Torts Cases

1-12-04
Hossenlopp v. Cannon (S.C. 1985) General Facts: 4 year old (H) was bitten by dog (Cs) and sustained 19 un!ture wounds w"i!" re#uired stit!"es$ surgery$ and "os itali%ation. H and &riend were at a babysitters wat!"ing sitters dogs inside a &en!e. Cs dog !"arged. 'oys tried to !li(b &en!e. )og grabbed H$ and "e &ell to ground w"ere "e was in*ured. C said t"at t"e dog "ad been +iolent on!e$ but t"e in*ury to t"e , year old t"en was only a (inor s!rat!". C also said t"at dog !ould not be bound by a &en!e (would !li(b o+er it)$ and t"at t"e only way to truly !onstrain t"e dog was using a !"ain. Case History: -iability assessed &or H by su((ary *udge(ent (&ederal-li.e standard). )a(ages were le&t to t"e *ury. Cause of Action: /egligen!e (later !on+erted by S.C. S.Ct to stri!t liability) /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& reasonable !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& t"at duty1 (2) Causation (bot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate)1 (4) 4esulting )a(ages. Stri!t -iability0 (1) 'e"a+ior !o+ered by Stri!t -iability1 (2) Causation1 (2) 4esulting )a(ages. Law: )og-bite law (old and new &or S.C.) 5ld dog-bite law0 )o(esti! ani(als are not !onsidered in"erently dangerous. )uty o& !are (ust be establis"ed by t"e dangerousness o& t"e ani(al t"at was .nown or s"ould "a+e been .nown by t"e owner. 67"e negligen!e t"at i( oses liability u on t"e owner is t"e .ee ing o& a dangerous ani(al wit" .nowledge o& its dangerous tenden!ies$ or in t"e &ailure to restrain it &ro( in*uring ersons...8 /ew dog-bite law0 7"e owner o& any dog (dangerous or not) t"at bites a erson eit"er on ubli! ro erty or ri+ate ro erty t"at t"e +i!ti( is law&ully u on (in!luding t"e dog owners own ro erty) is liable &or t"ose in*uries. 9/-:SS$ t"e +i!ti( .nowingly and +oluntarily in+ites atta!. u on t"e(sel+es 54 wit"out reasonable ne!essity$ e3 oses "i(sel& to t"e danger. ;ro( C< law. Other Opinions: =usti!e Harwell would re&er t"e old law re#uiring .nowledge o& dogs dangerousness until su!" ti(e t"at t"e legislature !"anged t"e law. /57:0 7"e C< ro+ision !ited by t"e (a*ority was deri+ed by statute$ not !o((on law. =usti!e >regory would not use t"is !ase to !"ange t"e law. /57:0 7"e S.C. S.Ct is !"anging t"e dog-bite law by a&&ir(ing a *udg(ent t"at was rea!"ed under t"e old law soundly. Crisi v. Security Insurance Co. of New Haven (C< 19,?) General Facts: @rs. Crisi owned an a art(ent building in w"i!" @r. and @rs. )i@are li+ed. @rs. )i@are &ell t"roug" an outside stair!ase and sustained in*uries and de+elo ed a sy!"osis &ro( t"e &all. )i@ares sued C &or "ysi!al and (ental in*uries &or 400A. C "ad general liability insuran!e &ro( Se!urity &or 10A. 7"e insuran!e oli!y re#uired t"at S de&end C and "andle t"e !lai(. -awyers &or S and )i@ares agreed t"at B; a *ury &ound &or )s on sy!"osis$ t"en t"e da(ages would be at least 100A. Csy!"ologists were &ound bot" su orting and not su orting t"e (ental !lai( as t"e result o& t"e &all. )s ro osed to settle &or 10A$ but was re*e!ted. S was willing to ay no (ore t"an 2A &or "ysi!al in*uries and not"ing &or (ental. S later re*e!ted a 9A settle(ent o&&er &or w"i!" C agreed to ay 2.5A.

< *ury awarded )s a total o& 101A (@rs. 1001 @r. 1). S aid 10A. 7"e re(aining was settled by C by 22A$ a 40D interest in t"e ro erty$ and t"e assign(ent o& Cs !lai( against S. -ater$ C be!a(e indigent. C wor.ed as a babysitter and rent was aid by grand!"ildren. C be!a(e de ressed and atte( ted sui!ide. C also su&&ered a general de!line in "ealt". C is said to be a ?0 year old i((igrant widow. C t"en broug"t t"is !lai( against S &or insuran!e !o. bad &ait". Case History: <t trial$ *ury awarded C 91A &or t"e ad+erse *udg(ent and 25A &or ain and su&&ering. Cause of Action: Bnsuran!e Co. 'ad ;ait" Bnsuran!e Co. 'ad ;ait"0 (1) Bnsuran!e Coli!y Co+ered by Clai(1 (2) 'ad ;ait" by Co.1 (2) 4esulting )a(ages. Law: B. 4e*e!tion o& settle(ent o&&er wit"in oli!y li(its as bad &ait" and e3isten!e o& a bad &ait" !ause o& a!tion. 4ule &ro( Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co.0 (1) 7"ere is an i( lied !o+enant o& good &ait" in e+ery !ontra!tual relations"i in!luding insuran!e As. /eit"er arty will do anyt"ing to in*ure t"e ot"ers ability to re!ei+e t"e bene&its o& t"e A. (2) 5ne o& t"e !o((on bene&its and ra!ti!es under insuran!e As is to ro(ote and e&&e!tuate settle(ents. (2) <lt"oug" not !o+ered by e3 ress ter(s$ t"e insurer (ust settle a ro riate !ases ursuant to t"e i( li!it good &ait" agree(ent. (4) Bn deter(ining w"et"er to settle$ t"e insurer (ust !onsider "is own interests as well as t"e interests o& t"e insured. (5) E"en t"ere is a great ris. o& *udg(ent beyond t"e oli!y li(its and settle(ent is a reasonable way to .ee t"e *udg(ent wit"in t"e oli!y li(its$ t"e insurer (ust settle t"e !lai(. <not"er &or(ulation o& Comunale rule0 6-iability based on an i( lied !o+enant e3ists w"ene+er t"e insurer re&uses to settle in an a ro riate !ase and t"at liability (ay e3ist w"en t"e insurer unwarrantedly re&uses and o&&ered settle(ent w"ere t"e (ost reasonable (anner o& dis osing o& t"e !lai( is by a!!e ting t"e settle(ent.8 Standard &or a ro riate settle(ent0 6E"et"er a rudent insurer wit"out oli!y li(its would "a+e a!!e ted t"e settle(ent o&&er.8 Suggested rule &ro( amicus curiae0 E"ene+er an insurer re!ei+es an o&&er to settle wit"in t"e oli!y li(its and re*e!ts it$ t"e insurer s"ould be liable in e+ery !ase &or t"e a(ount o& any &inal *udg(ent w"et"er or not wit"in t"e oli!y li(its. 7"e !ourt !o(es u wit" so(e ros (si( li!ity$ no (ore 6ga(bling8 wit" insureds (oney$ wont !ost any (ore &or insuran!e !o( anies t"an resent law$ and ro+ides si( le *usti!e sin!e a !on&li!t o& interests e3ists so t"e insurer and insured will stay in t"e sa(e boat toget"er)$ but does not ass *udg(ent on t"e suggested rule bF! t"e e3isting law !o+ers Cs !lai( against S. BB. Cain and su&&ering da(ages !an &ollow &ro( t"e bad &ait" liability. E"en !ase resents bot" A and 7ort C5<$ C (ay !"ose eit"er to ursue. :+ery wrong "as a re(edy$ and a +i!ti( s"ould be !o( ensated &or all ro3i(ate "ar( !aused by wrong&ul a!ts o& ). 7ort da(ages (ay e3!eed in*uries w"i!" were &oreseeable or anti!i ated. La !ertson v. ".S. (2d Cir. 19?,) General Facts: - wor.ed &or <r(our G Co. by unloading (eat s"i (ents at t"e Syra!use lant. 5n one o!!asion (8F20F?2)$ - was unloading (eat w"en 9.S. )e t. o& <g. (eat ins e!tor$ Eillia( 'oslet$ *u( ed on "is ba!.$ ulled -s sto!.ing "at o+er -s

eyes$ and rode - iggyba!.. <s a result$ - &ell &orward onto (eat "oo.s w"i!" were , in!"es in &ront o& "i(. - su&&ered se+ere in*uries to "is (out" and teet". Case History: Case was dis(issed by t"e )istri!t Court &or la!. o& *urisdi!tion under t"e ;ederal 7ort Clai(s <!t (28 9.S.C. 2,80). - a ealed. Cause of Action: 'attery 6dressed u as negligen!e.8 'attery0 (1) 'odily Conta!t1 (2) Conta!t was o&&ensi+e1 (2) ) intended to (a.e t"e contactHan intent to in*ure is not re#uired$ only t"e intent to (a.e t"e !onta!t. /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& due !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& t"at duty1 (2) Causation (bot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate)1 (4) 4esulting in*uries. Law: 7"e re#uisite intent &or battery0 7"e intent re#uired &or a battery is not t"e intent to in*ure or !ause in*uries to t"e +i!ti(. 4at"er$ it is t"e intent to !ause t"e !onta!t w"i!" was o&&ensi+e to t"e +i!ti(. Bntent in general (ay be s"own by eit"er (1) ur ose or (2) .nowledge wit" substantial !ertainty t"at )s !ondu!t will !ause t"e ro"ibited result. #anson v. $itner (Bll. < . 1888) General Facts: As dog was tra+eling in t"e woods w"ere 4 was "unting wol+es. 7"e dog a eared to be a wol& and 4 s"ot and .illed it. 4s de&ense was t"at "e "ad a good &ait" belie& t"at t"e dog was a wol& be!ause o& t"e dogs a earan!e. Case History: < *ury awarded A t"e +alue o& t"e dog (I50). 4 a ealed based on a t"eory t"at "is (ista.e eli(inated liability. Cause of Action: Con+ersion Con+ersion0 (1) Bntentional <!t1 (2) )estru!tion o& ro erty 54 inter&eren!e wit" owners"i to (a.e its +alue1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" (ista.e (ay eli(inate liability0 < erson will still be liable &or t"eir intentionally !aused results regardless o& w"et"er or not t"ey are (ista.en about t"e tortious nature o& t"eir !ondu!t. B&$ "owe+er$ t"e intent &or t"e result is la!.ing$ t"en t"e (ista.e (ay eli(inate liability. :3a( le0 < erson w"o s"ots at a target$ but "its a erson w"o is un.nowingly be"ind t"e target is not liable &or an intentional tort. 7"e intention was to s"oot at t"e target and not t"e erson. 7"ere&ore$ t"e s"ooters (ista.e about t"e e3isten!e o& t"e +i!ti( will eli(inate intentional tort liability. %cGuire v. Al y (@ass. 192?) General Facts: @ was an insane erson$ and < was t"e nurse w"o !ared &or "er &or 6nearly 14 (ont"s.8 < .new t"at @ was insane$ but "ysi!ally well. 5+er t"e !ourse o& !are$ @ "ad a &ew odd s ells o& +iolen!e$ but not"ing (a*or. 5ne day (4F19F22)$ @ be!a(e +ery +iolent in a roo( by "ersel&. <&ter atte( ts by <$ t"e (aid$ and @s brot"er-in-law$ < went into t"e roo( to !al( @. 7"en$ @ stru!. < on t"e "ead wit" a lowboy (dresser) leg. < su&&ered in*uries. Case History: =ury +erdi!t below &or < &or I1500. @ a ealed !ontending t"at a dire!ted +erdi!t s"ould "a+e been issued on one o& two grounds0 (1) @ was insane and not liable andFor (2) < assu(ed t"e ris. o& in*ury t"roug" "er e( loy(ent and !o(ing into t"e +iolent s!ene. Cause of Action: <ssault and 'attery <ssault and 'attery0 (1) 'odily !onta!t1 (2) Conta!t was o&&ensi+e1 (2) ) intended t"at !onta!t.

Law: 7o w"at e3tent (ay t"e insanity or (ental !a a!ity o& a erson a&&e!t liability0 <n insane erson will be "eld liable &or tortious !ondu!t in t"e sane (anner as a 6nor(al8 erson. 7"e only way t"at t"e ersons (ental !a a!ity be!o(es rele+ant is t"e e3tent to w"i!" t"at erson is !a able and did &or( t"e re#uired intent &or t"e intentional tort !lai(ed. 7"e e3tent t"at !onsent (ay a+ert liability0 7"e (ere intentional in!urring o& t"e ris. o& in*ury is not enoug" to re+ent liability on t"is basis. 67"e degree o& danger$ t"e stress o& !ir!u(stan!es$ t"e e3 e!tation or "o e t"at ot"ers will &ully er&or( t"e duties resting on t"e($ (ay all "a+e to be !onsidered.8 $eel v. Hainline (5.la. 1958) General Facts: A and , ot"er )s were 6"orsing around8 rior to t"e start o& a s!"ool !lass w"en t"e tea!"er was late. ;or a ro3i(ately 20 (inutes t"e )s t"rew wooden erasers$ !"al.$ !ardboard dru( !o+ers$ and one soda bottle at ea!" ot"er a!ross t"e !lassroo( &illed wit" 25-40 students. 7"e )s intended to stri.e ea!" ot"er wit" t"e ob*e!ts alt"oug" not to !ause in*ury. 7"e lay ended w"en one ) (=ennings) t"rew an eraser and "it t"e lainti&& (Catri!ia <nn 'urge) in t"e eye$ brea.ing "er glasses and in*uring t"e eye su!" t"at s"e lost t"e use o& t"e eye. Case History: Clainti&& won at trial and re!ei+ed da(ages award. Aeel a ealed arguing t"at (1) no e+iden!e e3ists t"at indi!ates t"at "e (or t"e ot"ers) intentionally in&li!ted in*ury u on lainti&& and (2) no e+iden!e e3ists t"at t"e in*ury was t"e ro3i(ate !ause o& any wrong&ul and unlaw&ul a!t by "i( (or t"e ot"ers). Cause of Action: 'attery ( er"a s <ssault and 'attery) 'attery0 (1) 'odily !onta!t on t"e erson o& t"e C1 (2) 5&&ensi+e !onta!t1 (2) Bntent o& ) to (a.e t"e !onta!t1 (4) Causation1 (5) 4esulting da(ages. Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" intent (ay be trans&erred0 < wrong&ul a!t dire!ted at one erson (or t"ing resu(ably) but "ar(s anot"er erson unintentionally$ (ay be "eld against t"e ) as i& it "ad been intentionally done against t"e "ar(ed erson. 7"e wrong&ulness o& "orse lay in t"is !ase0 7"e !ourt e3 li!itly "eld t"at t"e t"rowing o& otentially "ar(&ul ob*e!ts in t"e resen!e o& inno!ents is wrong&ul bF! o& t"e in"erent danger to t"ose inno!ents by t"eir resen!e. <iding and <betting wrong&ul !ondu!t0 65ne w"o !o((ands$ dire!ts$ ad+ises$ en!ourages$ ro!ures$ instigates$ ro(otes$ !ontrols$ aids$ or abets a wrong&ul a!t by anot"er "as been regarded as being as res onsible as t"e one w"o !o((its t"e a!t so as to i( ose liability u on t"e &or(er to t"e sa(e e3tent as i& "e "ad er&or(ed t"e "i(sel&.8 52 <(.=ur. 454$ 7orts 114. &ru'ney v. ( atru'o (). Conn. 19?,) General Facts: ' was a (e(ber o& a student ea!e rally on t"e !a( us o& Jale. <t a ro3i(ately 11000 a( on 5F11F?2 t"e rally turned +iolent. 5ne oli!e o&&i!er >iannotti "ad been tra ed by t"e (ass o& eo le$ "ad &allen in t"e !rowd$ and was being atta!.ed. ;earing t"at > would be tra( led and "urt$ &ellow o&&i!erFde&endant : !a(e to t"e !rowd to res!ue >. <&ter se+eral +erbal warnings$ : de!ided to use "is 6bla!.*a!.8 (nig"tsti!.). His intended target was a student$ rob. Cru%. Howe+er$ during t"e downstro.e$ t"e !lub a!!idently "it 's "ead on its way to Cru%s "ead. : was not aware t"at "is !lub "ad stru!. '. S"e sued &or assault and battery. Case History: 5 inion is &ro( t"e trial !ourt0 =udg(ent &or t"e de&endant. Cause of Action: <ssault and 'attery

<ssault and 'attery0 (1) 'odily !onta!t on t"e erson o& t"e C1 (2) 5&&ensi+e !onta!t1 (2) Bntent o& ) to (a.e t"e !onta!t1 (4) Causation1 (5) 4esulting da(ages. Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" *usti&iableness o& nor(ally unlaw&ul !onta!t (ay be trans&erred to an unintentional +i!ti(. 7"e !ourt does not allow ' to re!o+er be!ause t"e use o& t"e !lub by : was 6ne!essary$ reasonable$ li(ited$ and relati+ely !ontrolled under t"e !ir!u(stan!es.8 7"e !ourt also !"ara!teri%ed 's in*ury as 6(inor.8 7"ese two !on!lusions !o(bined see(s to suggest t"at t"e *usti&iable assault and battery on Cru% (K) (ay trans&er to t"e unintended !onta!t wit" '$ es e!ially sin!e t"e in*uries to ' were so (inor.

1-14-04
No!le v. Louisville Transfer Co. (Ay. < . 1952) General Facts: Cregnant wo(an L@rs. /obleM and daug"ter LS"elly age &i+eM used a ta3i ser+i!e to go "o(e &ro( a train station in -ouis+ille$ AJ. 7"e girl was si!. and +o(ited in t"e !ar. 7"e ta3i dri+er (de&endant$ Eood) insisted t"at (ot"er !lean t"e (ess u w"en t"ey arri+ed at t"e destination. E 6detained8 t"e girl w"ile t"e (ot"er went in &or a rag. E was a large (an (,N 1 1F2N$ 210 lbs.) and t"e (ot"er was &ear&ul o& "i(. E used "is 6little &inger to .ee "er LgirlM &ro( &alling o+er.8 Case History: 7"e trial !ourt dire!ted a +erdi!t &or de&endant on all &our !"arges Ltwo assault$ one battery to girl$ and &alse i( rison(ent o& girlM. 7"e a ellate !ourt dis(issed t"e assault and &alse i( rison(ent !"arges as groundless and u "eld t"e d.+. on (atters o& law (see below) and on (atters o& &a!t (!on!lusion t"at no "ar(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& S o!!urred). Cause of Action: 'attery 'attery0 (1) Bntentional a!t o& )1 (2) !ausation1 (2) "ar(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e C. Law: 7"e e3tent o& intent re#uired &or battery0 :it"er "ar(&ul or o&&ensi+e "ysi!al !onta!t or t"e (ani&est intention to "ar( are re#uired &or a battery. L4. 7orts 1220M /57:0 < arently (ost !ourts will not agree wit" t"is intent re#uire(ent. @ost !ourts re#uire an intent 6to !ause !onta!t$ &ollowed by !onta!t t"at in &a!t is eit"er "ar(&ul or reasonably o&&ensi+e.8 )icar' v. &arry )ontiac*&uic+, Inc. (4B 1995) General Facts: Ci!ard was "a+ing 6troubles8 wit" t"e auto !lini! ()). C !onta!ted a lo!al *ournalist to "el $ and t"en too. a i!ture o& t"e ). 7"e i!ture s"ows t"at t"e ) ointed so(ew"at angerly at C. ) t"en a roa!"ed C and as.ed w"o "ad gi+en "er er(ission to ta.e t"e i!ture. ) t"en la!ed "is &inger on Cs !a(era. C was &ear&ul o& t"e ) and "is be"a+ior. Case History: <t trial$ ) &ound liable &or assault and battery and awarded !o( ensatory and uniti+e da(ages. 5n a eal t"e !ourt u "eld liability but re(anded &or new da(ages a&ter &inding t"e( 6grossly e3!essi+e.8 Cause of Action: <ssault and 'attery <ssault0 (1) Bntentional a!t o& t"e de&endant1 (2) Causation1 (2) < re"ension o& "ar(&ul !onta!t &or lainti&&. 'attery0 (1) Bntentional a!t o& t"e de&endant1 (2) Causation1 (2) Har(&ul or

o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. Law: E"at !ounts as t"e 6 erson o& t"e lainti&&8 &or batteryK E"ile t"is will !"ange in e+ery situation$ anyt"ing t"at is 6so !onne!ted wit" t"e body as to be !usto(arily regarded as art o& t"e ot"ers erson8 is eligible to be battered. :ssentially$ t"e e3tent o& t"e erson is regarded by bot" ro3i(ity and e(otional atta!"(ent. %oore v. (l )aso Cha !er of Co erce (7e3. < . 1949) General Facts: @oore (1?) and "er (ot"er were wal.ing on t"e !ity streets o& :l Caso. <t t"e sa(e ti(e$ t"e !itys !"a(ber o& !o((er!e was ro(oting its annual rodeo. 7o ro(ote t"e e+ent$ t"e !"a(ber 6e( loyed8 a nu(ber o& +olunteers to ro e u &ol.s w"o were not dressed in 6Eestern8 wear as t"e !iti%ens "ad been en!ouraged to do. 7"e !a ti+es would t"en be la!ed on a wea. ele!tri!al !"air until t"ey ur!"ased rodeo ti!.ets or a bandana to !o( lete t"e re#uired loo.. @ was !"ased by a +olunteer (Claude Eea+er) to be a !a ti+e. @ did not want to arti!i ate and was &ear&ul. S"e and "er (ot"er du!.ed into a drug store wit" "o es o& t"en (o+ing to t"e Hilton lobby to es!a e. E"ile o ening t"e glass door between t"e two la!es$ @ bro.e t"e glass and !ut "er "ad se+erely. 7"e da(ages to t"e "and were deter(ined to be I,$1,2.00. Case History: S e!ial +erdi!t was sent to t"e *ury w"i!" &ound t"at Eea+er was a!ting under t"e dire!tion o& 6S"orty8 w"o was a!ting under t"e guise o& t"e C"a(ber. E was negligent in "is a!tions and !aused in*ury to @. <nd @ was negligent to !are &or "er own sa&ety. 9 on t"is &inal de!ision o& 6!ontributory negligen!e$8 t"e trial !ourt &ound &or t"e ). < eal and re+ersed. Cause of Action: 'attery ( er"a s assault) 'attery0 (1) Bntentional a!t o& )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Har(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e C. Law: 7"e e&&e!t o& !ontributory negligen!e as a de&ense to an intentional tort0 6Contributory negligen!e is no de&ense to an intentional wrong.8 Here E intended all o& "is a!tions sa+e t"e in*ury1 t"ere&ore$ t"e !ause did not lie in negligen!e$ but battery. 7"e e3tent to w"i!" a non-e( loyee (ay be "eld to be t"e agent o& t"e )0 <gen!y does not re#uire an e3 ress a oint(ent$ but !an be i( lied by t"e !onditions and !ir!u(stan!es o& t"e relations"i . Bt (ay also e3ist &ro( a single transa!tion. -estern "nion Tele.raph Co. v. Hill (<la. < . 1922) General Facts: Hs wi&e went to see Sa ((anager o& )s o&&i!e in town) about &i3ing "er !lo!. w"i!" was a ser+i!e earlier ro(ised by "one. S "ad dran. a &ew drin.s o& w"is.ey and was &eeling 6a(iable.8 Hs wi&e said t"at S said$ 6B& you will !o(e ba!. "ere and let (e lo+e and et you$ B will &i3 your !lo!..8 Hs wi&e also said t"at S rea!"ed &or "er and tried to tou!" or grab "er be&ore s"e *u( ed ba!.. S was be"ind a !ounter t"at went u to "is ar( its. Bt was s"own t"at it was i( ossible &or S to tou!" Hs wi&e due to t"e "eig"t o& t"e !ounter unless "e leaned &orward or ot"erwise (ade "i(sel& taller in relation to t"e !ounter. S was t"e (anager o& t"e o&&i!e and was attending to business at t"e ti(e o& t"e in!ident. Case History: 7rial !ourt denied a de&ense (otion &or eit"er s.*. or d.+. based on two #uestions0 (1) /o assault o!!urred legally or &a!tually and (2) ) !o( any !ould not be "eld liable &or Ss a!tions bF! t"ey were outside t"e s!o e o& "is e( loy(ent. < ellate !ourt agreed wit" t"e &irst dis(issal$ but not t"e se!ond. Cause of Action: <ssault <ssault0 (1) Bntentional a!t o& )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Cla!ed lainti&& in reasonable

a re"ension o& i((inent battery. Law: Can an assault ta.e la!e wit"out tou!"ingK Jes$ an in!ident is a!tionable &or assault i& t"ere is 6an intentional$ unlaw&ul$ o&&er to tou!" t"e erson o& anot"er in a rude or angry (anner under su!" !ir!u(stan!es as to !reate in t"e (ind o& t"e arty alleging t"e assault a well-&ounded &ear o& an i((inent battery$ !ou led wit" t"e a arent resent ability to e&&e!tuate t"e atte( t$ i& not ree( ted.8 Here$ t"ere was enoug" a #uestion o& &a!t t"at t"e !ase !ould legally be sub(itted to t"e *ury. 7o w"at e3tent (ay t"e a!tions o& an e( loyee be said to be in t"e s!o e o& "isF"er e( loy(ent0 <lt"oug" t"e a!tor (ay !learly be t"e agent o& t"e )$ unless t"e agent is a!ting in a san!tioned (anner in t"e s!o e o& e( loy(ent$ "is intentional a!ts are "is own &or liability. S was a!ting not in t"e ro(otion o& t"e business "ere$ but "is own desires &or !o( anions"i . Harris v. /ones (@d. 19??) General Facts: Harris was disabled by a stuttering roble( "is w"ole li&e. 7"is !ondition worsened wit" stress. H was an e( loyee o& >@ at a (anu&a!turing lant. =ones was one o& Hs su er+isors at t"e lant. )uring t"e !ourse o& &i+e (ont"s (@ar!"<ug 19?5)$ = belittled H &or "is stuttering roble(. H was 6s"a.en u 8 and 6&elt li.e going into a "ole and "ide.8 Hs !ondition also worsened in res onse to t"e "eig"tened stress "e &elt at wor. be!ause o& t"e "arass(ent. )uring t"e "arass(ent$ H !ontinued to re!ei+e treat(ent &ro( a do!tor &or t"e roble( and was again res!ribed ills &or t"e roble(. H also !lai(s t"at "e inter ersonal relations wit" "is &a(ily$ w"i!" were already oor$ worsened as well. 5t"er e( loyees also teased H about "is !ondition. Case History: <t trial a *ury awarded H I2$500 !o( ensatory da(ages and I15$000 in uniti+e da(ages against bot" = and >@. 5n initial a eal$ t"e @aryland Court o& S e!ial < eals$ re+ersed t"e liability assess(ent w"ile o&&i!ially re!ogni%ing t"e tort o& intentional in&li!tion o& e(otional distress (BB:)). 7"ey did so by &inding t"at t"e a!tions o& = were se+ereFoutrageous$ but !ausation and t"e se+erity o& Hs distress were la!.ing to a(ount to t"e tort. 7"e @aryland Court o& < eals u "eld t"is *udg(ent and a&&ir(ed t"e re!ognition in general o& t"e tort. Cause of Action: Bntentional Bn&li!tion o& :(otional )istress BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t by )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere e(otional distress &elt by C. Law: 4e!ognition o& t"e inde endent tort o& BB:)0 7"ere e3ists a need to !o( ensate da(ages !aused by outrageous !ondu!t leading to e(otional distress1 "owe+er$ t"e &our ele(ents o& t"e tort s"ould be &ollowed !losely to a+oid &ri+olous !lai(s and t"e di&&i!ultly o& weeding out &alse !lai(s. :3tent o& t"e 6e3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t8 re#uire(ent0 7"e !ondu!t (ust be so se+ere t"at is goes 6beyond all ossible bounds o& de!en!y$ and to be regarded as atro!ious$ and utterly intolerable in a !i+ili%ed !o((unity.8 7"is !ondu!t re#uire(ent does not e3tend to 6(ere insults$ indignities$ t"reats$ annoyan!es$ etty o ressions$ or ot"er tri+ialities... lainti&&s (ust ne!essarily be e3 e!ted and re#uired to be "ardened to a !ertain a(ount o& roug" language$ and to o!!asional a!ts t"at are de&initely in!onsiderate and un.ind.8 Howe+er$ t"e ersonality o& t"e +i!ti( as well as t"e relations"i between t"e ersons (ust be !onsidered w"en (a.ing a *udg(ent on t"e outrageousness o& t"e !ondu!t. :3tent o& t"e 6severe e(otional distress8 needed0 67"ere is no liability w"ere t"e lainti&& "as su&&ered e3aggerated and unreasonable e(otional distress$ unless it results

&ro( a e!uliar sus!e tibility to su!" distress o& w"i!" t"e a!tor "as .nowledge.8 < arently$ t"is (eant in t"is !ase t"at sin!e t"e !ondu!t (ay "a+e only !aused a slig"t in!rease in t"e se+erity o& an e3isting !ondition$ t"en re!o+ery and liability were not ossible. Slocu v. Foo' Fair Stores of Flori'a, Inc. (;la. 1958) General Facts: Slo!u( as.ed about t"e ri!e o& an ite( at a gro!ery store. < !ler. res onded rudely by saying$ 6B& you want to .now t"e ri!e$ youll "a+e to &ind out t"e best way you !an...you stin. to (e.8 S !lai(s t"at t"is language was o&&ensi+e to "er and !aused (ental su&&ering or e(otional distress$ and an ensuing "eart atta!. and aggra+ation o& re-e3isting "eart disease. Case History: 7rial !ourt dis(issed t"e !o( laint &or &ailure to state a !lai( &or w"i!" relie& (ay be granted. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt u "eld t"is ruling and !on!luded t"at an e3tension o& a broad rule in+o.ing liability &or abusi+e language o& ser+ants in !ertain industries (!arriers$ "otels$ t"eaters$ and telegra " o&&i!es$ so &ar) was not warranted in t"is !ase. Cause of Action: BB:) BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t by )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere e(otional distress &elt by C. Law: How wordsF!ondu!t are to be ad*udged a!tionable or not0 67"e deter(ination o& w"et"er words or !ondu!t are a!tionable in !"ara!ter is to be (ade on an ob*e!ti+e rat"er t"an sub*e!ti+e standard.8 7"e alleged intrusion !ausing e(otional distress (ust be deter(ined to "a+e !aused a erson o& 6ordinary sensibilities8 se+ere e(otional distress$ unless t"ere is rior .nowledge o& t"e sus!e tibility o& t"e +i!ti( to e(otional distress. Contreras v. Crown 0eller!ach Corporation (Eas". 19??) General Facts: Contreras is a @e3i!an-<(eri!an w"o wor.ed &or t"e ) until 24 =an. 19?4. )uring "is e( loy(ent$ "e su&&ered nu(erous ra!ial slurs and e it"ets on t"e *ob site during business "ours and a!ti+ities. 7"e (anagers and su er+isors were unable or unwilling to !ontrol t"e e( loyees and sto t"is be"a+ior. <s a result o& "is ra!ial "eritage$ C !lai(s t"at t"e e( loyees and e( loyer .new or s"ould "a+e .nown t"at "e was es e!ially sensiti+e and sus!e tible to e(otional distress due to t"e !o((ents. Case History: @otion &or dis(issal &or &ailure to state a !lai( was granted. C a ealed w"ere !ourt re+ersed t"e dis(issal "olding t"at t"e issue o& t"e outrageousness o& t"e !ondu!t in relation to Cs "eritage was a #uestion o& &a!t &or a *ury$ not a (atter o& law to be de!ided on a de(urrer. Cause of Action: BB:) BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t by )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere e(otional distress &elt by C. Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" a ersons sus!e tibility to a ra!ial slurs due to et"ni!ity (ay (eet t"e outrageous re#uire(ent &or BB:)0 Bt is ossible t"at todays !"anging standards t"at ra!ial slurs will be outrageous enoug" to #uali&y &or BB:). Bt is also$ t"ere&ore$ a #uestion o& &a!t &or t"e *ury to de!ide$ not a #uestion o& law &or t"e *udge. 7"e relations"i between t"e arties is a signi&i!ant &a!tor in deter(ining w"et"er liability s"ould be i( osed.

1-21-04 Taylor v. 1allelun.a (Cal. < . 1959) General Facts: 7aylor was t"e daug"ter o& Cli&&ord >erla!" w"o was battered by Oallelunga on C"rist(as 195,. 7 witnesses t"e atta!.1 "owe+er$ no &a!ts indi!ated t"at O .new t"at 7 was t"ere and witnessing t"e atta!.. Case History: O (o+ed to dis(iss &or &ailure to state a !lai( (de(urrer) &or 7s !lai( o& BB:). 7"e (otion was granted and 7 a ealed. < ellate !ourt u "eld t"e de(urrer. Cause of Action: BB:) BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t o& )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t o& )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere (ental distress &or C. Law: )e&inition o& 6intentional8 !ondu!t &or BB:)0 6<n intention to !ause se+ere e(otional distress e3ists w"en t"e a!t is done &or (1) t"e ur ose o& !ausing t"e distress or (2) wit" .nowledge on t"e art o& t" a!tor t"at se+ere e(otional distress is substantially !ertain to be rodu!ed by "is !ondu!t. )e&inition in relation to t"ird arty !lai(0 < rere#uisite &or t"e intentional as e!t o& t"e C5< is t"at t"e ) .new t"at t"e Cs was resent at t"e ti(e. <lternati+ely$ e+iden!e (ust e3ist t"at t"e !ondu!t was done &or t"e ur ose o& !ausing e(otional distress. /57:0 7"is !ase was de!ided be&ore 6re!.less8 be"a+ior !ould be t"e basis &or BB:). <lso$ 4.2d 4,(2) dis!usses t"e e3tent o& liability &or BB:) !ondu!t dire!ted at t"ird ersons. Bt ro+ides0 E"ere Le3tre(e or outrageousM !ondu!t is dire!ted at t"ird ersons$ t"e a!tor is sub*e!t to liability i& "e intentionally or re!.lessly !auses se+ere e(otional distress (a) to a (e(ber o& su!" ersons i((ediate &a(ily w"o is resent at t"e ti(e$ w"et"er or not su!" distress results in bodily "ar($ or (b) to any ot"er erson w"o is resent at t"e ti(e$ i& su!" distress results in bodily "ar(. ;inally$ so(e !ourts and !o((entators re!o((end t"at t"e resen!e re#uire(ent be dro ed in !ertain !ir!u(stan!es o& e3tre(e !ondu!t ((urder) &or i((ediate &a(ily (e(bers. &ir' v. /ones (P.'. 1845) General Facts: 'ird (CK) was wal.ing along a ubli! road. < ortion o& t"at road "ad been se!tioned o&& by =ones ()K) to use as aid +iewing area &or a boat ra!e. = and aid o&&i!ers did not allow ' to ass t"roug" t"e area. <t one oint ' and = got into a s!u&&le and ' was detained &or a (o(ent. <&terwards$ ' was told t"at "e was &ree to lea+e$ but "e !ould not stay in t"e area or ass t"roug" t"e area wit"out aying t"e ri!e o& +iewing. Case History: <t trial C won a *ury +erdi!t. ) was granted a rule nisi &or a new trial. 7"e !onditional grant &or a new trial was (ade absolute by t"e a ellate !ourt. Cause of Action: ;alse B( rison(ent ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional$ un!onsented !ondu!t by )1 (2) Condu!t a(ounting to &or!e$ t"reat o& &or!e$ or assertion o& legal aut"ority (2) Causation1 (4) Con&ine(ent wit"in &i3ed boundaries &or C. Law: :3tent o& t"e ossible 6 rison80 6< rison (ay "a+e its boundary large or narrow$ +isible or tangible...1 it (ay itsel& be (o+able or &i3ed$ but a boundary it (ust "a+e1 and t"at boundary t"e arty i( risoned (ust be re+ented &ro( assing1 "e (ust be re+ented &ro( lea+ing t"at la!e$ wit"in t"e a(bit o& w"i!" t"e arty i( risoning would !on&ine "i($ e3 e!t by rison-brea!".8

-oss o& !o( lete &reedo( +s. &alse i( rison(ent0 ;alse i( rison(ent is (ore t"an t"e (ere loss o& &reedo( to go to a s e!i&i! la!e1 6it in!ludes t"e notion o& restraint wit"in so(e li(its de&ined by a will or ower e3terior to our own.8 Other Opinions: -ord )en(an would "a+e a broader de&inition o& t"e 6 rison8 &or t"e !lai(. His de&inition would (ore e#uate t"e loss o& &reedo( to do so(et"ing s e!i&i! as t"e ossible basis &or a !lai(. He said0 6<s long as B a( re+ented &ro( doing w"at B "a+e a rig"t to do$ o& w"at i( ortan!e is it t"at B a( er(itted to do so(et"ing elseK8 %orales v. Lee (7e3. < . 1984) General Facts: -ee (C) was an e( loyee in t"e )s (edi!al o&&i!e. )r. @orales broug"t - into "is o&&i!e w"ere a !o-wor.er and @s son were also resent. @ #uestioned - in !onne!tion wit" a (issing I5.00. <&ter - denied ta.ing t"e (oney$ @ 6got (ad...*ust went !ra%y.8 @ t"rew t"ings around and s"outed. @ told - not to lea+e or "e would 6!all t"e oli!e and t"e oli!e will be "ere in a (inute.8 -ater - le&t a&ter being told 6get t"e "ell out o& "ere. B dont want to see you any(ore.8 - le&t in tears$ waited to get "er ay!"e!. wit"out s ea.ing. <&terwards$ s"e de+elo ed a !ondition w"ere s"e !ould not slee $ "ad nig"t(ares$ !ould not eat$ and would +o(it a&ter eating. S"e saw a do!tor$ lost 20 ounds$ and was in good "ealt" rior to t"e in!ident. Case History: =ury awarded - !o( ensatory and uniti+e da(ages. @ a ealed$ and t"e a ellate !ourt re+ersed t"e trial !ourt and &ound &or t"e ). Cause of Action: ;alse B( rison(ent ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional$ un!onsented !ondu!t by )1 (2) Condu!t a(ounting to &or!e$ t"reat o& &or!e$ or assertion o& legal aut"ority (2) Causation1 (4) Con&ine(ent wit"in &i3ed boundaries &or C. Law: :3tent to w"i!" t"reats o& &uture a!tion !an (eet re#uire(ents0 7"reats o& &uture a!tion alone !annot usually be su&&i!ient &or an a!tion &or &alse i( rison(ent. 7"ere (ust be ot"er !ondu!t and e+iden!e t"at would su ort t"e a!tion inde endently. Other Opinions: =usti!e 7i*erina agreed wit" t"e state(ent o& t"e law1 "owe+er$ "e &ound su&&i!ient e+iden!e based on t"e relati+e si%e$ age$ and se3 o& t"e arties and t"e e( loyer-e( loyee relations"i to a+oid t"e re+ersal o& t"e *urys +erdi!t. He would rat"er ay (ore de&eren!e to t"e *ury be!ause o& t"e re(o+al o& t"e a ellate !ourt to witnesses. 6Ee s"ould not substitute our *udg(ent &or t"at o& t"e *ury.8 7i*erina also ointed out t"at t"e !on&ine(ent &or &alse i( rison(ent need not be &or anyt"ing longer t"an 6an a re!iable lengt" o& ti(e.8 ;urt"er$ no roo& o& "ar( &ro( t"at !on&ine(ent itsel& is ne!essary sin!e t"e tort is !o( lete u on t"e e+en brie& restraint o& Cs &reedo(. (nri.ht v. Groves (Col. < . 19??) General Facts: 5&&i!er >ro+es was on "is &oot atrol w"en "e obser+ed t"e dog o& C :nrig"t running &ree in +iolation o& !ity ordinan!e. <&ter &inding out t"e owners"i o& t"e dog &ro( :s son$ > a roa!"ed :$ w"o was in a ar.ed !ar. > de(anded :s dri+ers li!ense. S"e ga+e > "er na(e and address. > ordered : to rodu!e t"e li!ense or 6go to *ail.8 : re lied by as.ing$ 6Bsnt t"is ridi!ulousK8 7"en > too. "er by t"e ar( and said$ 6-ets go.8 7"e grabbing "urt : and s"e !o( lained to no a+ail. S"e t"en "it > in t"e sto(a!". > t"en t"rew "er to t"e ground and "and!u&&ed "er and only t"en announ!ed "er to be under arrest. : was *ailed. -ater : was !on+i!ted o& a +iolation o& t"e ordinan!e.

Case History: =ury &ound &or : and awarded !o( ensatory and uniti+e da(ages as &ollows0 &alse i( rison(ent$ 500F10001 intentional in&li!tion o& e(otional distress$ 1500F20001 battery$ 500F1000. > and City o& ;t. Collins a ealed$ but a ellate !ourt a&&ir(ed. Cause of Action: ;alse i( rison(ent$ BB:)$ and battery. ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional$ un!onsented !ondu!t by )1 (2) Condu!t a(ounting to &or!e$ t"reat o& &or!e$ or assertion o& legal aut"ority (2) Causation1 (4) Con&ine(ent wit"in &i3ed boundaries &or C. BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t by )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere e(otional distress. 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Har(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e C Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" a oli!e o&&i!er is liable &or &alse i( rison(ent !lai(0 6< !lai( &or &alse arrest will not lie i& an o&&i!er "as a +alid warrant or robable !ause to belie+e t"at an o&&ense "as been !o((itted and t"at t"e erson w"o was arrested !o((itted it.8 <lso$ 6!on+i!tion o& t"e !ri(e &or w"i!" one is s e!i&i!ally arrested is a !o( lete de&ense to a subse#uent !lai( &or &alse arrest.8 Here$ "owe+er$ : was arrested &or not rodu!ing "er dri+ers li!ense. 7"is was an 6o&&ense8 t"at was not *usti&ied by law1 t"ere&ore$ t"e !"arging and !on+i!tion o& t"e +iolation o& t"e dog leas" ordinan!e is irrele+ant to t"is !ase. )eterson v. Sorlien (@inn. 1980) General Facts: Susan =ung!laus Ceterson was 21 year old student. S"e *oined a religious organi%ation$ a weird !ult. Her be"a+ior !"anged and "er arents be!a(e worried. 7"ey arranged to "a+e "er de rogra((ed. Ss &at"er i!.ed "er u &ro( !ollege and too. "er to t"e "o(e o& Oeroni!a @orgel w"ere a grou led by Aat"y @ills atte( ted t"e de rogra((ing. S resisted &or 2 days by .i!.ing$ s!rea(ing$ and laying in t"e &etal osition. 5n t"e t"ird day$ s"e !"anged. Her attitude was ba!. to "er old sel& and s"e went out in +ery ubli! areas wit"out roble(. Bndeed$ s"e too. a tri to Colu(bus$ 5H wit"out issue. -ater$ s"e returned to t"e !ult and began t"is a!tion a&ter re&using to sign a release &ro( liability &or "er arents and t"e ot"ers. Case History: =ury &ound &or )s on t"e &alse i( rison(ent !"arge$ but &ound @orgel and @ills liable &or BB:) and awarded !o( ensatory and uniti+e da(ages (1F4000-,000). S a ealed see.ing a *.n.o.+. 7"e a ellate !ourt a&&ir(s t"e trial !ourt. Cause of Action: ;alse B( rison(ent and BB:) ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional$ un!onsented !ondu!t by )1 (2) Condu!t a(ounting to &or!e$ t"reat o& &or!e$ or assertion o& legal aut"ority (2) Causation1 (4) Con&ine(ent wit"in &i3ed boundaries &or C. BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t by )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere e(otional distress by C. Law: :3tent to w"i!" a !lai(ant will be barred by not es!a ing t"e 6!on&ine(ent80 6B& one is aware o& a reasonable (eans o& es!a e t"at does not resent a danger o& bodily or (aterial "ar($ a restri!tion is not total and does not unlaw&ul i( rison(ent.8 Here$ S !ould "a+e es!a ed during (ost o& t"e last 12 days1 t"ere&ore$ no &alse i( rison(ent !lai( !an lie. @anner in w"i!" !onsent (ust be deter(ined0 < erson w"o does not ossess a +olitional !a a!ity !annot !onsent or not1 t"ere&ore$ !onsent (ust only be ad*udged &ro( t"e !on&ined ersons !ondu!t and belie&s a&ter +olitional !a a!ity is restored.

