Torts

Question 1

Vaughn

Answer 1

Vaughn v. Menlove, haystack catches on fire because it’s too close to other homes. Community members warned the haymaker that he was too close but he did it anyways, reasonableness is an objective standard.

Question 2

Delair

Answer 2

Delair v. McAdoo, visibly worn tires. Lack of knowledge of an obvious condition of danger is not a defense to liability for failing to reduce that danger.

Question 3

Trimarco

Answer 3

Trimarco v. Klein – Glass windowpane in renter’s house breaks, injuring renter. lack of adherence to industry standard may be proof that you did not exercise reasonable care.

Question 4

Cordas

Answer 4

Cordas v. Peerless transp. – Taxi driver jumps out of taxi while it’s still running to avoid robber, reasonable standards change in emergency situations.

Question 5

Roberts

Answer 5

Roberts v. state of Louisiana – Blind man walks into another guy in a lobby, expert witness says he didn’t need to use his cane, court rules that the standard for a blind person is the way in which a sighted person would act if they couldn’t see.

Question 6

RObinson

Answer 6

Robinson v. Lindsay – Snowmobile operated by child, children are held to an adult standard of care when engaged in adult activities.

Question 7

Bruenig

Answer 7

Bruenig v. Am Fam– Woman has a series of visions caused by schitzophrenic condition, drives her car into oncoming traffic. Court says that mental illness can help someone avoid liability, but only if the nature of the accident is not foreseeable. If she had warning or prior knowledge that this might happen, then the woman is liable.

Question 8

Boyce

Answer 8

Boyce v. Brown – medical malpractice, a medical professional is held to a standard of care specific to the time at which the operation took place, not the standard at the time at which the injury occurred.

Question 9

Morrison

Answer 9

DC doctor, doctors held to a national standard of care

Question 10

Scott

Answer 10

Scott v. Bradford – Failure to warn case, doctors must warn about anything that might change the patient’s ultimate decision re whether to receive treatment.

Question 11

H.E. Butt

Answer 11

Grapes, nuclear proof grapes, that show the store took precautions to prevent a foreseeable risk.

Question 12

James

Answer 12

Res Ipsa – Doctor case but couldn’t prove who had exclusive control so no res ipsa

Question 13

sullivan

Answer 13

sullivan v. crabtree – no res ipsa because too many other things could have caused the car accident in question

Question 14

Reynolds

Answer 14

Reynolds v texas pacific – woman falls down the stairs, doesn’t matter that she might have fallen even if reasonable care had been exercised. Because it wasn’t, the breach of a duty of care was still present enough and close enough to the cause of her injuries that they had to hold the R R liable.

Question 15

Gentry

Answer 15

Gentry v. Douglas Ranch – Need an actual causal relationship between a supposed breach and the harm. Completely unforeseeable that leaving tools on the ground or failing to repair a step would lead to someone shooting a gun, so no proximate cause here.

Question 16

Daubert

Answer 16

Daubert v. Merrell Pharma – Sotomayor Daubert standard, need full agreement among scientific community to introduce evidence into court.

Question 17

Summers

Answer 17

Two guys quail hunting, both are liable because both breached a duty even though we don’t know which one shot the victim. Separate causes of action.

Question 18

Sindell

Answer 18

Market share liability, no affirmative proof which one caused the harm, so can distribute harm based on the percentage of the market each company has.

Question 19

Daniels

Answer 19

Daniels v. R.R – causation – railroad was negligent in putting down its barriers, even though harm was several degrees removed, still proximate cause because can draw a straight line between breach and harm.

Question 20

Ryan

Answer 20

Fire started by railroad leads to burning of other houses, not proximate and in a direct straight line to prove causation

Question 21

Bartolone

Answer 21

Take the plaintiff as they come

Question 22

Watson

Answer 22

spilled gas, criminal intervening events are unforseeable

Question 23

fuller

Answer 23

suicide can fall in line as a natural and certain result of a breach of a duty of care even though it is an intentional act.

Question 24

kelly

Answer 24

drinking

Question 25

Rush

Answer 25

Tenant uses an outhouse, jury can decide whether contributory negligence occurred here. but Someone does not assume risk when they are a tenant on a property and an essential function of that property breaks.

Question 26

Indiana

Answer 26

Strict liability doesn’t extend if the fault of the breach is the transporting company.

Question 27

Baxter

Answer 27

windshield, implied warranty if false advertising and express warranty

Question 28

henningsen

Answer 28

manufacturer and dealer warranty

Question 29

Greenman

Answer 29

Power tool, strict liability for failure to test

Question 30

prentiss

Answer 30

reasonable alternative design – strict liability – seat

Question 31

Green

Answer 31

latex gloves – magnitude of harm was high, they had notice that this could happen, but didn’t do anything to warn. unreasonable danger, etc.

Question 32

Anderson

Answer 32

fiberglas – can’t give warning for something you don’t know about

Question 33

friedman

Answer 33

car in gear when it turns on, man sues using strict liability, but must show the defect was the proximate cause of harm

Question 34

daly

Answer 34

contributory negligence can apply in product liability cases, improper use can bar from collection by plaintiff – man was drunk, not wearing seatbelt

Question 35

ford

Answer 35

reasonable alternative design, they took steps to mitigate the risk but it still happened. It was a foreseeable misuse of the produce, so ford is still on the hook for a design defect and strict liability here.

Question 36

hector

Answer 36

hospitals not resposible for things they don’t own, just a provider of services so can’t be responsible for things that go wrong with the products, especially if they can’t test.