Summary of (Relevant) Classic Cases in Tort Law

I. INTENTIONAL TORTS
A. ASSAULT/BATTERY 1. Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wis. 1891) Intent to harm is NOT an element of battery. P must prove that D has unlawful intent to touch. 2. Tuberville v Savage, 86 Eng. Rep. 684 (K.B. 1669) A threatening gesture does not constitute an assault when accompanying words indicate that there will not be an attempt at contact. B. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 1. Whittaker v. Sandford, 85 A. 399 (Me. 1912) A D need not exert physical force to be liable for false imprisonment, actual physical restraint is sufficient. 2. Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co., 122 L.T. 44 (C.A. 1920) This case stands for the rule of law that the Ps lack of knowledge (of confinement) is immaterial for a prima facie case of false imprisonment. (NOT APPLICABLE IN THE USA) 3. Coblyn v. Kennedys Inc. 359 Mass. 319 (1971) Any general restraint and any demonstration of physical power which can be avoided only by submission, constitutes false imprisonment. A shopkeeper may detain a person he reasonably suspects of shoplifting in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable period of time. C. INTENTIONAL PHYSICAL HARM (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) 1. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. 57 Intentional, extreme and malicious conduct causing mental AND physical distress gives rise to a valid cause of action. 2. George v. Jordan Marsh Co., 359 Mass 244 (1971) Same as in Wilkinson.

II. NEGLIGENCE
A. DUTY 1. Scott v Shepherd, 96 Eng. Rep. 525 (K.B. 1773) One is liable to an innocent bystander for injury resulting from his unlawful, deliberate, indiscriminate and wanton mischief despite the intervening conduct of other parties acting under a compulsive necessity for their own safety and self-preservation. 2. Osborne v. McMasters, 41 N.W. 543 (Minn. 1889) When a duty of care is established by a statute, the common law duty to act with reasonable care is superseded so that violation of the statute constitutes conclusive evidence of 1

negligence, or in other words negligence per se (violation of the statute shows failure to exercise due care, regardless of anything else defendant may have done to prevent harm to plaintiff). 3. Hurley v. Eddingfield, 156 Indiana Reports 416 (1901) There is no affirmative duty to be a good citizen and help others in peril if you have not caused their predicament. 4. Martin v. Herzog, 126 N.E. 814 (N.Y. 1920) Unexcused omission of a statutory safety requirement is more than evidence of negligence, it is negligence in itself (negligence per se). It is a failure of the plaintiff to exercise due care. However, it must also be shown that such failure caused the accident, i.e. driving without lights during the daytime is not going to cause an accident. 5. Donogue v Stevenson, [H.L. 1932] A.C. 562 (Scot.) 740 The so-called neighbour principle was established in this landmark case. Memorize the meaning/definition of this principle. 6. United States v. Carroll Towing Co., Inc., 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir.1947) Liability for negligence will be invoked when the burden of adequate precautions is less than the possible gravity of injury times the probability of injury. (B < L x P) 7. Marsalis v. La Salle, 94 So.2d 120 (La. App. 1957) Failure to reasonably perform an act that was not legally required, but was promised, gives rise to liability. 8. Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976) Because of a psychotherapists special relationship with a patient, the psychotherapist has a duty to warn third persons of his patients violent intentions. 9. Kelly v. Gwinnell, 96 N.J. 538 (1984) A host who serves liquor to an adult social guest, knowing both that the guest is intoxicated and that he will thereafter be operating a motor vehicle is liable for injuries to a third party as a result of the negligent driving by the guest is such negligence is caused by the intoxication. NOTE: Holding a social host liable for result of his guests intoxication is the minority rule. Compare to bar owner and to social hosts serving minors. 10. Van Horn v. Watson et al., 45 Cal. 4th 322 (2008) California Supreme Court ruled that a good Samaritan statute only applies to emergency medical care, and does NOT protect against lawsuits based on claims of negligence in rescuing or transporting accident victims. Because of this ruling, good Samaritans who provide non-medical care are subject to the common law rule that a person has no duty to come to the aid of another [but if] a person elects to come to someones aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care. B. BREACH 11. Ybarra v. Spangard, 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 1944) Where a P receives unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will apply to all those Ds who had any control over the Ps body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries. It is up to each D to prove that he/she was not negligent or responsible. NOTE: This case 2

illustrates the smoking out of the evidence policy used when members of the same profession (i.e. doctors, accountants, lawyers, etc.) will not testify against each other. 12. Hammontree v. Jenner, 20 Cal. App.3d 528 (1971) There is no strict liability in accidents caused only by sudden attack of Ds illness. If the driver knows or should have known that such a seizure was likely to occur, he may be negligent. C. INJURY 13. Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospital, 616 P.2d 814 (Cal. 1980) Damages may be awarded for negligence infliction of emotional harm if the jury is convinced of the genuineness of the claim in light of the circumstances, even if there are NO physical symptoms. D. CAUSATION 14. In re Polemis & Furness, Withy &Co., [1921] 3 K.B. 560 The directness test holds that the defendant is liable as long as the injury follows in a direct, unbroken sequence of events. 15. Kingston v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co, 211 N.W. 913 (Wis. 1927) Under the rule involving concurrent causes, when two events jointly cause harm, a negligent actor will be liable for damages even though the others act alone would have caused the same damages. (substantial factor test) 16. Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad Company, 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) An actor is not liable for unforeseeable plaintiff for unforeseeable damages resulting from his negligent act to another. NOTE: The court (Cardozo) held that defendant was not liable because defendant did not have a duty to plaintiff because the wrong was caused to another party. The fact that the fireworks were concealed is significant because defendant could not have been expected to realize the potential danger to plaintiff. 17. Summers v. Tice, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948) Two negligent parties are held jointly liable for an injury only one could have committed unless they prove which of them committed the act that resulted in an injury. (alternative causes test) 18. Overseas Tankship (u.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock and Engineering Co., Ltd. Wagon Mound No. 1, [P.C. Aust. 1961] A.C. 388 The foreseeability test holds that the D is liable only if results of his negligent conduct were reasonably foreseeable at the time he acted. 19. Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp., 421 F.2d 1169 (2d Cir. 1970) A negligent actor is liable when his actions result in aggravating an existing illness but damages should be lower than if he had caused the illness. 20. Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., 539 P.2d 36 (Cal. 1975) If it is foreseeable that a partys conduct will cause others to behave in a negligent and dangerous manner, that part will not be relieved of liability by the intervening negligence that follows his act.

21. Gonzalez v. Garcia, 75 Cal. App. 3d 874 (1977) Passenger assumed the risk of riding with a drunk person; assumption of risk merged with contributory negligence.

III. STRICT LIABILITY

1. Rylands v Fletcher, L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (1868) One is strictly liable for damages resulting from the dangerous non-natural use of his land. 2. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1962) Manufacturers of products which are expected to be used without inspection are strictly liable in tort, and the limiting provisions of a state law will not bar recovery. 3. Elmore v. American Motors Corp., 451 P.2d 84 (Cal. 1969) Both consumers and bystanders may recover for injuries proximately caused by a defective product. 4. Two Rivers Co. v. Curtiss Breeding Service, 624 F.2d 1242 (5th Cir. 1980) Bull semen is not unreasonably unsafe, even if it is defective. Further, economic loss, as opposed to personal or property damages, does not warrant strict liability. Therefore, when a product does not fulfil ones expectations, lawsuit should be brought under the UCC for breach of contract, NOT under the strict liability or warranty theories of products liability.