(DAM!)AGES
TYPES OF COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
MEDICAL EXPENSES
LOSS OF EARNINGS
GENERAL/NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
3RD PARTY CRIMINAL ACTS
TOWNS V. CINCINNATTI
TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR AN INVITEE, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MUST SHOW TE DEFENDANT HAD SOME PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE OF THE TYPE OF OCCURRENCE WHICH LED TO THE PLAINTIFF'S INJURIES, OR THAT THE DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF OT ANTICIPATED THE TYPE OF DANGER OR ACTS OF THIRD PERSONS WHICH RESULTED IN THE INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE PLAINTIFFSTRICT LIABILITY
LIABILITY REGARDLESS OF FAULT
PLAINTIFF NEED NOT PROVE NEGLIGENCE OR HARM
SOME ACTIVITIES ARE SO INHERENTLY DANGEROUS TAT THE PERSON OR COMPANY ENGAGING IN THEM MUST BEAR FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY HARM THAT RESULTS, EVEN IF THEY TOOK PRECAUTIONS
ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES
IF SOMEONE MAINTAINS AN ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS CONDITION ON HIS PROPERTY OR ENGAGES IN AN ACTIVITY THAT POSES AN UNAVOIDABLE RISK OF HARM TO OTHER PEOPLE OR PROPERTY, THAT PERSON MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE HARM CAUSED UNDER THE THEORY OF STRICT LIABILITY
IMPOSITION OF STRICT LIABILITY DUE TO ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES IS LIMITED TO CONSEQUENCES FROM THE ACTIVITY THAT RESULT FROM THE RISK THAT MAKES THE ACTIVITY ULTRAHAZARDOUS
FOSTER V. PRESTON MILL CO.PUNITIVE DAMAGES
FOR DEPLORABLE CONDUCT
NEVER AWARDED AS A RIGHT
DETERRENT OF CONDUCT
SURVIVAL ACTIONS
MURPHY V. MURPHY
A SURVIVAL ACTION MAY BE MAINTAINED FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY AND WAGES INCURRED B/W INJURY AND DEATH
MAIN CATEGORIES
ANIMALS: WILD V. DOMESTIC
ABNORMALLY DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES
PRODUCT LIABILITY
ULTRAHAZARDOUS
RYLANDS V. FLETCHER
IF IT IS NECESSARILY INVOLVED A RISK OF SERIOUS TO THE PERSON, LAND, OR PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON THAT COULD NOT BE ELIMINATED BY THE EXERCISE OF EVEN THE UTMOST CARE
GOLDEN V. ARMORY
ACT OF GOD
EXCLUSIVITY: ACT WAS THE SOLE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGES
EXTREME AND UNFORESEEABLE
UNAVOIDABLE
DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
PLAINTIFF MAY SEEK DAMAGES IF HE CAN SHOW EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WAS A REASONABLE REACTION AND WAS MANIFESTED BY OBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS
(Bylmsa v. Burger King)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND EMPLOYEES ACTING W/N THE SCOPE OF THEIR DUTIES
PATTERSON V. BLAIR
IF AN EMPLOYEE IS ACTING W/N TO ADVANCE THE GOALS OF THE EMPLOYER, HE IS ACTING W/N HIS DUTIES AND THE EMPLOYER MAY BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLEHARBORING STRAYS
TERRAL V. LOUISIANA FAMR BUREAU CASUALTY INC
PEOPLE V. KNOLLER
DEFENDANT CAN BE HELD STRICTLY LIABLE B/C THE COURT CAN FIND OWNERSHIP IF THE DEFENDANT REGULARLY FED THE ANIMAL AND HARBORED IT
CONTRIBUTION
EVEN WHEN MULTIPLE PARTIES CONTRIBUTE TO A SINGLE INDIVISIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL HARM, COURTS MAY IMPOSE J/S LIABILITY, LEAVING CONTRIBUTION DISPUTES AMONGST RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
BAD DOG DEFENSE
UNLESS THE VICTIM IS UNDER 6 Y/O, A "BAD DOG SIGN" IS AN ABSOLUTE DEFENSE TO STRICT LIABILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR DOMESTIC ANIMALS
TAKING CLAUSE AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR A STATE TO BE AWARDED A POTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES WHEN THERE IS A STATUTE THAT A ALLOCATES A PORTION OF THE PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES; IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A TAKING
(Cheathem v. Pohle)
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
MURRELL V. GOERTZ
AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN WORKING FOR A COMPANY WHERE THE COMPANY HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE EXACT MANNER IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLETES HIS WORK IS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, AND A COMPANY IS NOT GENERALLY LIABLE FOR THE TORTS OF AN INDEPENDENT TORTFEASOR
DOMESTIC ANIMALS
IF THE PLAINTIFF IS UNABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE REASONABLY KNOWN OF A DOMESTIC ANIMLA'S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES, STRICT LIABILITY DOES NOT APPLY, AND THE PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE NEGLIGENCE IN ORDER TO RECOVER
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RR V. AMERICAN CYANAMID CO.
THE SHIPPER OF A HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL BY RAI; IS NOT STRICTLY LIABLE FOR A SPILL THAT OCCURS DURING TRANSIT
PUNITIVE DAMAGES REDUCTION
RICHARDSON V. CHAPMAN
IF AN AWARD IS THE RESULT OF PASSION OR PREJUDICE, SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE, OR LACKS SUPPORT IN EVIDENCE, AWARD CAN BE REDUCED TO AN AMOUNT THAT IS MORE REASONABLE
A TF MAY NOT BENEFIT AND AN INJURED PLAINTIFF'S TORT RECOVERY MAY NOT BE REDUCED B/C OF $ RECEIVED BY THE PLAINTIFF BY SOURCES INDEPENDENT OF THE TF'S CONTRIBUTION
FAMILY CAR DOCTRINE
MALCHOSE V. KALFELL
THE OWNER OF A CAR IS LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF THE CAR BY A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY WHEN THE OWNER FURNISHED THE CAR FOR THE USE, PLEASURE, OR BUSINESS FOR THE FAMILY/FAMILY MEMBER
EXCEPTIONS
A VICTIM'S OWN NEGLIGENCE CAN BE CONSIDERED TO REDUCE OR AVOIDS A DOG OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY, LIKE TAUNTING A DOG
NEGLGIENCE OVER STRICT
IF AN ACCIDENT CAN BE AVOIDED BY BEING CAREFUL, THE LAW SHOULD RELY ON A NEGLIGENCE STANDARD RATER THAN STRICT LIABILITY
NIED + UNUSUAL SENSITIVITY
DEFENDANT'S STANDARD OF CONDUCT IS MEASURED BY REACTIONS TO BE EXPECTED OF NORMAL PERSONS
W/O KNOWLEDGE OF PLAINTIFF'S UNUSUAL SENSITIVITY, THERE SHOULD BE NO RECOVERY FOR HYPERSENSITIVE MENTAL DISTURBANCE WHERE A NORMAL INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES