torts - NYU School of Law
... b. Held: Qualified priv. 1 who used another’s property for
necessity has the right, but is liable to damage caused. Is
prima F. case. Showed right of self-defense is stronger than
right of necessity
c. Dissent: Was due care, inevitable accident, contractual
relations should make owner bear loss.
26 January 2009
... exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff ordinarily exists
b. Strict liability, speaking of duty is peculiar. Action is acceptable but must pay
own way. Duty is to compensate those harmed by the activity.
c. In other cases analysis of duty is helpful.
i. Acquire tort jurisdiction ste ...
Pharmacists` Standard of Care in Negligence Law
... trend in personal injury litigation that favors plaintiff recovery." For
example, most jurisdictions have replaced the defense of contributory
negligence with comparative negligence,'12 allowing plaintiffs to recover damages in spite of their own negligence. 13 Some courts have
held manufacturers st ...
Introduction - NYU School of Law
... called. He ordered the transfusion to save her life, despite knowing of non-consent.
i. Here, patient’s prior refusals were not made when life was in the balance or it appeared so
ii. Thus, they weren’t contemporaneous or informed
e. Lack of Consent in K-like situation: Koffman v. Garnett – Andy Kof ...
Torts Law: Blurred Elements - Mitchell Hamline Open Access
... (2) general standard of conduct, (3) negligent conduct, and (4) the first element
of a prima facie negligence case, and further explaining that “‘[d]uty’ as the word
has been used by courts in this century has had several meanings”).
32. See Jean Elting Rowe & Theodore Silver, The Jurisprudence of A ...
Self-Defense by Force Threatening Death or
... 1. Act: must be of the actor’s will (volitional movement of the actor’s body).
2. Intent: π must show that intended to cause a touch – (intent to do harm or malice are not necessary)
OR that π was substantially certain that a touch would occur from his act.
a. Consent: π must not have consented to ...
torts - NYU School of Law
... Non-family members who were present and distress manifests in physical harm.
Knowledge that someone is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress can make an
act extreme & outrageous that otherwise wouldn’t be.
Recklessly failing to meet professional ethical standards, e.g., ...
Torts - Free Law School Outlines
... Intentional (purpose or knowledge) contact that
Is reasonably regarded as harmful OR offensive (implied lack of consent)
a. Medical consent is assumed general for abnormal condition during operation (reasonable consent)
b. If the actor exceeds the terms of conditions of a given consent, consent is n ...
... No trespass for Δ- he had qualified privilege to stay moored to dock.
Would have had perfect privilege if Δ had not retied boat; however, act of retying boat resulted in
liability for intentional tort.
Complete privilege: Π can’t recover for the harm done b/c Δ had nothing to do with the harm ...
... legally obliged to take all reasonable steps. “The Pl’s inability to handle the situation in which he or she has
been placed – either through youth, intoxication or other incapacity – is an element in determining how
foreseeable the injury is.”
- Must look at these questions: (1) Did Sundance owe a ...
... 4. Loss of parental consortium in wrongful death - Jordan v Three Rivers Hospital .......19
D. Implied rights of action – like wrongful death statutes, create a right of action that
wouldn’t exist under common law....................................................................................... ...
Stovin and another (Respondent) v. Norfolk County Council
... care when acting and a duty to take positive action, should not be allowed to
mask the difference between the two duties. As already seen, the test of
fairness and reasonableness is more difficult to satisfy with a duty to act. This
is especially so when the subject matter is potential financial los ...
Torts Outline - Washington University School of Law
... 3. Moving party goes to court of common pleas and obtains from them a
rule nisi. In this case it is comparable to an “order to show cause.” It’s
an ex parte motion, one moves in order to show cause and the opponent
does not get to be heard whether the order will issue. An order to the
opposing party ...
intentional torts - NYU School of Law
... 1. imminent force or threat of imminent force, or assertion of
legal authority, that results in confinement, is enough
ii. against ’s will
iii. must be aware of the confinement (but the circuits are split on this)
b. requires complete confinement—“three walls do not a prison make.”
i. Bird v Jone ...
torts - GW SBA
... to the city. Moch’s warehouse burned down because a sufficient quantity of water was not available to
firefighters. RULE: Third party who is not a party to a contract but benefits from its performance may
not recover for a contracting party's NONfeasance.
