Cases
Pohl v. County of Furnas
(non-retroreflective sign)
The court decided not to use contributory negligence because of its historic connection with a complete bar to plaintiffs recovery. The court used comparative fault/negligence instead to find the fault 40/60.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Acting intentionally or recklessly
Extreme or outrageous conduct
Results in severe emotional distress
What is the rescue doctrine?
The rescuer can recover from the defendant whose negligence prompts the rescue if the rescuer had a reasonable belief that the victim is in peril
Leichtamer v. American Motors Co.
(jeep rollover)
Explain the difference between trespass to chattels and conversion.
Conversion is more serious than trespass to chattels and involves intent to exercise substantial dominion over the chattel. Trespass to chattels involves the intent to interfere with the use or enjoyment of the chattel.
Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC
(spin class)
Larson's elements of battery.
1. Act (volitional)
2. Intent: either
a) purpose to cause contact (single intent)/purpose to cause harmful or
offensive contact (dual intent), or
b) knowledge with substantial certainty that contact (single intent)/harmful or offensive contact (dual intent) will occur
3. Some courts allow plaintiffs to substitute proof of reckless, willful, or wanton conduct for the more demanding requirement of intent.
4. Harmful or Offensive contact (remember extended personalty)
What is the sudden emergency doctrine?
The defendant has been suddenly placed in a position of peril through no negligence of his or her own, and in meeting the emergency acts as a reasonably prudent person would in the same or similar situation.
Baska v. Scherzer
(punched wrong person)
A defendant can still be liable for battery even if they intended to hit one person and hit another under the doctrine of transferred intent. Intent of the battery itself is enough.
What is federal preemption? What case did we use to discuss federal preemption?
Vreeland v. Ferrer
(plane crash)
Moore v. Hartley Motors
(ATV - rock)
If a liability release form includes only risks inherent to riding an ATV, and there is an unnecessarily dangerous risk involved in the activity, like having a hidden rock on a novice ATV course, the plaintiff can recover.
Larson's elements of false pretenses
1. Intent: Purpose or knowledge with substantial certainty to confine someone to a limited area for an “appreciable” amount of time without consent or privilege.
2. Plaintiff must be aware of confinement or sustain actual harm.
What is res ipsa loquitur?
Montagu v. AMN Healthcare, INC
(nurse poisoning)
The employer cannot be held vicariously liable for their employee poisoning another employee because the poisoning was not foreseeable and was not done to serve the employer's interests.
What are the two requirements to apply the Bexiga Rule?
1. The defendant knows of the plaintiff's disability which prevents or inhibits the plaintiff's care for himself; and
2. The plaintiff's risky conduct endangers himself but not others.
Lincoln Electric Co v. McLemore
(manganism)
Given that this is a discovery rule jurisdiction, the statute of limitations begins upon discovery of the injury, not the discovery of the cause of the injury.
What are the requirements for a negligence per se claim?
The statute or regulation must clearly define the required standard of conduct
The statute or regulation must have been intended to prevent the type of harm the defendant's act or omission caused
The plaintiff must be a member of the class of persons the statue or regulation was designed to protect
The violation must have been the proximate cause of the injury.
If the plaintiff is reasonable in facing a risk, she is not negligent, but that when she unreasonably confronts a known risk, her negligence in doing so reduces her recovery of damages.
Katko v. Briney
(shotgun trap)
Property owners are not allowed to use deadly or injurious force (such as setting a spring-loaded shotgun trap), especially if the intrusion is not deadly or injurious.
Explain how Ploof v. Putnam and Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. progressed the field of private necessity?
(both boat/dock cases)
Ploof v. Putnam - It is justified to trespass on another's land if it is necessary to protect goods from being destroyed by water or fire.
Vincent v. Lake Erie - Although you have the right to trespass out of necessity, you will be held liable for any damages to the land you entered.
Dasha v. Maine Medical Center
(benign brain tumor)
Equitable estoppel
1. A delay in filing an action that is induced by D
2. D misled P
3. P must have acted on the info in good faith to the extent that he failed to pursue his action in timely manner
If the defendant is a landowner and a child is injured while trespassing on their property, they are held to a higher standard of care if there is something on their land that may attract children.
Kaplan v. Mamelak
(wrong vertebrae)
If a patient consents to a specific procedure and a physician does anything except for what is consented to, the physician can be liable for battery.
What are the six Tunkl factors?
1. service is of great importance to public
2. service is a matter of practical necessity for some people
3. party holds himself out as willing to give service to anyone who seeks it
4. Party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services
5. Makes no provision whereby a purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against negligence
6. As a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller or his agents.