Torts I Case Illustrations

Torts I Outline Case Illustrations for Rule Recall

Harris v. Anderson County

Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff’s Office: Strict Liability

The court held the owner of a dog strictly liable for a bit that occurred while the dog was under the car of a vet clinic and outside of the owner’s control.

Cohen v. Petty

Cohen v. Petty: Negligence

The court held that one who is suddenly and unexpectedly stricken ill while driving is not responsible in negligence for injuries resulting from the inability to control the car.

Doe v. Roe

Doe v. Roe: Negligence

The defendant knew he had herpes at the time he had sex with the plaintiff, because asymptomatic transmission of herpes was foreseeable, the defendant’s failure to take precautions or disclose the disease was negligent.

Garratt v. Dailey

Garratt v. Dailey: Battery & Intentionally Inflicted Injury

A five-year-old boy moved a chair from behind an elderly woman while she was trying to sit down. The court held the child was liable for battery if he desired for the woman to hit the ground or was substantially certain she would suffer forcible sitting.

Lambertson v. United States

Lambertson v. United States: Intent to Injure

The court held that the intent that is necessary for battery is the intent to make contact not the intent to cause injury and thus it was irrelevant that the inspector meant no harm.

Ranson v. Kitner

Ranson v. Kitner: Mistake & Intent

The defendants shot the plaintiff’s dog thinking it was a wolf. The court held that they were liable for damages for intentional trespass to chattel, although they were acting in good faith.

McGuire v. Almy

McGuire v. Almy: Insanity & Intent

The court held that if the defendant was capable of entertaining, and in fact entertains the same intent that would be sufficient to hold a sane person liable, then liability will be imposed regardless of whether insanity produced the intent.

Keel v. Hainline

Keel v. Hainline: Transferred Intent

An eraser battel erupted while a teach was out of the classroom. Although the boy meant to strike another boy involved, the eraser hit the plaintiff in the eye resulting in serious injury. The court found no issue applying transferred intent and imposed liability.

Brudney v. Ematrudo

Brudney v. Ematrudo: Liability & Transferred Intent

A police officer attempted to use reasonable force to liberate another officer from protestor attack and accidentally struck a third. The court held that there was no liability and the defendant acted within reasonably limits while performing his job.

Noble v. Louisville Transfer Co.

Noble v. Louisville Transfer Co: Battery

There was no battery when the taxi driver steadied a little girl who was ill by placing his finger on her should. Courts consider: (1) the relationship of the parties, (2) the availability of alternatives, (3) the degree of force used, and (4) the plaintiff’s voluntary presence at the location where touching was foreseeable.

Picard v. Barry Pontiac Buick Inc. 

Picard v. Barry Pontiac-Buick, Inc: Battery

The defendant placed his index finger on the plaintiff’s camera, the court held that the camera was considered an intimate extension of her person, finding the defendant liable for battery.

Moore v. El Paso Chamber of Commerce

Moore v. El Paso Chamber of Commerce: Battery

A case where a young man chased the plaintiff into a glass door while attempting to catch her, liability for battery was imposed. The court further found contributory negligence is not a defense to an intentional tort.

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill: Assault

The court held that the issue of assault was properly submitted to the jury, since there was testimony from which it could be found the employee was able to reach over the counter and grab the woman.

Harris v. Jones

Harris v. Jones: IIED (Failure of Attorney)

The court held that the plaintiff’s testimony was vague and weak at best proving that damages resulted after the repeated humiliation by his employer, recovery was denied.

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc. 

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, Inc.: IIED

A woman was told by a grocery clerk, “If you want to know the price, you will have to find out the best way you can, you stink to me.” The plaintiff was not permitted to recover for IIED, even though she suffered mental anguish which resulted in a heart attack.

Feltmeier v. Feltmeier

Feltmeier v. Feltmeier: IIED Continuing Tort

The husband engaged in physical and mental abused. The court held that this conduct was arguably sufficient to qualify as extreme and outrageous, despite the two-year statute of limitations, the jury could consider all thirteen years under the continuing tort doctrine.

Bird v. Jones

Bird v. Jones: False Imprisonment

The court held there was no false imprisonment, stating that more is required than some mere loss of freedom to go where one wishes. There must be detention within some boundaries.

Morales v. Lee

Morales v. Lee: False Imprisonment

The court held there was no false imprisonment because the defendant had merely threatened to call the police and have the plaintiff arrested unless she remained in the office. False imprisonment does not include threats of future action.

Enright v. Groves

Enright v. Groves: False Imprisonment

Policeman took the plaintiff into custody after she refused to produce her license. The court held that the assertion of authority was unlawful as nothing imposed a duty on the plaintiff to produce her license under the circumstances.

