Key Legal Cases and Concepts in Tort Law
Case: Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co, 1928
Held that a defendant is not liable for negligence to a plaintiff injured outside the foreseeable zone of danger.
Established the concepts of duty of care and foreseeability as limiting factors in tort liability.
Case: Vosburg v Putney, 1891
Established that a defendant who intentionally commits an unlawful act is liable for all resulting injuries.
Even if the harm was unintended and the plaintiff had a pre-existing vulnerability.
Case: Brown v Board of Education, 1954
A unanimous US Supreme Court decision ruling that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional.
Held that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
Violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Overturned the separate but equal doctrine established by Plessy v Ferguson.
Marked the legal end to state-sanctioned school segregation.
Case: International Shoe v Washington, 1945
Established that a corporation can be subject to a state's jurisdiction based on minimum contacts.
Such that maintaining the lawsuit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Washington required International Shoe to pay unemployment taxes despite the absence of physical office or property in the state.
The corporation employed salesmen who conducted systematic and continuous business there.
Case: United States v Carroll Towing Company, 1947
Introduced the hand formula, an algebraic test for negligence.
The formula states: a party is negligent if the burden of taking precautions, denoted as "b", is less than the probability of harm, denoted as "p", multiplied by the potential severity of the injury, denoted as "l":
b < p imes lEstablished a cost-benefit analysis framework for determining reasonable care.
In this case, leaving a barge unattended was held negligent due to the lower burden of having a person aboard compared to the risk and potential loss from the barge breaking free.
Case: Greenman v Yuba Power Products, 1963
Established the principle of strict liability in product defect cases.
A manufacturer is liable for injuries caused by a defective product placed on the market without inspection.
Liability exists regardless of negligence or breach of warranty.
The ruling shifts the risk of product defects from consumers to manufacturers to ensure consumer protection and accountability.
Case: Donna Huey Stevenson, 1932
Established that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers even in the absence of a contract.
Founded modern negligence law through the principle involving Lord Atkin's neighbor principle.
Requires individuals to take reasonable care to avoid acts foreseeably causing harm to others.
Case: Summers v Theiss, 1948
Held that when two negligent defendants cause a plaintiff's injury, both can be jointly liable when it is uncertain which caused the harm.
This is under the doctrine of alternative liability.
Case: Bern v Votel, 1863
Established the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
The doctrine implies that the mere fact that a barrel fell from a shop and injured a passerby is prima facie evidence of negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur translates to "the thing speaks for itself" in Latin.
It allows a plaintiff to infer negligence from the nature of an accident when direct evidence is lacking.
Requirements include:
Harm would not normally occur without negligence.
The instrumentality causing the harm was under the defendant's exclusive control.
The plaintiff did not contribute to the accident.
Helps prevent defendants from evading liability where negligence is clearly implied by the circumstances, even if the exact negligent act cannot be pinpointed.
Case: Vincent v Lake Erie Transportation Company, 1910
Held that a ship owner who deliberately moors a vessel to another's dock to preserve their property during a storm is liable for damage to the dock.
This holds true despite acting reasonably under the circumstances during a storm.