:3tent to w"i!" arents (ay de rogra( !"ildren wit"out liability0 6E"en arents$ or t"eir agents$ a!ting under t"e !on+i!tion t"at t"e *udg(ental !a a!ity o& t"eir adult !"ild is i( aired$ see. to e3tri!ate t"at !"ild &ro( w"at t"ey reasonably belie+e to be a religious or seudo-religious !ult$ and t"e !"ild at so(e *un!ture assents to t"e a!tions in #uestion$ li(itations u on t"e !"ilds (obility do not !onstitute (eaning&ul de ri+ations o& ersonal liberty su&&i!ient to su ort a *udg(ent &or &alse i( rison(ent.8 Co puServe Inc. v. Cy!er )ro otions, Inc. (S.). 5"io 199?) General Facts: Co( uSer+e is an BSC. Cyber Cro(otions is a s a((er. Co( uSer+e "as as.ed Cyber to sto and "as designed so&tware to re+ent t"e s a(. Cyber si( ly redesigned t"e s a( to a+oid t"is and "as a!tually in!reased t"e a(ount o& s a(. Co( uSer+e is &or!ed to s end (u!" ti(e$ (oney$ and "ardwareFso&tware resour!es to re+ent t"e s a( &ro( rea!"ing !usto(ers. 7"is "ar(s Co( uSer+e. Cyber !ontends t"at t"ey !an only be liable &or tres ass to !"attels i& t"ey dis ossess or substantially inter&ere wit" Cs owners"i F ossession. Case History: 7"is is t"e trial !ourt. 7"e trial !ourt rules in &a+or o& Co( uSer+e and orders an in*un!tion be!ause t"e !o( utation o& da(ages "ere is nearly i( ossible. Cause of Action: 7res ass to C"attels 7res ass to C"attels0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Bnter&ering !onta!t wit" t"e Cs !"attel. Law: :3tent to w"i!" a erson !an be liable "ere0 65ne w"o !o((its a tres ass to !"attel is sub*e!t to liability to t"e ossessor o& t"e !"attel i&$ but only i&$ (a) "e dis ossesses t"e ot"er o& t"e !"attel$ or (b) t"e !"attel is i( aired as to its !ondition$ #uality$ or +alue$ or (!) t"e ossessor is de ri+ed o& t"e use o& t"e !"attel &or a substantial a(ount o& ti(e$ or (d) bodily "ar( is !aused to t"e ossessor$ or "ar( is !aused to so(e erson or t"ing in w"i!" t"e ossessor "as a legally rote!ted interest. Here t"e !ourt &ound liability under bot" (b) and (d) be!ause o& t"e inter&eren!e t"e s a( !aused to Co( uSer+es "ardware and t"eir ability to (eet t"eir !usto(ers de(ands and desires. 2*34*56 0aslow v. $roenert (Cal. 194,) General Facts: Q sued A &or !on+ersion. Q and A li+ed in *oint tenan!y o& a "o(e t"at t"ey bot" owned. Eit"in t"e "o(e$ Q "ad &urniture t"at "e owned. )uring a 6 ro erty dis ute$8 A and C"a (an !"anged t"e lo!.s on t"e "ouse$ and (a&ter in&or(ing Q o& t"eir a!tions) re(o+ed all o& Qs &urniture to a storage unit. Q was in&or(ed about t"e units lo!ation and "ow to get t"e &urniture ba!. by !onta!ting As lawyer. Bnstead o& obtaining t"e ro erty$ Q sued &or !on+ersion. Case History: <t trial$ Q re!o+ered a +erdi!t o& I2500 &or t"e !on+ersion. A a ealed$ and on a eal t"e *udg(ent was re+ersed and re(anded &or a new !al!ulation o& da(ages. 7"e Cal. S.Ct. &ound t"at a C5< &or !on+ersion was la!.ing$ but a C5< &or tres ass to !"attels (!ase) !ould lie1 "owe+er$ t"e a ro riate da(ages would be (u!" less. Cause of Action: Con+ersion (7res ass to C"attels)

Con+ersion0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation0 (2) < wrong&ul e3erted do(inion (assu( tion o& !ontrol) o+er t"e Cs ro erty t"at substantially inter&eres wit" t"e Cs ossesory interest in t"e ro erty. 7res ass to C"attels0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Bnter&ering !onta!t wit" t"e Cs !"attel. Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" do(inion (ust be e3er!ised0 7"e ) (ust "a+e e3er!ised su!" a do(inion o+er t"e ro erty t"at substantially inter&eres or is in!onsistent wit" t"e Cs owners"i interest in t"e ro erty. 7"e 6need8 &or a de(and &or return0 <lt"oug" not ne!essary in all !ases$ t"e Cs de(and &or return o& t"e goods w"i!" is denied by ) is so(eti(es needed to s"ow !on+ersion. 7"is is es e!ially true as "ere w"ere t"e ) obtained t"e goods in a law&ul (anner. 7"e a ro riate (easure o& da(ages &or !on+ersion0 Con+ersion (ay allow t"e C to re!o+er t"e &ull +alue o& t"e !on+erted goods (as (easured by "ig"est (ar.et +alue). 7"e a ro riate (easure o& da(ages &or tres ass to !"attels0 7res ass only allows da(ages in t"e a(ount t"at !an be s"own t"at t"e )s inter(eddling wit" t"e goods !aused to t"e goods or t"e Cs owners"i interest in t"ose goods. #ussell*1au.hn For', Inc. v. #ouse (<la. 19,8) General Facts: 4ouse went to t"e !ar dealers"i to see about trading in "is old !ar &or a new one. < sales(an too. t"e old !ars .eys to ins e!t t"e !ar. <&ter being o&&ered I2400 (and a new !arK)$ 4 turned down t"e o&&er and as.ed &or "is .eys ba!.. <ll o& t"e sales(en see(ed to not .now w"ere t"e .eys were and t"e ser+i!e(en layed along and laug"ed at 4. 4 !alled t"e oli!e. <&ter t"e oli!e arri+ed$ Car.er (a sales(an) t"rew t"e .eys at "i( !alling 4 a !ry baby and t"at 6t"ey *ust wanted to see "i( !ry a w"ile.8 Case History: =ury awarded I5000 &or !on+ersion ( uniti+es too). ;ord a ealed and S.Ct. a&&ir(ed t"e +erdi!t. Cause of Action: Con+ersion Con+ersion0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation0 (2) < wrong&ul e3erted do(inion (assu( tion o& !ontrol) o+er t"e Cs ro erty t"at substantially inter&eres wit" t"e Cs ossesory interest in t"e ro erty. Law: E"at (ay gi+e rise to !on+ersion0 6Con+ersion (ay !onsist$ not only in an a ro riation o& t"e ro erty to ones own use$ but in its destru!tion$ or in e3er!ising do(inion o+er it in e3!lusion or de&ian!e o& t"e lainti&&s rig"t.8 )uties o& lainti&& to gi+e rise &or !on+ersion0 < lainti&& does not "a+e to e3"aust all ossible re(edies to re!lai( "is ro erty a&ter de(anding its return. :3tent to w"i!" so(et"ing (ay re resent +aluable ro erty0 7"e ta.ing o& so(et"ing t"at !an be said to be t"e sy(bol or (eans o& !ontrol o& so(et"ing +aluable (ay result in a !lai( &or !on+ersion o& t"e +aluable t"ing itsel&. F%C Corp. v. Capital Cities7A&C Inc. (?t" Cir. 1990) General Facts: <'C ran a story on ;@C and its wor. &or t"e 9.S. <r(y (a.ing 'radley ;ig"ting Oe"i!le (';O). <'C used se+eral !or orate do!u(ents or !o ies o& t"e( in t"e story. ;@C no longer "as 4 o& t"ese do!u(ents. ;@C as.ed &or t"e do!u(ents ba!.$ but <'C re&used. ;@C sued &or !on+ersion see.ing t"e do!u(ents ba!.. <'C !lai(ed t"at t"ey were only !o ies. Case History: )istri!t Court dis(issed t"e a!tion (!on+ersionHbe!ause !o ies o&

do!u(ents !ould not be t"eoreti!ally !on+erted1 and (isa ro riationHbe!ause only a dire!t !o( etitor !an be sued &or (isa ro riation o& !on&idential !or orate in&or(ation). 5n a eal$ ?t" Cir. a&&ir(ed t"e dis(issal o& t"e (isa ro riation !lai($ but re+ersed t"e dis(issal o& t"e !on+ersion !lai(. Cause of Action: Con+ersion Con+ersion0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation0 (2) < wrong&ul e3erted do(inion (assu( tion o& !ontrol) o+er t"e Cs ro erty t"at substantially inter&eres wit" t"e Cs ossesory interest in t"e ro erty. Law: 7"e e3tent to w"i!" !o ies (ay ser+e as t"e original ro erty in a !on+ersion a!tion0 /or(ally$ 6t"e re!ei t o& !o ies o& do!u(ents$ rat"er t"an t"e do!u(ents t"e(sel+es$ s"ould not ordinarily gi+e rise to a !lai( &or !on+ersion.8 Howe+er$ w"en t"e owner does not "a+e t"e originals any(ore$ 6t"e !o ies be!o(e t"e &un!tional e#ui+alents o& t"e originals.8 7"ere&ore$ t"ey !an ser+e as t"e !on+erted ro erty. Bntent needed &or !on+ersion0 6<n intent to e3er!ise a do(inion or !ontrol o+er t"e goods w"i!" is in &a!t in!onsistent wit" t"e lainti&&s rig"ts8 not t"e intent to steal or il&er. :3tent to w"i!" intangible ro erty !an be !on+erted0 /ot only !an tangible ro erty$ but also intangible ro erty be !on+erted. 7"e 9.S. S. Ct. "as "eld t"at !or orations "a+e a ro erty interest in in&or(ation !o( iled w"et"er or not t"ey intend to use t"e !o( ilation as a !o((odity or not. 8avies v. &utler (/e+. 19?9) General Facts: Carents o& )a+ies sued &or wrong&ul deat". ) was 6 ledging8 a uno&&i!ial &raternity. <s a art o& t"e initiation$ t"e initiates were indu!ed to drin. large a(ounts o& al!o"ol o+er t"e !ourse o& se+eral days (7"urs-Sat). 7"en$ at (idnig"t Saturday$ t"e initiates were lined u and indu!ed to drin. large a(ounts o& :+er!lear wit"in 20-20 (inutes. ) (ay "a+e also been "it along wit" t"e ot"er initiates. <&ter t"e al!o"ol drin.ing$ t"e initiates were ta.en to anot"er site +ia i!.u tru!.. 9 on arri+al$ it was noti!ed t"at ) was not breat"ing. ) was ta.en to a "os ital w"ere "e was ronoun!ed dead. Case History: =ury +erdi!t (,-2) in &a+or o& t"e de&endants generally. )s &a(ily a ealed !iting re*udi!ial *ury instru!tions t"at were erroneous instru!tions !on!erning !onsent. 5n a eal$ )s &a(ily was granted a new trial due to t"e error in *ury instru!tions. Cause of Action: Erong&ul deat" Erong&ul deat"0 Law: 4e#uire(ents o& !onsent as a bar to a!tion0 67o be e&&e!ti+e$ !onsent (ust be (a) by one w"o "as t"e !a a!ity to !onsent and (b) to t"e arti!ular !ondu!t$ or to substantially t"e sa(e !ondu!t.8 E"at is !a a!ity to !onsent0 Bt 6re#uires t"e (ental ability to a re!iate t"e Rnature$ e3tent$ and robable !onse#uen!es o& t"e !ondu!t !onsented to.8 7"ere&ore$ i& so(eone !annot understand bF! o& drun.enness$ es e!ially w"en t"e inebriation is .nown or !aused by t"e )$ t"at erson !annot !onsent to t"at a!ti+ity. O9&rien v. Cunar' S.S. Co. (@ass. 1891) General Facts: 5'rien was one o& se+eral i((igrants w"o were being #uarantined until t"e were +a!!inated &or s(all- o3. S"e stood in line wit" ot"ers$ was

e3a(ined$ was told t"at s"e would need to be +a!!inated in order to lea+e t"e #uarantine$ and was +a!!inated. S"e later sued &or battery. Case History: 7"e trial !ourt see(s to "a+e dis(issed &or !onsent. 7"e a ellate !ourt u "eld t"e *udg(ent. Cause of Action: 'attery 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) 5&&ensi+e or "ar(&ul tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. Law: :3tent o& a arent !onsent0 < erson ()) is only re#uired to be a ro riately guided by t"e outward e3 ressions o& t"e ot"ers &eelings. E"en C (ade no indi!ation to t"e !ontrary &or t"e +a!!ination and it was !lear t"at was w"at t"e do!tor was going to do$ t"en "er silen!e a(ounted to !onsent. $o:up v. Geor.etown "niversity ().C. Cir. 1988) General Facts: @att"ew Ao%u was born on 1F10F82 wit" a !ondition .nown as 6"y o+ole(ia8 w"i!" re#uires blood trans&usions. <(ong t"e blood gi+en to @ was so(e t"at was !onta(inated wit" HBO. @ !ontra!ted <B)S and died on ?F10F8,. Carents sued bot" >eorgetown 9ni+ersity (t"e "os ital) and t"e <(eri!an 4ed Cross on &i+e !ounts0 (1) /egligen!e$ (2) 'rea!" o& i( lied warranty1 (2) Stri!t liability1 (4) -a!. o& in&or(ed !onsent1 and (5) Oiolation o& ).C. Consu(er Crote!tion <!t. 7"ey also sued >eorgetown solely &or battery. Case History: Su((ary =udg(ent was granted to )s on all , !ounts. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt u "eld t"e s.*. &or t"e &irst &i+e !ounts$ but re+ersed and re(anded t"e s.*. &or t"e battery. 7"ey &ound genuine issues o& (aterial &a!t t"at re#uired a *ury trial$ not t"e *udge to de!ide on s.*. (otion. Howe+er$ t"e !ourt did not &a+or or say t"at t"e C s"ould win on t"e !ount$ only t"at it (erited a trial. Cause of Action: 'attery 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) 5&&ensi+e or "ar(&ul tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. Law: :3tent to w"i!" a do!tor (surgeon) (ay be "eld liable &or o eration ( ro!edure) on a (inor !"ild wFo !onsent &ro( arents0 7"e general rule is t"at t"e do!tor is liable &or a battery. 7"ere are$ "owe+er$ se+eral e3!e tions0 (1) bona &ide (edi!al e(ergen!y1 (2) t"e atient is a 6(ature (inor8 w"o !onsents1 (2) arents are not readily a!!essible1 or (4) t"e arents "a+e gi+en i( lied !onsent. :3tent o& i( lied !onsent &or (edi!al ro!edures0 B& !on&ronted wit" a de!ision to a!!e t t"e treat(ent or not$ no rational erson would "a+e denied t"e (edi!al ro!edure. 8e%ay v. #o!erts (@i!". 1881) General Facts: S!attergood and )e@ay !a(e to 4s "o(e as assistant and do!tor. S was not a (edi!al ro&essional. 7"ere&ore$ S and ) de!ei+ed t"e 4s to gain t"eir !onsent. S unlaw&ully tou!"ed and assaulted 4. Case History: 7rial *udg(ent &or 4s. <&&ir(ed on a eal. Cause of Action: 'attery 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) 5&&ensi+e or "ar(&ul tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. Law: Consent is not e&&e!tual w"en it is gained by de!eit or &raud. 2*3;*56 Silas v. &owen (). S.C. 19,?)

