Siliznoff filed a counterclaim seeking cancellation of the notes because of duress and lack of consideration. Siliznoff also sued and sought general and punitive damages for the alleged assaults made by the Association. The issue for the court here is whether the evidence submitted by Siliznoff sufficient to establish an assault against his person, and this court used the intensity of the threats by the plaintiff to establish the, new at the time, IIED rule, setting precedent for emotional distress. The court concluded that a cause of action is established when it is shown that one, in the absence of any privilege, intentionally subjects another to the mental suffering incident to serious threats to his physical wellbeing, whether or not the threats are made under such circumstances as to constitute a technical assault.

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida (1958) Supreme Court of Florida

Harris v. Jones

Taylor v. Vallelunga (1959) District Court of Appeals of California