TORTS negligence

Lubitz v Weltz

golf club

Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks

frost froze fire plug flooding town

U.S. v Caroll Towing

sinking tow boat

Robert v Louisiana

blind man at consession stand

Robinson v Lindsay

kid in snowmobile

Brunig v Family Ins Co.

women who thought she was batman

Trimarco v Klein

glass shower door

Hodges v Carter

attorney mailing custom to the state standard of care

Boyce v Brown

metal screw in leg

Morrison v Macnamara

pap smear test while standing

Scott v Bradford

did not fully inform patient of everything they needed to know

Osborne v Mcmasters

violated statutory duty by not labeling poisen

Palsgraf v Long Island

unforseeable P not within scope of liabilty

Riss v NY

failure to act wont apply with law enforcement and limited resources

Delong v erie county

911 operator failed to act their duty of taking call proeprly leading to callers death

Daley v Lacroix

when emotional shock is a reasonable reaction within event, D can be liable for P’s distress

Things v La chusa

NIED applied to witnessing incident in person and being a close relative of harm person

Taylor v Olsen

natural occurance on land are unforseeable, and if D has no way of telling if something is in danger of falling, they arent liable even if on their property

Sleven v Wilmington

landowner have a duty to protect traveler outside premises from forseeable danger within their premises

Sheehan v St Paul

RR dont owe duty to trespassers on areas where pedestrians aren’t forseeable

Barmore v Elmore

homeowners owe less duty to licensee of forseeable dangers in their home, licensee take homes as is.

Campbell v Weaters

invitees are still invitees even without purchasing something in store

Whelan v Van Natta

store owners have duty to invitee of potential dangers in store, even if customer is doing something not for the stores benefit, they can still be considered an invitee

Rowland v Christian

licnesee takes home as is and homeowner hold less duty to warn them of hidden dangers

Vaughen v Menlove

everyone is held up the reasonable person standard regardless in intellectual status

Heath v Swift

prefoessional standard everryone is set the same regardless of different training

Summers v Tice

concurrent negligence makes both wrongdoers liable even if only one of them are responble for P’s harm

Atlantic coast Line v Daniels

not liable for a superseding cause

Ryan v New York central

when the causd of multiple damages all come from a domino effects of causation, the remote cause would be party liable for all injuries.

Overseas tankship v Morts Dock

ignited furnance oil was not a forseeable event resulting from P’s negligence so they wouldnt be liable

Barton v Jeckovich

D must take P as is even if it agrivates a pre-existing mental condition

Yun v Ford Motor

if an unforseeable event occur like a person running into highway at night, driver and other defendaants would not be seen liable

Stachniewicz v mar-cam corp

bartender have statutory duty to prevent forseeable dangers, if violated they are liable for negligence per se

byrne v broadle

sometime incidents are unforeseeable, however the fact of matter is that the incident wouldnt have occured without some negligence from D so they can still be found liable

Larson v farncis Hotel

if there is not possibke way for D negligence to cause event, and that the actual D could be anyone, the original D wouldnt be liable

Perkins v texas

if it wasnt for D’s negligent conduct, the resulting incident wouldnt have occured, however if proved that regardless of neg or not the incident would still happen, they arent liable

Hill v Edmonds

concurrent negligence, if both parties were negligence contribute to indicdent, they are both liable regardless of who may be more liable

Doull v Foster

but for test determine that D’s actions caused P’s injuries, if they didn’t commit their conduct, P wouldnt have gotten hurt

Derdian v felix Contracting

a car crashing into worksite would not be considered superseding if D failed to do action to prevent the event from occuring

Watson v Kentucky indiana

criminal conduct is considered forseeable and not a superseding cause