General Facts: Silas and 'rown "ad a relations"i +ia a A &or ' to re air Ss !ar. S was un"a y wit" t"e wor. and went to !on&ront ' about t"e roble(. S was a large (an1 ' was not. S be!a(e abusi+e and t"reatening to '. ' in an atte( t to s!are S into lea+ing$ s"ot "is s"otgun towards t"e ground$ but "it S in t"e &oot. ' !on!edes t"at a ri(a &a!ie !ase &or assault and battery e3ist$ but is leading t"e ri+ilege o& sel&-de&ense. Case History: 7"is is t"e trial !ourt. Court rules in &a+or o& t"e )e&endant and "is !lai( o& sel&-de&ense. Cause of Action: <ssault and 'attery <ssault0 (1) Bntentional Condu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) < re"ension o& an i((inent "ar(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Har(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. Law: 4e#uire(ents o& sel&-de&ense0 @ust not be t"e aggressor1 4etreat (sub*e!t to e3!e tions w"en one is in "is own "o(e or la!e o& business)1 Cro+o!ation ro ortional to t"e res onse1 @ore t"an words alone !an be su&&i!ient &or a res onse. 8ra!e+ v. Sa!ley (Eis. 19,,) General Facts: 7o( )rabe. and &our ot"er young boys were t"rowing snowballs at assing !ars. )r. Sabley was dri+ing one o& t"ese !ars. S sto ed "is !ar$ got out$ and !"ased a&ter t"e(. S !aug"t 7o( and grabbed "i( by t"e ar(. He t"en too. 7o( to "is !ar by t"e ar( and la!ed "i( inside. S ro!ured 7o(s na(e and t"en too. "i( into town to turn "i( o+er to t"e oli!e. Case History: =ury +erdi!t below in &a+or o& t"e de&endant. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt &ound t"at t"e *urys a&&ir(ation o& Ss ri+ilege to retrain 7o(s liberty based on sel&de&enseFde&ense o& ot"ersF!ri(e re+ention was u "eld to a oint. Howe+er$ t"is ri+ilege did not e3tend to ta.ing 7o( into town to t"e oli!e. 7"ere "e was &alsely i( risoned and battered. Cause of Action: <ssault$ 'attery$ and ;alse B( rison(ent <ssault0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) < re"ension o& i((inent o&&ensi+e or "ar(&ul tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) 5&&ensi+e or "ar(&ul tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Con&ine(ent o& t"e C wit"in &i3ed boundaries set by t"e ). Law: S!o e o& a ri+ilege o& sel&-de&enseFde&ense o& ot"ers0 5n!e t"e danger o& "ar( to ones sel& or ot"ers "as assed$ t"e tortious be"a+ior o& t"e ) is no longer *usti&ied and t"e ) !an be liable &or t"at be"a+ior. 7"e danger is dee(ed to "a+e assed w"en it is no longer reasonable &or t"e )s be"a+ior to be ne!essary. $at+o v. &riney (Bowa 19?1) General Facts: Aat.o and an a!!o( li!e bro.e into t"e unin"abited &ar("ouse o& t"e ). ' and "is wi&e in"erited t"e land but did not use it and no one li+ed t"ere. 5+er a ten year eriod$ t"at ro erty "ad been bro.en into se+eral ti(es wit" s(all ro erty being stolen. 7"en in 19,?$ ' installed a s ring gun s"otgun ai(ed at an a+erage ersons legs in t"e bedroo( o& t"e &ar("ouse. A !a(e into t"e roo($ was s"ot$ and (ost o& "is leg was blown o&&. He was &or!ed to s end t"e ne3t 40 days in t"e "os ital. Case History: <t trial$ *ury awarded A 20$000 in !o( ensatory da(ages$ and 10$000 in uniti+e da(ages. 5n a eal$ t"e S.Ct. o& Bowa a&&ir(ed t"e ruling.

Cause of Action: 'attery0 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) 5&&ensi+e or "ar(&ul tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e lainti&&. Law: :3tent to w"i!" a erson (ay use &or!e to de&end ro erty0 < erson is allowed to use &or!e to de&end ro erty1 "owe+er$ deadly &or!e is not allowed unless t"ere is also a danger to ersons in+ol+ed. :3tent to w"i!" a erson (ay use a s ring-gun0 < erson (ay not use (e!"ani!al tra s t"at will !ause serious in*ury to tres assers. &on+ows+i v. Arlan9s 8epart ent Store (@i!". < . 19,8) General Facts: ' was lea+ing t"e store in #uestion. E"ile in t"e ar.ing lot$ a ro3i(ately 20 &eet &ro( t"e store$ s"e was !alled to by t"e stores ri+ate se!urity. 7"e se!urity o&&i!er (4ein"ardt) said t"at so(eone "ad indi!ated t"at t"ey "ad saw ' la!ing !ostu(e *ewelry in "er urse. ' rodu!ed t"e !ontents o& "er urse and "er ur!"ase re!ei t. Satis&ied t"at ' "ad not stolen$ 4 let "er go. Case History: =ury awarded da(ages &or &alse arrest and slander. 5n a eal$ t"e ri(a &a!ie !ase &or &alse i( rison(ent was sustained$ sub*e!t to a &inding o& t"e now a ro riate s"o -.ee er ri+ilege to detain t"ose reasonably sus e!ted o& stealing &or in+estigation. 7"e slander !ount was dis(issed &or la!. o& e+iden!e. Case re(anded &or a deter(ination o& t"e +alidity o& t"e ri+ilege. Cause of Action: ;alse B( rison(ent and Slander ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t o& )1 (2) Causation1 (2)Con&ine(ent o& C wit"in &i3ed boundaries set by ). Slander0 Law: < (er!"ant (ay detain a erson &or a 6reasonable a(ount o& ti(e8 &or a 6reasonable in+estigation8 w"o "e 6reasonably belie+es to "a+e ta.en a !"attel unlaw&ully.8 7"e 4.2d does not e3tend t"is ri+ilege &or t"ose w"o "a+e le&t t"e store1 "owe+er$ @i!". does e3tend it t"at &ar in t"is !ase. Surocco v. Geary (Cal. 1852) General Facts: Ss "ouse was in t"e at" o& t"e &ire o& San ;ran!is!o 1849. > was t"e <l!alde o& S.;. > blew u t"e "ouse in t"e "o es t"at t"e &ire (ay be snu&&ed out and !on&ined. 7"e &ire s read anyway and S !lai(s t"at i& t"e "ouse "ad not been blown u $ t"en "e would "a+e been able to sa+e (ore t"ings. Case History: =ury trial returned +erdi!t &or S. 5n a eal$ > won based on t"e de&ense o& ubli! ne!essity. Cause of Action: Con+ersion Con+ersion0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t o& )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Substantial inter&eren!e wit" t"e owners"i o& t"e C. Law: 6<t ti(es$ t"e indi+idual rig"ts o& ro erty gi+e way to t"e "ig"er laws o& i( ending ne!essity.8 7"e need to destroy ro erty to re+ent t"e s read o& &ire is well settled. 7"e need to do so (ust be *udged ob*e!ti+ely &ro( a erson in t"e la!e o& t"e ). -e.ner v. %ilwau+ee %utual Insurance Co. (@inn. 1991) General Facts: Coli!e !"ased an ar(ed sus e!t into Es a art(ent. 7"e oli!e &ired 25 rounds o& !"e(i!al (unitions and 2 &las"-bangs into t"e "o(e. 7"e oli!es a!tions !aused se+ere da(age. E sued under tort and 6ta.ing8 t"eories. Case History: <t trial$ s.*. &or !ity on t"e 6ta.ing.8 <&&ir(ed on a eal$ !ourt said t"at t"e da(ages was a ta.ing$ but was ri+ileged by t"e ubli! ne!essity. S. Ct.

re+ersed saying t"at t"e !ity did ta.e t"e ro erty and (ust !o( ensate. Cause of Action: Con+ersion and 7a.ing Law: 7"e !ity$ and not t"e indi+idual o&&i!ers$ are liable to !o( ensate &or da(ages !aused to t"e ro erty o& an inno!ent 2rd erson in t"e a re"ension o& a sus e!t. 7"e ubli! ne!essity oli!y is outweig"ed by t"e !o( ensation oli!y and t"e oli!y o& s reading t"e !osts o& t"e da(ages. 1incent v. La+e (rie Transp. Co. (@inn. 1910) General Facts: )e&endants stea(s"i do!.ed at lainti&&s do!. to unload !argo at t"e ort o& )ulut". E"ile do!.ed$ a +iolent stor( (ateriali%ed and grew in intensity. 7"e stor( !aused t"e tra&&i! on t"e la.e to !ease su!" t"at t"e stea(s"i !ould not be tugged out o& t"e "arbor. 4at"er$ t"e Cs (en !ontinued to tie lines to t"e s"i to .ee it a&loat and out o& danger or &ro( dri&ting away. 5+er t"e !ourse o& being atta!"ed to t"e do!.$ t"e wind and water &or!ed t"e s"i to !ras" into t"e do!. se+eral ti(es !ausing da(ages to t"e do!.. Case History: <t trial$ +erdi!t &or lainti&& in t"e a(ount o& I500. 5n a eal$ t"e *udg(ent was a&&ir(ed be!ause t"e do!. owner +oluntarily assented to "el ing t"e ) at t"e e3 ense o& "is own ro erty and s"ould be !o( ensated &or it. Cause of Action: Con+ersionK )estru!tion o& Cro erty Law: :3tent o& !are owed to t"e s"i owner by t"e do!.0 6/ot"ing (ore was de(anded o& t"e( t"an ordinary ruden!e and !are$ and t"e re!ord in t"is !ase &ully sustains t"e !ontention o& t"e a ellant t"at$ in "olding t"e +essel &ast to t"e do!.$ t"ose in !"arge o& "er e3er!ised good *udg(ent and rudent sea(ans"i .8 Cri+ate /e!essity as ri+ilege0 < de&endant w"o in an atte( t to sa+e "is own ro erty "as !aused "ar( to anot"ers is liable &or !o( ensation o& t"ose da(ages. < de&endant is not liable i& t"e erson to be bene&itted by t"e destru!tion o& t"e ro erty is t"e lainti&&Fowner o& t"e ro erty. Other Opinions: =. -ewis would &ind &or t"e ) based on an assu( tion o& t"e ris. t"eory t"at all do!. owners !onsent to si( ly by !ondu!ting business in t"e &ield. )loof v. )utna (Ot. 1908) General Facts: Clainti&& was sailing in -a.e C"a( lain wit" "is wi&e and two (inor !"ildren. < stor( arose w"i!" was +iolent. Bn order to sa+e t"e boat and rote!t t"e &a(ily$ C atta!"ed "is s"i to t"e do!. o& t"e ) w"o owned a s(all island in t"e la.e. 7"e )s ser+ant released t"e tie to t"e do!.. 7"en t"e s"i was !ast into t"e stor( w"ere it was destroyed and t"e assengers in*ured. Case History: 7"is a ears to be be&ore t"e !ourt on an interlo!utory a eal &ro( a dis(issal o& t"e )s de(urrer to t"e !o( laints two !ounts. Count one0 7res ass (to land) w"en t"e ser+ant un(oored t"e s"i w"i!" was law&ully do!.ed due to ne!essity. Count two0 Case (tres ass to !"attels) !lai(ing t"at t"e ser+ant "ad t"e duty to allow t"e s"i to do!. and is negligently liable &or t"e da(age !aused by t"e undo!.ing. 5n a eal$ t"e de(urrer denial was u "eld and t"e !ase re(anded &or trial. 7"e !o( laints were s e!i&i! enoug" to sur+i+e t"e de(urrer. Bt was not ne!essary t"at t"e !o( laint a+er t"at t"ere was an absen!e o& natural 6do!.s8 t"at !ould "a+e been used by C. Cause of Action: 7res ass to land and 7res ass to !"attels ((aybe Con+ersion) Law: :3tent o& do!trine o& ri+ate ne!essity0 /e!essity o& a ri+ate ersons rote!tion o& ro erty (ay de&eat a tres ass !lai( and t"us not barr lainti&&s own re!o+ery i& t"e need is resent. 7"is need is a( li&ied and (ore *usti&ied w"en "u(an

li&e and li(b are at issue rat"er t"an (ere ro erty. &ar+er v. $allash (/.J. 1984) General Facts: Clainti&& (14) and two ot"er boys (Aallas" brot"ers) were (a.ing a i e bo(b w"en it e3 loded "ar(ing t"e lainti&&. 7"e ot"er boys got t"e gun owder used &ro( anot"er boy (@elu!!i) w"o "ad gotten t"e gun owder &ro( &irewor.s boug"t &ro( (=udge). 7"e arents o& t"e lainti&& sued all o& t"e ot"er boys and t"eir res e!ti+e arents. Case History: 7rial !ourt granted su((ary *udg(ent &or )s. < ellate !ourt a&&ir(ed and so did t"e "ig"est !ourt. <ll &a+ored t"e )s be!ause t"e Cs !ondu!t w"i!" was ro"ibited by law barred a tort !lai( based on Reno v. DJavid. Cause of Action: /egligen!e and /egligent su er+ision o& arents Law: )istin!tion between !ondu!t regulated by law and t"at w"i!" is ro"ibited by law0 B& !ondu!t is !ontrary to t"e regulations o& statute$ t"en a ersons ability to re!o+er in tort &or da(ages !aused to t"e( will be li(ited by t"e rin!i les o& !o( arati+e &ault (negligen!e). Howe+er$ i& t"e ersons !ondu!t is ro"ibited by law </) t"e !ondu!t a(ounted to a 6serious8 +iolation o& t"e law$ t"e ersons ability to re!o+er in tort &or da(ages will be barred. Coli!y reasoning &or t"is rule0 67"e rule is based on Rt"e ara(ount ubli! oli!y i( erati+e t"at t"e law$ w"ate+er its !ontent at a gi+en ti(e or &or "owe+er li(ited eriod by obeyed.8 7"is is an e3tension o& t"e rule t"at a wrongdoer s"ould not ro&it &ro( "is wrongdoing. :3tent to w"i!" t"e !ri(inal !ondu!t barr e3tends to !ondu!t0 /ot all !ondu!t w"i!" is !ri(inal will in+o.e t"is barr. 5nly 6w"en t"e lainti&&s in*ury is a dire!t result o& "is .nowing and intentional arti!i ation in a !ri(inal a!t "e !annot see. !o( ensation &or t"e loss$ i& t"e !ri(inal a!t is *udged to be so serious an o&&ense as to warrant denial o& re!o+ery.8 < li!ation o& !ri(inal !ondu!t barr w"en C !annot be "eld !ri(inally liable0 <lt"oug" t"e C would be too young in t"is !ase to su&&er !ri(inal unis"(ent$ t"e !ri(inal !ondu!t barr still a lies be!ause t"e !ondu!t was still t"eoreti!ally !ri(inal and se+ere. ;urt"er(ore$ t"e !ondu!t "ere was not one in w"i!" a (inor would not .now t"at t"e !ondu!t was wrong or !ri(inal. Other Opinions: =. Si((ons would not u "old t"e s.*. He would &a+or a distin!tion be!ause o& 'ar.ers age in relation to t"e !ri(inal !ondu!t barr. He also #uestions t"e oli!y in"erent in t"e barr. He also #uestions t"e use&ulness o& t"e rule be!ause o& its re#uire(ent t"at t"e *udge dee( t"e !ri(inal +iolation se+ere or egregious &or t"e rule to a ly. ;inally$ "e belie+es t"at t"e !o( arati+e &ault statutes language o& 6!ul able !ondu!t8 would a ly to t"is situation in w"i!" t"e lainti&&s 6!ul able !ondu!t8 would only di(inis" t"e award ro ortionate to t"e !ul ability o& t"e C. Sin'le v. New <or+ City Transit Authority (/.J. 19?2) General Facts: S was 14 assenger on a s!"ool bus owned by /.J.C.7.<. and o erated by @ooney. 7"e !"ildren (,5-?0) were boisterous and so(e were !ausing ro erty da(age. <&ter trying to dis!i line t"e( and get t"e( to sto $ @ said t"at "e was ta.ing t"e( to t"e oli!e station. 7"en se+eral .ids *u( ed o&& o& t"e bus t"roug" a window. E"ile S was !li(bing out t"e window to *u( $ t"e bus turned$ "e &ell (or *u( ed) and t"e bus ran "i( o+er !ausing serious in*uries. 7"ere was no e+iden!e t"at S was in+ol+ed in t"e +andalis(.