Johnson v. Barnes & Noble

Johnson v. Barnes & Noble: False Imprisonment

A salesclerk who was allegedly touched inappropriately by a customer called other employees who then detained the customer for over an hour. The court held that the store was liable for false imprisonment because the alleged misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the personal detaining the plaintiff and there was no imminent threat of breach of the peace.

Peterson v. Sorlien

Peterson v. Sorlien: False Imprisonment

Parents, whose adult child had allegedly been brain washed by a cult, forcibly abducted their daughter to “deprogram her”. Although it was non-consensual, there was a transition to consent, where there were reasonable means of escape. The court found that the period of consent constituted a waiver of earlier forced detention and barred liability for false imprisonment.

CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotion

CompuServe, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions: Trespass to Chattel

The court held that the defendant’s conduct constituted chattel, even though it did not physically damage the plaintiff’s computer equipment, it diminished the equipment’s value by demanding disk space and draining processing power.

Henson v. Reddin

Henson v. Reddin: Conversion

The court held that repair parts had been converted because they were ruined by crystalized resin while attached to the machine.

Russell Vaughn Ford, Inc. v. Rouse

Russell-Vaughn Ford, Inc. v. Rouse: Conversion

The court held that the facts justified a finding of conversion. The court stated that it was irrelevant that the plaintiff could have called his wife for a second set of keys and retention of the keys constituted conversion for the entire car.

Kremen v. Cohen

Kremen v. Cohen: Intangible Conversion

The court concluded that the registrar was liable for conversion because it gave away the plaintiff’s intellectual property. The court held that the domain name constituted the document requirement as it was stored in electronic form rather than on ink and paper was immaterial.

Davies v. Butler

Davies v. Butler: Capacity to Consent (Defenses)

The court held that consent by one of the initiates would not bar an action for his death based on negligence or recklessness, for although he had not voluntarily participated in the initial stages of the induction, the drinking had continued to a point where he completely lacked capacity.

O’Brien v. Cunard S.S.Co.

O’Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co.: Apparent Consent:

A woman who held up her arm to be vaccinated was held to have consented to what otherwise would have been battery because there was nothing in her conduct to indicate a contrary intent.

Miller v. HCA, Inc.

Miller v. HCA, Inc.: Implied Consent

The court held that a hospital could provide emergency treatment to a premature newborn without parental consent.

DeMay v. Roberts

DeMay v. Roberts: Consent Based on Mistake

Physician brought a young man without medical training to the plaintiff’s home to assist with her birth. Because the assistant’s lack of training was not disclosed, the court held that the women’s consent to his presence and touching of her was invalid to bar a tort action.

Silas v. Brown

Silas v. Bowen: Self Defense

The court held that because of the disparity in the size of the party’s, the belligerence of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s physical abuse of the defendant, it was reasonable for the defendant to fear serious bodily injury at the hands of the latter. Consequently, the shot the defendant fired, did not give rise to liability.

Drabek v. Sabley

Drabek v. Sabley: Defense of Others

The defendant apprehended a young boy who had been throwing snowballs at passing cars. The court held that it was unreasonable to drive the child several miles to the police station rather than turning him over to his parents or reporting to police.

Katko v. Briney

Katko v. Briney: Defense of Property

The defendants rigged a spring gun to protect an unoccupied farmhouse from break in. They were liable to a trespasser who was injured from the gun because deadly force may not be used if there is no threat to personal safety.

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Silva

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Silva: Shopkeeper’s Privilege

The court held that the failure of store personnel to accompany a suspect to his car to see whether he had receipt and instead using force to handcuff the suspect until police arrived was unreasonable. The store was liable for false imprisonment.

Surocco v. Geary

Surocco v. Geary: Public Necessity

The blowing up of the plaintiff’s house did not stop the spread of conflation, but the privilege of public necessity precluded a suit in tort by the owner of the destroyed dwelling.

Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance, Co. 

Wegner v. Milwaukee Mutual Insurance, Co.: Public Necessity

The city was required to reimburse a homeowner whose house had been destroyed by police SWAT in the court of apprehending a suspect. The court found that fairness and justice required that innocent homeowners not be forced to bear the entire cost of a benefit conferred on by the entire community.

Vincent v. Lake Eerie Transportation

Vincent v. Lake Eerie Transportation: Private Necessity

Damage was caused to a dock by a ship that was moored there during bad weather. The court held that the possessor is under a duty to permit him and is not privileged to result his entry.

Ploof v. Putnam

Ploof v. Putnam: Private Necessity

Landowner cast abroad a boat that attempted to tie up at his dock during a storm. The landowner was liable for the injury and damages to the occupants of the boat.