... Shipbuilding [SCC 1997]: P got D to build an oil rig. Negligent wiring caused electrical fire, fucking over rig for months. D wants (and gets) compensation for this,
but third parties fucked. Relational econ loss only recoverable in certain circumstances, incl. a) Claimant has proprietary interest i ...
- LSS | Cans DB
... must establish that Maclaren, who was operating the boat, has a duty of care.
In determining this, first question is to see whether there’s a statute here that pertains or
governs the relationship between the parties. Here, there’s a shipping statute that applies,
statutory duty of care that says ca ...
negligence: the employer`s duties
... Nature and quantum of damages;
Orders as to cost;
For example Liability:
If common law actions is based on the failure to provide a safe system of work, must
prove that the employer “made no genuine and reasonable attempt” to put such a system in
That the event ...
Damages - NYU School of Law
... forward in reliance on the sense of hearing, unaided by that of sight.” Says that
Goodman dictum on driver needing to get out of car has caused confusion:
“Standards of prudent conduct are declared at times by courts, but they are taken
over from the facts of life.”
Hand says there can be no general ...
Torts Outline - UChicago BLSA
... iii. Wallace v. Rosen: consent assumed for all common and “reasonably
necessary” contact in ordinary life.
i. Negates what would have otherwise been an intentional tort
ii. To whom consent is given
iii. Scope of consent
iv. Info-eliciting: impose liability on who can get info ...
I. INTENTIONAL TORTS - Intent - purposefully causing elements of
... - Reckless behavior can be subjective (D knew and did anyway) or objective (D should have known)
- Courts find no “degree of care” based on circum - some circum require greater care when greater risk
- Might require those in pro sports to show reckless conduct rather than merely negligent conduct
Manaster Torts Outline
... b. Different from the volunteer does step in, finishes his help, but did so
ii. Special relationship with victim exception
1. Special relationships between D and P that may generate affirmative duty of care
2. NOTE: Don’t use this exception without explaining why it exists! ...
Word - Washington University School of Law
... 2. Plaintiff causation: plaintiff ran into path of firing gun
3. Inevitable action – court would have found in weaver if he
pleaded this, but not enough to say it was against my will.
i. Brown v. Kendall (Shaw) – man injured while friend separating
fighting dogs. Big friend to industry ...
Torts Outline - Blogs @ Widener Law
... iii. Duties to protect P from another.
iv. Employer’s liability for employee’s negligence.
i. Whether a duty is owed and the nature of the duty owed. Define duty,
define scope of liability.
ii. General Duty: act as a reasonably prudent person acting under the same or
similar circumstances (RPPS ...
Duty of care in English law
In English tort law, an individual may owe a duty of care to another, to ensure that they do not suffer any unreasonable harm or loss. If such a duty is found to be breached, a legal liability is imposed upon the tortfeasor to compensate the victim for any losses they incur. The idea of individuals owing strangers a duty of care – where beforehand such duties were only found from contractual arrangements – developed at common law, throughout the 20th century. The doctrine was significantly developed in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, where a woman succeeded in establishing a manufacturer of ginger beer owed her a duty of care, where it had been negligently produced. Following this, the duty concept has expanded into a coherent judicial test, which must be satisfied in order to claim in negligence.Generally, a duty of care arises where one individual or group undertakes an activity which could reasonably harm another, either physically, mentally, or economically. This includes common activities such as driving (where physical injury may occur), as well as specialised activities such as dispensing reliant economic advice (where economic loss may occur). Where an individual has not created a situation which may cause harm, no duty of care exists to warn others of dangerous situations or prevent harm occurring to them; such acts are known as pure omissions, and liability may only arise where a prior special relationship exists to necessitate them.