Case History: Clainti&& originally (o+ed on grounds o& negligen!e and &alse i( rison(ent$ but later only (o+ed on t"e &.i. <t t"e !lose o& Cs e+iden!e$ t"e )s (otion to a(end to in!lude a+ersion o& *usti&i!ation was denied and trial went &orward. LC (ust "a+e won.M 5n a eal it was a&&ir(ed$ but t"e "ig" !ourt re+ersed !iting error in not allowing t"e )s (otion to a(end. 7"e !ourt noted t"at t"e burden would not be on t"e C to dis ro+e t"e (otion and t"e C s"ould "a+e been re ared &or su!" a de&ense as it is ty i!al in &.i. !ases. Cause of Action: ;alse B( rison(ent ;alse B( rison(ent0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Con&ine(ent o& C wit"in &i3ed boundaries set by ). Law: :3tent o& *usti&i!ation generally0 64estraint or detention$ reasonable under t"e !ir!u(stan!es and in ti(e and (anner$ i( osed &or t"e ur ose o& re+enting anot"er &ro( in&li!ting in*uries or inter&ering wit" or da(aging real or ersonal ro erty in ones law&ul ossession or !ustody is not unlaw&ul.8 Here$ t"ere needed to be trial o& t"e #uestion o& t"e reasonableness o& t"e bus dri+ers !ondu!t in lig"t o& "is res onsibilities to t"e sa&ety o& t"e !"ildren and t"e ro erty o& t"e bus. 2F4F2004 An'erson v. Sears, #oe!uc+, = Co. (:.). -a. 19?4) General Facts: @ot"er and in&ant daug"ter (@ildred and Helen) were se+erely in*ured in a &ire !aused by a &aulty Sears "eater. Helen (sub*e!t o& t"is (otion) was in*ured beyond belie&. S"e al(ost died due to t"e burns. S"e was burned o+er 40D o& "er body in!luding 80D o& "er s!al . S"e was "os itali%ed &or 28 days and "as endured 4F5 (a*or o erations to "el . Her ar( is er(anently bent in an un!o(&ortable osition$ so(e o& "er &ingers and toes are webbed$ and s"e !annot wal. or tal. wit"out di&&i!ulty. S"e is e3 e!ted to need at least 2? (ore surgeries to "el . S"e also will and "as su&&ered (ental ain due to t"e tragedy o!!urring during t"e (ost &or(ati+e ti(e o& a !"ilds li&e. S"e is ne+er e3 e!ted to lead a re(otely 6nor(al8 li&e. Case History: =ury awarded Helen I2$000$000 in da(ages. 7"is is a (otion by t"e )s &or re(ittitur. 7"e trial *udge re+iew t"e (a3i(u( reasonable *ury +erdi!t and denies t"e (otion. 7"e trial *udges !al!ulation set t"e (a3 "ere at I2$980$000 (a!tually$ I2$020$000$ o&& by 50A). Cause of Action: Crodu!ts liability Crodu!ts liability0 Law: :le(ents to be !onsidered in da(ages0 (1) Cast "ysi!al and (ental ain1 (2) ;uture "ysi!al and (ental ain1 (2) ;uture (edi!al e3 enses1 (4) -oss o& earning !a a!ity1 (5) Cer(anent disability and dis&igure(ent. Standard &or deter(ining e3!essi+e da(ages0 7"e (a3i(u( re!o+ery rule 6dire!ts t"e trial *udge to deter(ine w"et"er t"e +erdi!t o& t"e *ury e3!eeds t"e (a3i(u( a(ount w"i!" t"e *ury !ould reasonably &ind and i& it does$ t"e *udge (ay t"en redu!e t"e +erdi!t to t"e "ig"est a(ount t"at t"e *ury !ould ro erly "a+e awarded. /57:0 5t"er ossible (in so(e *urisdi!tions) da(age ele(ents0 (1) Hedoni! da(ages$ loss o& en*oy(ent o& li&es leasures and a!ti+ities1 (2) -oss o& !onsortiu( (&or s ouse$ arents$ !"ildren and grand!"ildren)$ loss o& !o( anions"i lus !osts o& (edi!al e3 enses and &uture !osts1 (2) @edi!al (onitoring$ t"e !ost o& .ee ing well &ro( !"e!.u s due to t"e in*uries su&&ered or t"at (ig"t be ossible to su&&er li.e in to3i! torts.

Helfen' v. Southern California #api' Transit 8istrict (Cal. 19?0) General Facts: H was in*ured in a bus-!ar a!!ident !aused by ) and t"eir agent$ t"e dri+er. Howe+er$ Hs insuran!e !o+erage ro+ided "i( wit" !o( ensation &or nearly 80D o& t"e (edi!al e3 enses and t"e rest (ay "a+e been aid by ot"er sour!es. Case History: )e&endants (o+ed to introdu!e t"e e+iden!e o& t"e insuran!e ayout to lessen t"e da(age a(ount. 7"e trial !ourt denied t"e (otion and t"e a ellate !ourt u "eld t"e e3!lusion o& t"e e+iden!e based on an a&&ir(ation o& t"e 6!ollateralsour!e rule.8 Cause of Action: Crobably negligen!e /egligen!e0 Law: Collateral-Sour!e 4ule0 w"en 6an in*ured arty re!ei+es so(e !o( ensation &or "is in*uries &ro( a sour!e w"olly inde endent o& t"e tort&easor$ su!" ay(ent s"ould not be dedu!ted &ro( t"e da(ages w"i!" t"e lainti&& would ot"erwise !olle!t &ro( t"e tort&easor.8 Coli!y reasons &or t"e rule0 (1) )e&endant s"ould not be rewarded due to t"e diligen!e o& "a+ing &irst- arty insuran!e and aying t"e re(iu(s. (2) Bntrodu!tion o& t"e e+iden!e would unduly redu!e t"e nor(al *ury +erdi!t w"i!" would lessen t"e ta.e"o(e &or bot" t"e C and t"e Cs !ounsel. (2) 5&ten$ t"e insuran!e !o( any will ta.e ba!. t"e already aid ortion &ro( t"e *udg(ent against t"e ) under t"e do!trine o& subrogation. (4) 7"e duality o& t"e insuran!e and tort *udg(ents "el to ensure t"at t"e C will be &ully !o( ensated. /57:0 So(e *urisdi!tions "a+e !"anged or abolis"ed t"e rule !iting t"e ossibility o& double-re!o+ery on t"e art o& t"e C w"i!" t"en rewards t"e C &or being in*ured. 0i er an v. Auslan' (5re. 19?2) General Facts: Q was in*ured in an !ar a!!ident and su&&ered .nee in*uries. Qs do!tor said t"e in*uries were 6 er(anent8 and alt"oug" surgery was ossible to re air$ it was not !ertain$ only 6o ti(isti!8 t"at Q would re!o+er ni!ely. <s do!tor said t"at t"e in*uries were not er(anent$ but wit" a reasonable and routine o eration$ Q would a!"ie+e a &ull re!o+ery. Case History: =ury returned +erdi!t on da(ages &or I?$500 (< ad(itted liability). 7"is was at least artially based on t"e trial instru!tion t"at i& t"e *ury t"oug"t t"e in*uries were er(anent$ t"ey !ould use t"e (ortality table dire!ted to t"e( by t"e *udge to deter(ine t"e e3tent o& t"e da(ages. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt u "eld t"is +erdi!t. 7"ey &ound t"at su&&i!ient e+iden!e e3isted to send t"e issue o& er(anen!e o& in*ury to t"e *ury. Cause of Action: /egligen!e /egligen!e0 Law: 9se o& (ortality tables0 7"e ad(ission o& (ortality tables in a ersonal in*ury !ase in !onditioned on t"e in*uries being er(anent. :3tent to w"i!" t"e C (ust a+oid t"e otential er(anen!y o& t"e in*uries0 67"e lainti&& in a ersonal in*ury !ase !annot !lai( da(ages &or w"at would ot"erwise be a er(anent in*ury i& t"e er(anen!y o& t"e in*ury !ould "a+e been a+oided by sub(itting to treat(ent by a "ysi!ian$ in!luding ossible surgery$ w"en a reasonable erson would do so under t"e sa(e !ir!u(stan!es.8 B& t"e treat(ent would be unreasonable or so(e reasonable !ould re*e!t t"e treat(ent$ t"en &ailure to sub(it to treat(ent will not redu!e

t"e da(age award. ;a!tors to be in!luded in deter(ination o& t"e 6a+oidable-!onse#uen!es rule80 (1) t"e ris. in+ol+ed in t"e treat(ent1 (2) t"e robability o& su!!ess1 (2) e3 enditure o& (oney or e&&e!t re#uired1 and (4) in so(e *urisdi!tions only$ ain o& t"e ro!edure. 'urden o& roo& &or a+oidable-!onse#uen!es rule0 7"e C "as t"e burden o& roo& t"at t"e in*uries were er(anent$ but t"e de&endant "as t"e burden to s"ow t"at t"e C unreasonably &ailed to (itigate t"e da(ages by not sub(itting to surgery (treat(ent). Gon:ale: v. N.<.C. Housin. Authority (/.J. 1991) General Facts: @arta (21) and <ntonios (19) grand(ot"er was (urdered. :a!" o& t"e grand!"ildren were &inan!ially inde endent adults. Howe+er$ t"e grand(ot"er "ad ser+ed as t"e ri(ary arental &igure in t"eir li+es sin!e t"e deat" o& t"eir &at"er and t"e (ental in!o( eten!e o& t"eir (ot"er. 7"e grand!"ildrens (ot"er was also !ared &or by t"e grand(ot"er. @ and < sued t"e "ousing aut"ority w"ere t"e grand(ot"er li+ed. 7"e grand(ot"er was beaten a&ter being tied u to t"e leg o& a bureau. <lt"oug" t"e grand!"ildren no longer li+ed wit" t"e grand(ot"er$ t"ey "ad lots o& !onta!t and t"e grand(ot"er o&ten ti(es "el ed by (a.ing dinner and ro+iding ad+i!e and !"ild-!are &or @. Case History: <t trial t"e *ury &ound &or t"e Cs &or I1$250$000 &or wrong&ul deat" and I1$000$000 &or t"e !ons!ious ain and su&&ering o& t"e grand(ot"er. 7"ese awards were redu!ed by t"e trial *udge to I100$000 and I250$000 res e!ti+ely. 5n a eal$ t"e ) !"allenged t"e +alidity o& bot" award !o( onents. 7"e !ourt u "eld bot" !iting t"e true e3tent o& t"e e!uniary da(ages &elt by t"e Cs as well as t"e undoubted ain and su&&ering &elt by t"e +i!ti(. Cause of Action: Erong&ul deat" Erong&ul deat" Law: )e&inition o& e!uniary da(ages0 6Bn distin!tion to t"ose in*uries to t"e a&&e!tions and senti(ents w"i!" arise &ro( t"e deat" o& relati+es$ and w"i!"$ t"oug" (ost ain&ul and grie+ous to be borne$ !annot be (easured or re!o( ensed by (oney. Bt e3!ludes$ also$ t"ose losses w"i!" result &ro( t"e de ri+ation o& t"e so!iety and !o( anions"i o& relati+es$ w"i!" are e#ually in!a able o& being de&ined by any re!ogni%ed (easure o& +alue.8 E"at !an !ount as e!uniary da(ages0 6-oss o& su ort$ +oluntary assistan!e and ossible in"eritan!e$ as well as (edi!al and &uneral e3 enses in!idental to deat".8 ;or a wage earner$ loss o& earning otential in!luding a !onsideration o& resent and &uture earnings in lig"t o& ossible ad+an!e(ent. Bn t"e !ase o& non-wage earners$ 6 e!uniary in*uries (ay be !al!ulated &ro( t"e in!reased e3 enditures re#uired to !ontinue t"e ser+i!es s"e ro+ided$ as well as !o( ensable losses o& a ersonal nature$ su!" as loss o& guidan!e.8 O9Shea v. #iverway Towin. Co. (?t" Cir. 1982) General Facts: 5 was 58 widow w"o wor.ed as a !oo. on a ri+erboat. S"e earned ?200 a year. S"e testi&ied t"at s"e was about to ta.e a *ob t"at would earn "er (ore (10$800 a year). S"e only wor.ed so(e o& t"e ti(e and "ad ne+er earned as (ust as 2,00 in any single year. Howe+er$ until t"e deat" o& "er "usband$ s"e ne+er wor.ed and only wor.s now to "el su ort "ersel& to t"e e3tent t"at "er in"eritan!e &ails. 7"e sole issue was t"e a ro riate a(ount o& loss o& &uture in!o(e !a a!ity. Bn arti!ular$ t"e e3tent to w"i!" interest rates s"ould be used.

