Torts Core cases

Practice identifying the case, its holding/why it was important, and how you would apply it to an exam

Identify the case: A landowner cut thorns, causing a direct intrusion or damage to a neighbor’s land.

The Thorns Case (Hull v. Orange)

What is the principal rule or holding of The Thorns Case (Hull v. Orange)?

Historic trespass discussion emphasized direct harmful intrusion and limited excuses; inevitable accident remained uncertain.

When would you cite The Thorns Case (Hull v. Orange) in a torts exam?

Contrast historical direct-trespass liability with modern negligence; do not claim all accidental injury is strictly actionable.

Identify the case: Trying to separate fighting dogs with a stick, D accidentally injured P’s eye.

Brown v. Kendall

What is the principal rule or holding of Brown v. Kendall?

Accidental injuries are governed by ordinary reasonable care, regardless of old trespass-versus-case pleading categories.

When would you cite Brown v. Kendall in a torts exam?

Apply the ordinary negligence standard and consider P’s own care separately.

Identify the case: A medically cleared driver, seizure-free for years, had an epileptic seizure and crashed into a shop.

Hammontree v. Jenner

What is the principal rule or holding of Hammontree v. Jenner?

The court rejected strict liability for the sudden seizure and applied ordinary negligence.

When would you cite Hammontree v. Jenner in a torts exam?

Ask whether the incapacitating event was foreseeable; recent warnings may change the reasonable-care result.

Identify the case: Despite repeated warnings, D kept a hayrick that caught fire and damaged neighboring property.

Vaughan v. Menlove

What is the principal rule or holding of Vaughan v. Menlove?

Reasonable care is objective, not measured by D’s personal best judgment or intelligence.

When would you cite Vaughan v. Menlove in a torts exam?

Reject “I did my best” defenses where a reasonable person would recognize the danger.

Identify the case: An elderly driver with impaired vision struck a child emerging from behind a buggy.

Roberts v. Ring

What is the principal rule or holding of Roberts v. Ring?

A child’s own care reflects age and experience; the elderly adult driver remains subject to ordinary adult care.

When would you cite Roberts v. Ring in a torts exam?

Apply separate standards to child P and adult D; adult infirmity does not automatically lower the standard.

Identify the case: A minor operating a motorcycle was involved in a collision.

Daniels v. Evans

What is the principal rule or holding of Daniels v. Evans?

A minor undertaking a dangerous, characteristically adult activity is judged by the adult standard.

When would you cite Daniels v. Evans in a torts exam?

Under §10(c), check BOTH dangerousness and whether the activity is characteristically adult.

Identify the case: A blind pedestrian using a cane fell into an inadequately guarded street excavation.

Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen

What is the principal rule or holding of Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen?

Physical disability informs reasonable care: compare the person with a reasonably careful person with that disability.

When would you cite Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen in a torts exam?

Do not demand impossible sight; assess appropriate available precautions and the hazard’s accessibility.

Identify the case: A driver believed divine power controlled her vehicle and crashed during a delusional episode.

Breunig v. American Family Insurance

What is the principal rule or holding of Breunig v. American Family Insurance?

Illustrates a minority exception for a truly unforeseen psychotic break, especially without warning signs.

When would you cite Breunig v. American Family Insurance in a torts exam?

Contrast minority unforeseeable-insanity exception with general §11(c): mental disability usually does not reduce care.

Identify the case: An exceptional frost caused water pipes or plugs to fail, flooding a neighbor.

Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks

What is the principal rule or holding of Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks?

Reasonable care is assessed ex ante; an unprecedented and highly unusual freeze may not be foreseeable.

When would you cite Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks in a torts exam?

Argue that extremely low-probability events need not justify extraordinary precautions.

Identify the case: A man died while trying to save a child from an approaching train.

Eckert v. Long Island Railroad

What is the principal rule or holding of Eckert v. Long Island Railroad?

An urgent rescue attempt is not automatically negligent merely because the rescuer knowingly faced danger.

When would you cite Eckert v. Long Island Railroad in a torts exam?

Evaluate rescue urgency, necessity, and alternatives before calling the rescuer unreasonable.

Identify the case: An electrical-line accident harmed a telephone user; the proposed safety device could endanger people below.

Cooley v. Public Service Co.

What is the principal rule or holding of Cooley v. Public Service Co.?

A precaution may be unreasonable when it reduces one risk but creates a different serious risk.

When would you cite Cooley v. Public Service Co. in a torts exam?

