Law 111 with B at Chapman University
About this deck
Size: 115 flashcards
Sign up (free) to study this.
- Bruckman v. Pena
- Rule: burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish that the damages he seeks were proximately caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Miche v. Great Lakes Steel
Dillon v. Twin State Gas and Electric
- Rule: Jury must make determination of injury plaintiff would have suffered despite the ultimate cause of death and use that as a benchmark for apportioning damages. If death was probable then no liability, but if serious injury is probable, the loss of life or earning capacity resulting from the injury would be measured by its value in such injured condition.
HR Moch Co. v. Rensselaier Water Co.
- Rule: A defendant’s failure to act is not actionable under tort law unless the defendant has a duty to act as to the plaintiff. If the privity of contract existed between the X and D, not P and D, generally no duty – especially when too many potential plaintiffs.
Clagett v. Dacy
- Rule: The duties or obligation inherent in an attorney-client relationship will not be presumed to flow to a third party and will not be presumed to arise by implication when the effect of such a presumption would be tantamount to a prohibited or improbable employment.
- Hegel v. Langsam
- Rule: at some point the law presumed people to have sufficient maturity to conduct their own personal affairs and not hold others responsible.
- LS Ayres and Co. v. Hicks
- Rule: May be legal obligation to take positive or affirmative steps to rescue the person who is helpless of in a situation of peril, when the one proceeded against is a master or invitor, or when the injury resulted from use of an instrumentality under the control of the defendant.
- Tarasoff v. Regents
- Rule: once a therapist determines, or should have determined, that a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, he bears a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that danger.
- JS and MS v. RTH
- Louisiana Ex. Rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank
- Rule: prevailing rule is that plaintiff will be denied recovery for economic loss if that loss resulted from physical damage to property in which he had no proprietary interest - has the virtue of predictability, though it also has the vice of creating cases at the rule's edge that are unjust or unfair.
Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apt. Corp
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. V. Campbell (2003)
Cox v. Pearl Investment
Elbaor v. Smith
- Rule: Mary Carter agreements are agreements where a plaintiff enters into a settlement agreement with one defendant and goes to trial against the remaining defendants. The settling defendant remains a party and guarantees the plaintiff a minimum payment, which may later be offset by an excess judgment recovered at trial. Although allowing for partial settlement, Mary Carter agreements nearly always ensure a trial will occur.
Knell v. Feltman
Yellow Cab Co. of DC v. Dreslin
Slocum v. Donahue
Davies v. Mann
McIntytre v. Balentine
Li v. Yellow Cab
Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute
Rush v. Commercial Realty
- Holding: The concept of comparative negligence eliminates the need for the affirmative defense of implied assumption of the risk.
Teeters v. Currey
Freehe v. Freehe
Zellmer v. Zellmer
Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's
Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University
Riss v. City of New York:
DeLong v. Erie County
Deuser v. Vecera
Bussard v. Minimed
O'Shea v. Welch
Murrell v. Goertz
Maloney v. Rath
Popejoy v. Steinle
Malchose v. Kalfell
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
Baxter v. Ford Motors
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products
Rix v. GMC
Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co.
O'Brien v. Mushkin Corp.
- Rule: Based on risk utility analysis, a defendant may be liable for a design defect even if his product complied with the existing level of technological advances at the time of design.
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Friedman v. General Motors Corp.
- Rule: Plaintiffs may prove a manufacturing defect through the use of circumstantial evidence, so long as a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the accident was caused by the defect rather than other possibilities. For Plaintiff to prevail, they must prove that the car manufactured by Defendant was defective, that the defect existed when the car left the factory and that the defect was the proximate cause of the injuries.
Daly v. General Motors Corp.
- Rule: The principle of comparative negligence can be applied in strict products liability cases to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery. If found to have assumed the risk, the plaintiff is barred from recovery completely.
Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews
- Rule: A manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by abnormal or unintended use of its product, only if such use is not reasonably foreseeable per the jury.
Riegel v. Medtonic
- Rule: Implied preemption
Wyeth v. Levine
- The defendant must demonstrate that it was impossible for it to comply with both federal and state requirements to get preemption defense.
Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet
Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical
Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc.
- Rule: If the meaning of an article is capable of two interpretations, one being defamatory and the other not, it is for the jury to determine the meaning of the article based on all of the evidence.
Grant v. Reader's Digest Ass'n
- Rule: It is not necessary that the majority of people would find an article to be damaging to Plaintiff’s reputation so long as some people would reasonably find in damaging - doesn't have to be right-thinking or wrong-thinking people. Backlash from minority of people still defamatory.
Kilian v. Doubleday & Co.
- Rule: Specific charges cannot be defended through a claim of truth by a showing of Plaintiff’s general bad character.
Neiman-Marcus v. Lait
- Rule: One who publishes defamatory matter concerning a group or class of persons is subject to liability to an individual member of it if, but only if, (a) the group or class is so small that the matter can reasonably be understood to refer to the member, or (b) the circumstances of publication reasonably give rise to the conclusion that there is particular reference to the member. Numerical approach to group libel: usually less than 25 in group
Bindrim v. Mitchell
- Rule: The issue of whether or not a character is a representation of the Plaintiff in question is if a reader with knowledge of the surrounding circumstances could reasonably understand that the words referred to the plaintiff.
Shore v. Billingsley
- Rule: Defamation broadcast on the radio is actionable as either libel or slander, regardless of whether it is read from a script or ad-libbed. Defamation by readio is libel per se.
Terwilliger v. Wands
Economopouls v. AG Pollard Co.
- Rule: To maintain a defamation cause, publication of the defamatory statement must occur to someone other than the person defamed
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.
Ogden v. Association of the US Army
- Rule: Under the single publication rule, written material containing defamatory matter gives rise to only one cause of action for libel. This cause accrues at the time of the original publication, and the statute of limitation runs from that date.
NY Times v. Sullivan
St. Amant v. Thompson
- Rule: In order to prove reckless disregard for the truth, there must be sufficient evidence to show that the defendant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.
About this deck
Size: 115 flashcards