Case History: <t trial$ C awarded 8,$022 by t"e *udge. :!ono(ist ut t"e range o& lost in!o(e between 50$000 and 114$000. 5n a eal$ t"is award was !riti!i%ed &or la!. o& e!ono(i! analysis$ but u "eld. Law: Cre+ious wages do not ut a !a on an award &or lost &uture wages. Bn&lation s"ould 6be treated !onsistently in !"oosing t"e dis!ount rate Las in resent-+alue !al!ulationsM and in esti(ating t"e &uture lost wages to be dis!ounted.8 ;urt"er(ore$ trial !ourts s"ould in!lude an o inion wit" regard to "ow su!" awards were !al!ulated by t"e(. /57:0 B "ate e!ono(i!s and Cosner. 2F9F2004 In re Air Crash 8isaster Near Chica.o on %ay 3>, 2?@? (?t" Cir. 198,) General Facts: Ealter -u3 (52) was a ilot on a &lig"t t"at !ras"ed s"ortly a&ter ta.eo&& and died. He was sur+i+ed by "is wi&e (49)$ and son (22). )uring t"e year o& "is deat"$ E earned I?8$954. He also "ad +arious &ringe bene&its su!" as (edi!al and dental insuran!e. Es wi&e !lai(ed a total o& I1$589$920 in lost su ort o& w"i!" I1$000$000 was &ro( lost in!o(e. <t trial$ t"e distri!t !ourt *udge re&used to allow e+iden!e as to t"e in!o(e ta3es t"at E would "a+e "ad to ay &ro( "is salary and re&used to gi+e a *ury instru!tion t"at would "a+e in&or(ed t"e( t"at t"e *ury award would be ta3 &ree. Case History: C won at trial. 5n a eal$ ) alleged t"e errors (entioned abo+e$ and t"e !ourt re+ersed and re(anded based on t"ose errors. 7"is was a di+ersity *urisdi!tion !ase based on <ri%ona substanti+e law. Cause of Action: Erong&ul deat" Erong&ul deat" Law: 7"e (easure o& e!uniary da(ages in wrong&ul deat" a!tions0 <!!ording to t"e 4.2d o& 7orts$ 6t"e re!o+ery o& t"e statutory bene&i!iaries is (easured by t"e !ontributions t"at t"e de!eased would "a+e (ade to t"e( i& "e "ad li+ed.... 7"is a(ount ob+iously !ould not be e#ui+alent to "is gross earnings$ as "e !ould not "a+e gi+en t"e( &unds t"at "e s end on "i(sel& or aid in ta3es or used &or ot"er ur oses1 and an a ro riate er!entage o& "is e3 e!ted earnings$ ta.ing into !onsideration t"ese +arious ty es o& e3 enditures$ is ro er.8 %icari v. %ann (/.J. Su . Ct. 1984) General Facts: Se+eral a!ting students were de&rauded into er&or(ing se3ual a!ts wit" t"e ) and wit" ea!" ot"er in &ront o& t"e ) in order to en"an!e t"eir a!ting ability and to rid t"e students o& t"eir in"ibitions. 7"e ) was a re utable trainer in t"e a!ting ro&ession as was e&&e!ti+ely a!ting in lo!o arentis. Case History: <t trial t"e *ury awarded ea!" C I2000 in !o( ensatory da(ages (I500 &or assault$ I1000 &or battery$ and I500 &or BB:))$ but no uniti+e da(ages. 5n a eal$ t"e Cs soug"t a new trial &or inade#uate da(ages bF! o& t"e absen!e o& any uniti+e da(ages. 7"e a ellate !ourt granted wit" regard to t"e uniti+e da(ages and re(anded t"e !ase &or a trial solely on t"e issue o& t"e e3tent o& uniti+e da(ages$ unless t"e ) agreed to I5000 er C &or uniti+e da(ages. Cause of Action: <ssault$ 'attery$ BB:) <ssault0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) < re"ension o& i((inent battery &or t"e C. 'attery0 (1) Bntentional !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (2) Har(&ul or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing o& t"e erson o& t"e C.

BB:)0 (1) Bntentional or re!.less !ondu!t by )1 (2) :3tre(e or outrageous !ondu!t by )1 (2) Causation1 (4) Se+ere e(otional distress &or C. Law: E"en !ourts (ay in!rease !o( ensatory da(ages0 6< !ourt (ay set aside a +erdi!t only i& t"e award i& &ound to be Rso grossly inade#uate as to be un!ons!ionable$ or ut anot"er way$ to a+oid usur ing t"e &un!tion o& t"e *ury$ t"e ower s"ould be used Ronly i& t"e +erdi!t is so dis ro ortionate to t"e in*ury as to not be wit"in reasonable bounds.8 Here t"e < ellate !ourt did not allow t"e new trial &or inade#uate !o( ensatory da(ages. E"en uniti+e da(ages are a ro riate0 6E"ere t"e wrong !o( lained o& is (orally !ul able$ or is a!tually by e+il and re re"ensible (oti+es$ not only to unis" t"e de&endant$ but to deter "i($ as well as ot"ers w"o (ig"t ot"erwise be so ro( ted &ro( indulging in si(ilar !ondu!t.8 E"en a !ourt (ay order a new trial &or la!. o& uniti+e da(ages0 6< !ourt ossesses Lt"e owerM to in!rease an inade#uate or no(inal award o& !o( ensatory da(ages e3ists wit" res e!t to uniti+e da(ages8 w"ene+er 6t"e rare situations w"ere t"e &ailure o& t"e *ury to award uniti+e da(ages$ or t"e award o& an inade#uate su($ s"o!.s t"e !ons!ien!e o& t"e !ourt.8 Coli!y reason &or t"e ower to o+erturn t"e la!. o& uniti+e da(ages0 6So!iety "as a (a*or interest in t"e si%e o& t"e award$ as uniti+e da(ages are not (erely a ea!e.ee ing de+i!e between t"e arties$8 but rat"er a (eans o& !o((unity wide deterren!e &ro( si(ilar a!ti+ities. &%- of North A erica, Inc. v. Gore (9.S. 199,) General Facts: > boug"t a '@E &ro( an <laba(a dealer &or 40A. 7"e dealer did not dis!lose t"at t"e !ar "ad been da(aged in s"i ing and was t"ere&ore re ainted. Howe+er$ under '@Es oli!y$ "e did not "a+e to do so unless t"e total !ost o& re air was greater t"an 2D o& t"e total ur!"ase ri!e. <&ter dri+ing t"e see(ingly er&e!t !ar &or 9 (ont"s$ > too. it to a detailing s"o w"ere t"e de&e!t was noti!ed. > !ited a!tual da(ages at I4$000 &or t"e 10D di&&eren!e in +alue o& a new +ersus da(aged !ar. He also soug"t uniti+e da(ages based on t"e nu(ber o& ti(es t"at "e alleged t"at '@E "ad done t"is sort o& t"ing. He !ited nearly 1000 nationwide !ases. '@Es oli!y was in !o( lian!e wit" t"e (ost stringent state re#uire(ents as to dis!losure o& t"is sort o& in&or(ation$ and t"e a!ti+ity "ad ne+er been ruled unlaw&ul. Case History: <t trial t"e *ury awarded I4$000 !o( ensatory da(ages and I4$000$000 in uniti+e (based on t"e 1000 alleged nationwide !ases). 5n a eal$ t"e <laba(a S. Ct. u "eld t"e use o& uniti+e da(ages$ but redu!ed t"e a(ount to I2$000$000 be!ause state so+ereignty t"at would restri!t t"e alleged ot"er in!idents only to <laba(a !ases. 7"e 9.S. S. Ct. re+ersed and re(anded t"e award o& uniti+e da(ages as a +iolation o& t"e 14t" <(end )ue Cro!ess Clause. Cause of Action: /o !lue Law: E"en uniti+e da(ages are a ro riate0 6Cuniti+e da(ages (ay ro erly be i( osed to &urt"er a States legiti(ate interest in unis"ing unlaw&ul !ondu!t and deterring its re etition. Bn our &ederal syste($ States L"a+e &le3ibility "ereM. 5nly w"en an award !an &airly be !ategori%ed as 6grossly e3!essi+e8 in relation to t"ese interests does it enter t"e %one o& arbitrariness t"at +iolates t"e )ue Cro!ess Clause o& t"e 14t" <(end.8 4e#uire(ent o& 6;air /oti!e8 t"at uniti+e da(ages are ossible0 6:le(entary notions o& &airness ens"rined in our !onstitutional *uris ruden!e di!tate t"at a erson

re!ei+e &air noti!e not only o& t"e !ondu!t t"at will sub*e!t "i( to unis"(ent but also o& t"e se+erity o& t"e enalty t"at a State (ay i( ose.8 7"ree guide osts &or deter(ining e3!essi+eness o& uniti+e da(ages0 (1) )egree o& re re"ensibility (6So(e wrongs are (ore bla(ewort"y t"an ot"ers81 5nly e!ono(i! "ar( alone usually is not re re"ensible enoug"1 6deliberate &alse state(ents$ a!ts o& a&&ir(ati+e (is!ondu!t$ or !on!eal(ent o& e+iden!e o& i( ro er (oti+e...LareM ordinarily asso!iated wit" egregiously i( ro er !ondu!t Lwort"y o& uniti+e da(agesM.8)1 (2) 4atio o& !o( ensatory and uniti+e da(ages awarded (E"ile no brig"t line (at"e(ati!al !al!ulation to deter(ine !onstitutionality is ossible$ 6a general !on!ern o& reasonableness ro erly enters into t"e !onstitutional !al!ulus.8)1 (2) San!tions &or Co( arable @is!ondu!t$ eit"er !i+il or !ri(inal (t"ere needs to be so(e relations"i between t"e uniti+e award and !o( arable san!tions so as to gi+e t"e tort&easor so(e notion o& t"e se+erity o& t"e unis"(ent t"at is ossible.) Other Opinions: S!alia and 7"o(as do not see t"e 14t" <(end as so(et"ing t"at i( oses any 6&ederal guarantee Lt"atM a da(ages award a!tually be reasonable.8 >insburg and 4en#uist si( ly do not belie+e t"at t"e deter(ination o& reasonableness in relation to uniti+e da(ages i( osed by t"e States is an area o& law t"at t"e S. Ct. s"ould bot"er wit". )rice v. Hartfor' Acci'ent an' In'e nity Co. (<ri%. 19?2) General Facts: @ot"er (:lsie) "ad a oli!y !o+ering "er !ar as to "ersel& and "er son (C"arles$ 1?) &or o+er I1$000$000 to !o+er 6Rall su(s &or w"i!" eit"er o& t"e( (ig"t be!o(e liable to ay as da(ages Rarising out o& t"e owners"i $ (aintenan!e or use8 o& t"e !ar. C dro+e t"e !ar in a drag ra!e wit" anot"er boy in w"i!" an inno!ent$ >ary >ardner$ was in*ured. > broug"t a tort suit see.ing 100A !o( ensatory and 25A uniti+e da(ages. H ro+ided a lawyer to de&end$ but indi!ated t"at any uniti+e da(ages awarded would not be !o+ered by t"e oli!y. : t"en broug"t t"is suit to &or!e H to ay any ossible uniti+e da(ages to t"e oli!y li(it. Case History: 7rial !ourt ruled &or H. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed !iting si3 &laws wit" t"e oli!y argu(ent t"at so!ially irres onsible or re re"ensible !ondu!t t"at in+o.es uniti+e da(ages s"ould not be rewarded by t"e ) using insuran!e oli!ies. 7"e si3 &laws were as &ollows0 (1) t"e ) would not !o( letely a+oid enalties$ "ere ossible !ri(inal enalties1 (2) H "ad +olunteered to ay uniti+e da(ages by using t"e ris. o& t"at into t"e !al!ulation o& re(iu(s1 (2) Cri(inal enalties will "el to deter and unis" )1 (4) Cuniti+e da(ages see. not only to unis" and deter t"e )$ but also to deter t"e w"ole o& so!iety &ro( engaging in t"e sa(e !ondu!t1 (5) t"e states t"at ado t t"e !ontrary rule "a+e not seen a dro in "ig"way a!!idents1 (,) Cubli! oli!y o& en&or!ing t"e insuran!e agree(ent to ay is also strong. Cause of Action: not"ing$ see.ing en&or!e(ent o& oli!y Law: :3tent to w"i!" uniti+e da(ages !an be !o+ered by insuran!e oli!ies0 So(e states allow t"is (<ri%.)$ ot"ers do not. 7"e di&&eren!e is a (atter o& !on&li!ting ubli! oli!ies. :n&or!ing insuran!e !o( anys agree(ents to ay +s. not allowing t"e ) to 6get o&&8 &ro( unis"(ent o& uniti+e da(ages. Fein v. )er anente %e'ical Group (Cal. 1985) General Facts: @edi!al (al ra!ti!e suit &or &ailure to diagnose an i( ending "eart atta!.. Case History: =ury awarded (ore t"an re!ei+ed a&ter *udge redu!ed t"e awards

based on 6!a s8 &ro( legislation. 5n a eal$ t"e w"ole +erdi!t was a&&ir(ed and t"e !a ing legislation was u "eld as !onstitutional. Cause of Action: @edi!al (al ra!ti!e Law: 7"ese laws so(eti(es +iolate due ro!ess$ e#ual rote!tion$ or state !onstitutions )als.raf v. Lon. Islan' #ailroa' Co. (/.J. 1928) General Facts: 7wo (en were running to !at!" a train t"at "ad *ust started to (o+e. 5ne o& t"e (en (ade it wit"out in!ident. 7"e ot"er 6*u( ed aboard t"e !ar$ but see(ed unsteady as i& about to &all. < guard on t"e !ar$ w"o "ad "eld t"e door o en$ rea!"ed &orward to "el "i( in$ and anot"er guard on t"e lat&or( us"ed "i( &ro( be"ind.8 'e!ause o& t"is$ a s(all$ news a er !o+ered a!.age (15N long) t"at t"e (an was !arrying &ell to t"e rails. 7"is a!.age alt"oug" one !ould not tell &ro( its outward a earan!e$ !ontained &irewor.s t"at e3 loded u on i( a!t. 7"is i( a!t !aused se+eral large baggage s!ales to wobble. 5ne su!" s!ale &ell and stru!. t"e C and !aused in*uries. C t"en sued &or t"ose in*uries. Case History: <t trial$ +erdi!t &or t"e lainti&& on negligen!e grounds. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed be!ause o& a la!. o& &oreseeability o& t"e "ar(&ul !onse#uen!es. Cause of Action: /egligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& t"e duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 7"e e3tent o& a negligen!e relations"i 0 6/egligen!e is not a!tionable unless it in+ol+es t"e in+asion o& a legally rote!ted interest$ t"e +iolation o& a rig"t.8 -i.ewise$ 6t"e lainti&& (ust s"ow Ra wrong to "ersel&$ i.e.$ a +iolation o& "er own rig"t$ and not (erely a wrong to so(eone else$ nor !ondu!t Rwrong&ul be!ause unso!ial$ by not Ra wrong to any one...8 7"ere&ore$ t"e negligen!e a!tion is t"e a!tion to re!o( ense a C &or t"e wrong !aused to "i(F"er by t"e )$ not t"e )s wrong a!t t"at also "a ened to "ar( t"e C. B( ortan!e o& 6&oreseeability80 6B& no "a%ard was a arent to t"e eye o& ordinary +igilan!e$ an a!t inno!ent and "ar(less$ at least to outward see(ing$ wit" re&eren!e to "er$ did not ta.e to itsel& t"e #uality o& t"e tort be!ause it "a ened to be a wrong$ t"oug" a arently not one in+ol+ing t"e ris. o& bodily inse!urity$ wit" re&eren!e to so(eone else.8 ;urt"er(ore$ 6t"e ris. reasonably to be er!ei+ed de&ines t"e duty to be obeyed and ris. i( orts relation1 it is ris. to anot"er or to ot"ers wit"in t"e range o& a re"ension.8 Howe+er$ 6it is not ne!essary t"at t"e de&endant s"ould "a+e "ad noti!e o& t"e arti!ular (et"od in w"i!" an a!!ident would o!!ur$ i& t"e ossibility o& an a!!ident was !lear to t"e ordinary rudent eye.8 E"en negligen!e be!o(es tortious0 6/egligen!e$ li.e ris.$ is t"us a ter( o& relation. /egligen!e in t"e abstra!t$ a art &ro( t"ings related$ is surely not a tort$ i& indeed it is understandable at all...8 Eritten by Cardo%o Other Opinions: =usti!e Eillia( <ndrews dissents based on a di&&eren!e o& er!e tion o& t"e nature o& t"e tort o& negligen!e. <ndrews belie+es t"at alt"oug" negligen!e !annot o!!ur in a +a!uu($ it is 6not (erely a relations"i between (an and t"ose w"o( "e (ig"t reasonably e3 e!t "is a!t would in*ure1 rat"er$ a relations"i between "i( and t"ose w"o( "e does in &a!t in*ure...8 7"ere&ore$ 6due !are is a duty i( osed on ea!" o& us to rote!t so!iety &ro( unne!essary danger$ not to rote!t <$ '$ or C alone.8 Conse#uently$ under <ndrews analysis$ t"e a ro riate #uestion is one o&