Include countervailing harms in risk-benefit analysis, rather than assuming every safety measure is beneficial.

Identify the case: An unattended barge broke loose during busy harbor maneuvering and caused damage.

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

What is the principal rule or holding of United States v. Carroll Towing Co.?

Hand formula: weigh burden B against probability P multiplied by magnitude of loss L.

When would you cite United States v. Carroll Towing Co. in a torts exam?

Identify a concrete precaution, such as a bargee aboard, and assess the particular time and harbor risks.

Identify the case: Railroad brakeman injured using broad-gauge cars supported on narrow-gauge trucks, a customary practice.

Titus v. Bradford

What is the principal rule or holding of Titus v. Bradford?

Historical court treated customary trade practice as powerful protection against a negligence finding.

When would you cite Titus v. Bradford in a torts exam?

Use as historical custom shield, then contrast §13 and The T.J. Hooper: custom is not conclusive.

Identify the case: A miner fell through a new, unguarded ladder hole in a dark platform.

Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.

What is the principal rule or holding of Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co.?

An employer cannot conclusively defeat negligence by claiming a dangerous practice is customary.

When would you cite Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co. in a torts exam?

Contrast Titus: evident workplace hazards may be unreasonable despite industry practice.

Identify the case: Tugs without receiving radios missed storm warnings and lost their tows.

The T.J. Hooper

What is the principal rule or holding of The T.J. Hooper?

An entire industry can lag behind reasonable safety measures; lack of customary radios did not excuse the omission.

When would you cite The T.J. Hooper in a torts exam?

Use to show custom is evidence, not the final legal standard; contrast Titus.

Identify the case: Ophthalmologists omitted a low-cost glaucoma pressure test because it was not customary for a young patient.

Helling v. Carey

What is the principal rule or holding of Helling v. Carey?

The court imposed liability despite compliance with then-existing professional custom.

When would you cite Helling v. Carey in a torts exam?

Use as an exceptional malpractice-custom limit where an inexpensive test can avert grave injury.

Identify the case: A spinal-surgery patient challenged a doctor’s failure to disclose serious procedure risks.

Canterbury v. Spence

What is the principal rule or holding of Canterbury v. Spence?

Informed consent emphasizes material risks a reasonable patient would need; disclosure breach alone is insufficient without decision causation.

When would you cite Canterbury v. Spence in a torts exam?

Analyze both material disclosure and whether fuller information would have changed the treatment decision.

Identify the case: A buggy without legally required nighttime lamps was involved in a collision.

Martin v. Herzog

What is the principal rule or holding of Martin v. Herzog?

Unexcused violation of a relevant safety statute establishes negligence, though factual causation remains necessary.

When would you cite Martin v. Herzog in a torts exam?

Distinguish breach established by statute from whether the violation caused this accident.

Identify the case: Sheep were washed overboard because pens required by a contagious-disease statute were absent.

Gorris v. Scott

What is the principal rule or holding of Gorris v. Scott?

Statutory negligence requires a protected class and type of accident within the statute’s protective purpose.

When would you cite Gorris v. Scott in a torts exam?

Use both for negligence per se (§14) and scope of liability (§29): drowning is not disease transmission.

Identify the case: Pedestrians broke a rule about which side of the road to use because compliance was more dangerous.

Tedla v. Ellman

What is the principal rule or holding of Tedla v. Ellman?

A technical safety-statute violation may be excused when compliance creates greater physical danger.

When would you cite Tedla v. Ellman in a torts exam?

Invoke §15(e) for genuinely more dangerous compliance, not convenience or expense.

Identify the case: A seller supplied poison without the safety warning or label required by law.

Osborne v. McMasters

What is the principal rule or holding of Osborne v. McMasters?

A safety statute can set the ordinary negligence standard without creating its own standalone civil claim.

When would you cite Osborne v. McMasters in a torts exam?

Separate a statute supplying a duty or standard from a statute authorizing a private cause of action.

Identify the case: A motorist with an obstructed view was hit at a railroad crossing.

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Goodman

What is the principal rule or holding of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Goodman?

Holmes attempted a categorical judicial stop-and-check rule for obscured rail crossings.

When would you cite Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Goodman in a torts exam?

Use as an example of court-specified safety rules; contrast Pokora’s fact-sensitive approach.

Identify the case: A driver approached an obscured rail crossing where exiting the car to look was hazardous or impractical.