Barker v. Kallash

Barker v. Kallash: Unlawful Conduct Barring Recovery

Fifteen-year-old boy was injured constructing a pipe bomb was precluded from recovering from a nine-year-old boy who supplied the gun powder.

Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co.

Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co.: Damages

The court denied a motion for remittitur because it found the $2 million awarded to a seriously burned infant girl was less than the highest possible award supported by the evidence.

Meyer ex. Rel. Coplin v. Flour

Meyer ex. Rel. Coplin v. Fluor Corporation: Damages & Medical Monitoring

A case involving pollution from a lead smelter, the court held that a class of children who lived in the area could recover medical monitoring damages even though they had not yet suffered a physical injury.

Hefland v. Souther California Rapid Transit District

Hefland v. Southern California Rapid Transit District: Collateral Source Rule

The plaintiff’s medical expenses had already been paid by his insurance company, but the court declined to bar recovery of the same amounts from the defendant.

Zimmerman v. Ausland

Zimmerman v. Ausland: Avoidable Consequences

When determining whether the plaintiff’s refusal to submit to the operation that would have remedied his physical condition was unreasonable, it was appropriate to consider matters such as cost, risk of other harm, likelihood of success, and pain.

Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Authority

Gonzalez v. New York City Housing Authority: Wrongful Death Damages

A wrongful death award to the independent adult grandchildren of a brutally murdered woman was affirmed. The grandchildren, who received meals, advise, and help, were deemed to have suffered “pecuniary” injuries within the meaning of the statute.

O’Shea v. Riverway Towing Co.

O’Shea v. Riverway Towing Co.

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Campbell

State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Campbell: Punitive Damages

A large punitive award was based on evidence that for over twenty years, an insurance company had adhered to practices that were calculated to underpay claims. The court held the amount violated the Due Process guarantee of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway, Co.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway Co.: Concept of Duty

Railroad guards had attempted to boost a passenger safely onto a slowly moving train that he was running to catch and in the process the package was dislodged from the man’s arms. It fell onto the tracks and exploded, in jurying a woman standing on the other side. The court held that there was no liability because there was nothing in the situation to suggest to the most cautious mind that the parcel wrapped in newspaper would spread wreckage.

Nussbaum v. Lacopo

Nussbaum v. Lacopo: Negligence Balancing Test

In this case, the plaintiff, who lived next to a golf course, was injured by a stray ball, the court held that although the defendant had played the course and was aware of the plaintiff's property, the possibility of harm to the plaintiff was too small to give rise to liability.

Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams

Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams: Negligence Balancing Test

A case involving a spark caused by a defective cap on a gasoline drum started a firm, which injured the plaintiff. The court found the balancing test decides whether risk was of sufficient weight and moment that a reasonable person would have avoided. In the case of gasoline, the risk is high, so the defendant's failure to take corrective action gives rise to liability.

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.: Negligence Balancing Test

Liability exists if the burden (B) of the defendant would have to bear to avoid the risk is outweighed by the gravity of the loss (L) times the probability of the threatened harm (B<LP). In Carroll Towing, a barge belonging to the plaintiff had broken away from its mooring because of the negligence of the defendant's employees in moving the ropes. The court found that in the view of the wartime activity in the harbor and the short daylight in winter, the probability and gravity of the threatened danger outweighed the burden that would be imposed by requiring the presence of a bargee during normal working hours.

Chicago, B&Q v. Krayenbuhl

Chicago, B & Q v. Krayenbuhl: Negligence Balancing Test

In a case involving a four-year-old child injured while playing on an unlocked railroad turntable, the court held that while railroad turntables serve an important public interest, the use of a lock would have interfered only slightly with the pursuit of that goal, and therefore the defendant's conduct was negligent.D

Bedor v. Johnson

Bedor v. Johnson: Reasonable Person Standard

The court abolished the use of emergency instructions. These jurisdictions generally have reasoned that emphasizing the issue of emergency mislead juror to believe that the defendant should not be held to the standard of ordinary care.

Williams v. Bright

Williams v. Bright: Reasonable Person Religious Beliefs

The issue was whether the plaintiff had unreasonably failed to mitigate damages due to her religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s witness, which allegedly precluded her from having a knee operation because the procedure would require a blood transfusion. The court found that the plaintiff’s religious beliefs were relevant to the issue of mitigation, but not dispositive.D

Donovan v. Sutton

Donovan v. Sutton: Reasonable Person Age

A nine-year-old skier lost control and collided with a woman on the first-time ski run. The woman suffered injured and sued the child and her parents. The court affirmed the lower court’s decisions that the child was not negligent, and her parents did not negligently supervise her.

Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co

Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.: Reasonable Person Mental Deficiencies

A woman believed that God was in control of her care and therefore accelerated it, thinking she could fly over an on-coming truck like batman. She was wrong, and injuries to the plaintiff resulted. The court, while not disputing the rule which holds that permanently insane person are liable for their torts, found that a different rule should apply in cases of unanticipated, sudden insanity.

Biomet, Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP

Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP: Reasonable Person Malpractice

The defendant lawyers chose not to appeal an adverse $20 million punitive damages judgement against their client at the time they challenged the related compensatory damages award. That choice was reasonable at the time it was made because there was no basis to constitutionally challenge the punitive award until compensatory was reduced.

Russo v. Griffin

Russo v. Griffin: Reasonable Person Malpractice

An attorney was charged with malpractice, based on failure to advise his client of the desirability of obtaining a covenant not to compete from the party who was selling the client an interest in a paving business. The court held that the malpractice claim was not precluded by the fact that the only out of town experts had testified that such advice was required.

Boyce v. Brown

Boyce v. Brown: Reasonable Person Malpractice

The plaintiff alleged that it was negligent for the defendant physician to fail to take an X-ray but did not say that it was negligent for the defendant not to do so. Consequently, a judgment in the defendant’s favor was affirmed.

Scott v. Bradford

Scott v. Bradford: Reasonable Person Malpractice

A patient had experienced problems after a hysterectomy. Previously, her surgeon neglected to disclose the risks of the operation and the available alternatives. In determining whether this failure to provide information had caused the plaintiff to consent and to suffer complications, the court adopted a subjective test which asks simply where there is credible evidence to support a find that this patient would not have consented.

John Doe BF v. Diocese of Gallup

John Doe BF v. Diocese of Gallup

The Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation was faced with the question of whether it was reasonable for a Navajo boy, who was sexually abused at ages 14 and 15, to delay more than twenty years in filing various tort claims. The court held that the proper standard was that of an “objective person in the Plaintiff’s position, taking into account a person’s upbringings, culture, and circumstances, after having been subjected to the abuse.” The court rules that the statutory duty of reasonable diligence had to be applied to a Navajo person, not a faceless individual.

Helling v. Carey

Helling v. Carey

The defendant ophthalmologist, in treating the plaintiff, had followed the customary practice of not testing persons under the age of 40 for glaucoma. Mindful of the grave and devasting potential harm and of the slight burden that administering the test would impose, the court held that it was negligent as a matter of law not to give the test.

Gipson v. Kasey

Gipson v. Kasey

The court held that a partygoer who violated a statute prohibiting distribution of prescription drugs to persons lacking valid prescription could be liable for the death of another party guest that resulted from the decedent’s ingestion of the drugs along with excessive alcohol.

Stachneiwicz v. Mar Cam Corp.

Stachneiwicz v. Mar-Cam Corp.

The plaintiff was injured during a barroom brawl. He argued that the bar’s negligence could be established based on its violations of both a statute and a regulation. The statute prohibited serving liquor to a person who was already visibly intoxicated, and the regulation forbad a liquor licensee from tolerating loud, noisy, and boisterous conduct. The court held that the regulation, but not the statute, set an appropriate standard of care.

Martin v. Herzog

Martin v. Herzog

The plaintiff’s decedent had failed to equip his buggy with a light for night driving, as required by statute, and the trial court had instructed the jury that this violation of the law was merely some evidence of negligence. Embracing the negligence per se line of reasoning, the high court reversed the judgment, holding that the unexcused violation was negligence and that the jury was not free to relax the statutory standard of conduct or to disregard the plaintiff’s breach of law.

Ranard v. O’Neil

Ranard v. O’Neil

The plaintiff, a child almost eight, was struck by a car after failing to yield the right of way to the defendant’s vehicle, in violation of the statute. The court held that not all children can understand what care should be exercised in relation to traffic. If facts show the plaintiff lacked capacity, a finding of contributory negligence could not be based on the statutory violation. The case was remanded for considerations of such matters as age, experience, and intelligence.

Zeni v. Anderson

Zeni v. Anderson

The plaintiff had failed to comply with a law requiring pedestrians to use a sidewalk, and it was argued that she was therefore contributorily negligent. However, there was support for the jury’s verdict in her favor because there was evidence of an excuse, which the jury could have credited, which showed that using the sidewalk, which was covered in snow and ice, would have been more dangerous than walking on the roadway.

Montgomery v. Royal Motel

Montgomery v. Royal Motel

The defendant motel had installed deadbolt locks on each of its units as required by municipal ordinance. Plaintiffs were nonetheless injured by a criminal intruder who entered their unite because they had locked the door. The plaintiff argued that the motel should have taken greater precautions than were required in the ordinance. The court held that compliance with the law precluded any claim for negligence.