Pokora v. Wabash Railway

What is the principal rule or holding of Pokora v. Wabash Railway?

Cardozo rejected treating Goodman’s get-out-and-look requirement as a universal rule.

When would you cite Pokora v. Wabash Railway in a torts exam?

Use when rigid judicial conduct rules ignore context; reasonable care generally remains fact-sensitive.

Identify the case: A barrel of flour fell from a warehouse onto a passerby; no one saw exactly who mishandled it.

Byrne v. Boadle

What is the principal rule or holding of Byrne v. Boadle?

Res ipsa loquitur allows negligence to be inferred from an event unlikely without negligent handling.

When would you cite Byrne v. Boadle in a torts exam?

Use circumstantial accident evidence when the precise negligent act cannot be observed.

Identify the case: An unconscious surgery patient awoke with an unrelated shoulder injury caused amid several medical professionals.

Ybarra v. Spangard

What is the principal rule or holding of Ybarra v. Spangard?

Res ipsa may be used despite difficulty identifying the particular medical actor or strict exclusive control.

When would you cite Ybarra v. Spangard in a torts exam?

Use for multiple-defendant control uncertainty; do not presume automatic liability against everyone.

Identify the case: An artificial reservoir leaked through abandoned mine workings, flooding a neighboring mine.

Rylands v. Fletcher

What is the principal rule or holding of Rylands v. Fletcher?

Historical strict liability for abnormal accumulation and escape from land, later limited and refined.

When would you cite Rylands v. Fletcher in a torts exam?

Use as an origin of abnormally dangerous activity doctrine, not a universal strict-liability rule.

Identify the case: A team of horses unexpectedly bolted during ordinary travel and damaged property.

Brown v. Collins

What is the principal rule or holding of Brown v. Collins?

Courts declined to extend broad Rylands strict liability to common everyday transport.

When would you cite Brown v. Collins in a torts exam?

Differentiate ordinary common activities, usually requiring negligence, from high-residual-risk blasting.

Identify the case: A blasting operation damaged neighboring property without evidence of a particular negligent detonation.

Spano v. Perini Corp.

What is the principal rule or holding of Spano v. Perini Corp.?

Blasting may be subject to strict liability because unusual explosive dangers persist despite reasonable care.

When would you cite Spano v. Perini Corp. in a torts exam?

Paradigm for abnormally dangerous activity under §20; confirm the harm was blast-related.

Identify the case: A toxic chemical leaked from a rail tank car, prompting an expensive response at a rail yard.

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid Co.

What is the principal rule or holding of Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid Co.?

Strict liability was rejected where inspection and maintenance could address the leakage risk.

When would you cite Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad v. American Cyanamid Co. in a torts exam?

The substance’s seriousness alone is insufficient; ask whether reasonable care can manage the relevant risk.

Identify the case: An intoxicated sailor returned to a vessel and opened drydock valves, flooding the dock.

Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States

What is the principal rule or holding of Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States?

Government employer was liable where maritime service foreseeably placed sailors in the setting of the harmful act.

When would you cite Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States in a torts exam?

Use enterprise-risk reasoning against a personal-motive defense, but not for every off-duty frolic.

Identify the case: A rideshare driver allegedly stabbed a passenger; the platform faced vicarious and direct-liability claims.

Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc.

What is the principal rule or holding of Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc.?

At pleading stage, employee-status and apparent-agency theories survived; poorly supported direct negligence claims did not.

When would you cite Search v. Uber Technologies, Inc. in a torts exam?

Analyze control over drivers and scope of employment; survival of dismissal is NOT final liability.

Identify the case: A student’s light, unauthorized kick at school aggravated another child’s preexisting condition.

Vosburg v. Putney

What is the principal rule or holding of Vosburg v. Putney?

Intentional unauthorized contact can constitute battery without intent to cause the severe resulting injury.

When would you cite Vosburg v. Putney in a torts exam?

Distinguish intent to contact from intent to injure; unforeseen severity does not erase battery liability.

Identify the case: A music professor made an uninvited piano-like touch on someone’s back, causing alleged injury.

White v. University of Idaho

What is the principal rule or holding of White v. University of Idaho?

Under the single-intent approach, deliberate unpermitted harmful touching can be battery without intent to injure.

When would you cite White v. University of Idaho in a torts exam?

Use for intent-to-contact versus intent-to-harm; note university immunity consequence in the case.

Identify the case: A young boy moved a chair as a woman sat; she fell.

Garrett v. Dailey