ro3i(ate !ausation$ not negligen!e. ;or <ndrews (and (aybe ot"ers)$ ro3i(ate !ause is not logi!al$ but (erely a oliti!ally !on+enient way to de!ide w"ere to sto drawing t"e line ba!. to a single e+ent. Cro3i(ate !ause is o& !ourse so(et"ing t"at would not o!!ur but &or t"e !ause$ but t"is is not e3tended inde&initely. 6Ee tra!e t"e !onse#uen!es$ not inde&initely$ but to a !ertain oint. <n to aid us in &i3ing t"at oint we as. w"at (ig"t ordinarily be e3 e!ted to &ollow t"e Le+entM.8 2F11F2004 Nuss!au v. Lacopo (/.J. 19?0) General Facts: / li+ed and owned a "o(e on a gol& !ourse. /s ro erty line ran arallel to t"e 12t" &airway. 'etween /s atio and t"e &airway was 20-20 &eet o& roug" w"i!" !ontained 45-,0 &oot-"ig" trees w"i!" ser+ed as a natural barrier between t"e "ouse and t"e !ourse. <t t"e ti(e o& t"e in!ident$ t"e trees were in &ull &oliage. 7"e nor(al tra*e!tory o& tee s"ots would be well to t"e rig"t o& t"e ro erty line and /s "ouse. - (tres asser on t"e gol& !ourse) teed o&& and "is s"ot "oo.ed dra(ati!ally. 7"e ball went o+er t"e trees to t"e le&t and allegedly stru!. /. - did not yell 6&ore.8 Case History: <t trial$ t"e !ourt entered a dire!ted +erdi!t at t"e !lose o& t"e Cs e+iden!e. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt u "olds t"is order. 7"e !ourt does so be!ause t"e ris. o& in*ury to / was not &oreseeable &ro( t"e natural and robable !onse#uen!es o& t"e errant s"ot due to t"e "ysi!al e+iden!e. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 'alan!ing test o& &oreseeability and duty0 67"e !are L(ustM be !o((ensurate wit" t"e ris. and danger.8 6-a!. o& due !are is not de(onstrated w"en t"e undis uted "ysi!al e+iden!e ro+es t"at it !ould not "a+e been reasonably anti!i ated t"at t"e "ar( !o( lained o& would result &ro( t"e natural and robable !onse#uen!es o& t"e a!t !lai(ed to be negligent. 'urden &or C &or duty balan!ing test0 6His burden o& roo& re#uired t"at t"e a!t testi&ied to$ w"i!" "e asserts !onstituted negligen!e$ was not (erely ossible$ but robable.8 /57:0 7"is robable$ not *ust ossible is roble(ati! bF! t"is is too "ig" o& a standard. 7"e a ro riate standard is t"at t"e burden is s"owing a 6substantial ris..8 Gulf #efinin. Co. v. -illia s (@iss. 1928) General Facts: > sold etroleu( rodu!ts in!luding gas to be used by &ar(ers. 5ne barrel o& gas was sold to Es e( loyer to use in re&illing tra!tors. E"en E used it t"e &irst ti(e$ t"e bung-!a $ w"i!" "ad deteriorated t"reads due to nine years o& nor(al use$ !aused a s ar. w"i!" !aused a &ire w"i!" burned and in*ured E. Case History: <t trial$ E re!o+ered da(ages &ro( a *ury. 5n a eal$ t"e *ury award was u "eld be!ause t"e duty o& !are &or > en!o( assed E be!ause > dealt wit" an in"erently dangerous ite( alt"oug" t"e robability o& t"is e3a!t e+ent "a ening was low (a!tually$ it "ad ne+er "a ened be&ore). Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: )egree o& &oreseeability needed to sustain a!tion0 Bt 6is not w"et"er t"e

t"ing is to be &oreseen or anti!i ated as one w"i!" will robably "a en$ but w"et"er it is li.ely to "a en$ e+en t"oug" t"e li.eli"ood (ay not be su&&i!ient to a(ount to a !o( arati+e robability.8 7est &or &oreseeability0 67"e test as res e!ts &oreseeability is not t"e balan!e o& robabilities$ but t"e e3isten!e...o& so(e real li.eli"ood o& so(e da(age and t"e li.eli"ood is o& su!" a re!iable weig"t and (o(ent as to indu!e$ or w"i!" reasonably s"ould indu!e$ a!tion to a+oid it on t"e art o& a erson o& a reasonably rudent (ind.8 Ee only need 6reasonably &oreseeable8 "ar(. Sin!e > was engaged in su!" a in"erently dangerous business$ t"e &oreseeability o& t"e da(age &ro( t"is e+ent$ e+en t"oug" su!" e+ents "ad not "a ened$ was enoug" to !reate a duty o& !are owed to E to indu!e liability. ".S. v. Carroll Towin. Co. (2d Cir 194?) General Facts: :( loyees o& t"e 9.S. &ailed to ro erly se!ure Cs s"i to t"e do!.. 7"e s"i &loated away$ stru!. anot"er s"i and san.. C did not "a+e an attendant on board t"e s"i at t"e ti(e. 7"e attendant "ad been gone &or 21 "ours. 7"e s"i was in /.J. "arbor during a busy =anuary wit" lots o& war a!ti+ity. Case History: <t trial$ C won da(ages$ but t"ey were redu!ed due to a !o( arati+e negligen!e rule in ad(iralty. 5n a eal$ t"e redu!tion in da(ages was a&&ir(ed bF! C "ad a duty o& !are to "a+e so(eone on t"e s"i at t"e ti(e o& t"e a!!ident. 7"is is so bF! t"e !ir!u(stan!es o& t"e "arbor wit" "ig" +olu(e re#uired t"at to ade#uately re+ent da(age$ t"e s"i owners s"ould "a+e a "and on de!. during daylig"t unless t"ere is a good and +alid e3!use. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 7"ree &a!tors to !onsider in t"is ty e o& !ase to deter(ine duty0 (1) t"e robability t"at t"e s"i will brea. away (C)1 (2) t"e gra+ity o& t"e resulting in*ury (-)1 (2) t"e burden o& ade#uate re!autions ('). Bn algebrai! ter(s$ liability will atta!" i& 'SC-. Chica.o, & = A. #.#, Co. v. $rayen!uhl (/eb. 1902) General Facts: A was &our-years old. 7"e 44 "ad a turntable wit"in ?0 &eet o& a ubli! sidewal. w"ere A and "is &a(ily tra+eled. 7o re+ent danger$ t"e 44 !o( any "ad a oli!y t"at t"e turntable s"ould "a+e a lo!. and be lo!.ed w"en not in use. 44 e( loyees disregarded t"e oli!y and t"e turntable was in oor !ondition and not lo!.ed. 5ne day$ A and ot"er !"ildren !a(e to lay wit" t"e turntable. As &oot was tra ed against a rail and se+ered. Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury awarded da(ages to A. 5n a eal$ t"e +erdi!t was u "eld as to t"e duty owed to A$ but re+ersed on ot"er grounds. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 7"e e3tent o& duty (liability) &or an o erator o& a dangerous ite( in relation to !"ildren0 6E"ere t"e owner o& a dangerous re(ises .nows$ or "as good reason to belie+e$ t"at !"ildren so young as to be ignorant o& t"e danger will resort to su!" re(ises$ "e is bound to ta.e su!" re!autions to .ee t"e( &or( su!" re(ises$ w"ile t"ere$ as a (an o& ordinary !are and ruden!e$ under li.e !ir!u(stan!es$ would ta.e.8

'alan!ing test &or duty (liability)0 67"e deter(ination o& t"e #uestion o& negligen!e$ regard (ust be "ad to t"e !"ara!ter and lo!ation o& t"e re(ises$ t"e ur ose &or w"i!" t"ey are used$ t"e robability o& in*ury t"ere&ro($ t"e re!autions ne!essary to re+ent su!" in*ury$ and t"e relations su!" re!autions bear to t"e bene&i!ial use o& t"e re(ises.8 <oun. v. Clar+ (Colo. 1991) General Facts: J was dri+ing a"ead o& C in t"e !enter lane on a di+ided "ig"way in Colorado. -anes were ending due to !onstru!tion. <n unidenti&ied dri+er swer+ed out o& t"e !enter lane to t"e rig"t and #ui!.ly ba!.. 7"is !aused a line o& !ars to bra.e. <t t"e sa(e ti(e as t"e swer+ing$ C loo.ed ba!. to !"e!. &or ot"er !ars be&ore (o+ing to anot"er lane. < assenger yelled about t"e slowing o& !ars$ and C tried to sto $ but &ailed. C "it t"e rear o& Js !ar !ausing in*uries. Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury &ound &or C bF! C was in a 6sudden e(ergen!y8 and su!" "ad to be !onsidered in relation to t"e duty owed to J at t"e ti(e. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt u "eld t"e *ury instru!tion and t"e +erdi!t. 7"e !ourt also u "eld t"e 6sudden e(ergen!y rule8 in t"e &a!e o& atta!.s to its !ontinued use and +alidity sin!e ot"er *urisdi!tions "a+e abolis"ed it. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: S!o e o& t"e 6sudden e(ergen!y do!trine80 Bt 6was de+elo ed by !ourts to re!ogni%e t"at a erson !on&ronted wit" sudden or une3 e!ted !ir!u(stan!es !alling &or i((ediate a!tion is not e3 e!ted to e3er!ise t"e *udg(ent o& one a!ting under nor(al !onditions.8 7"e rule does not lower t"e standard o& !are$ but allows t"e e(ergen!y situation to bear on t"e *urys de!ision as to reasonable !ondu!t under t"e !ir!u(stan!es. 7"e do!trine a lies 6w"ere t"e sudden e(ergen!y is !reated in any way ot"er t"an by t"e a!tors own tortious !ondu!t$ as w"ere it is !reated by t"e une3 e!ted o eration o& a natural &or!e or by t"e inno!ent or wrong&ul !ondu!t o& a t"ird erson.8 7"e rule s"ould stand (at least in Colorado) des ite t"e ossibility t"at *urors will be !on&used into t"in.ing t"at t"e rule lowers t"e standard o& !are as long as t"e instru!tion is !lear. <lt"oug" t"e rules original ur ose was to so&ten t"e "ars" blow o& t"e old !ontributory negligen!e rule$ t"e new !o( arati+e negligen!e rule allows t"e sudden e(ergen!y rule to a ly to bot" C and )$ and is t"ere&ore not in!onsistent wit" ea!" ot"er. -illia s v. &ri.ht (/.J. < . 199?) General Facts: 4obbins (C) was t"e assenger in "er &at"ers !ar. Her &at"er &ell aslee at t"e w"eel and t"e !ar went o&& t"e road !ausing in*uries to 4. 4s in*uries (to "er "i and .nee) !ould "a+e been (itigated by surgery w"i!" "ad a "ig" robability o& su!!ess. 4 is a de+out =e"o+a"s Eitness and t"at &ait" &orbids any (edi!al treat(ent t"at would in!lude blood trans&usions. Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury &ound &or t"e C. 7"e trial !ourt instru!ted t"e *ury t"at an in*ured erson (ust ta.e all reasonable (easures to (itigate t"eir da(ages. ;urt"er(ore$ t"e trial *udge instru!ted t"at$ in t"is !ase$ 4s religious belie&s "ad to be ta.en into a!!ount and t"at t"e *ury !ould not ass *udg(ent as to t"e soundness o& t"e belie&s. 7"ese belie&s "ad to be ta.en as true. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt &ound t"e instru!tion to be error and re+ersed gi+ing t"e a ro riate instru!tion in t"is ty e o& !ase.

Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: S!o e t"at a ersons religious belie&s "a+e on reasonable erson standard0 < ersons religious belie&s s"ould be ta.en into a!!ount$ but not so as to ass *udg(ent (eit"er &a+orable or not) on t"e belie&s or to &ore!lose t"e *urys ability to assess t"e reasonableness o& t"e belie& itsel& in relation to t"e e+ents. < ro riate *ury instru!tion in t"is !ase0 6Bn !onsidering w"et"er t"e lainti&& a!ted as a reasonably rudent erson$ you (ay !onsider t"e lainti&&s testi(ony t"at s"e is a belie+er in t"e =e"o+a"s Eitness &ait"$ and t"at as an ad"erent o& t"at &ait"$ s"e !annot a!!e t any (edi!al treat(ent w"i!" re#uires a blood trans&usion. B !"arge you t"at su!" belie& is a &a!tor &or you to !onsider$ toget"er wit" all t"e ot"er e+iden!e you "a+e "eard$ in deter(ining w"et"er t"e lainti&& a!ted reasonably in !aring &or "er in*uries$ .ee ing in (ind$ "owe+er$ t"at t"e o+erriding test is w"et"er t"e lainti&& a!ted as a reasonably rudent erson$ under all t"e !ir!u(stan!es !on&ronting "er.8 Goss v. Allen (/.=. 19?,) General Facts: > was an e3 erien!ed s.ier and t"e &irst aid attendant on t"e beginners slo e o& a s.i lodge. < was a 1? year-old ine3 erien!ed s.ier w"o was trying "is &irst atte( t at down"ill s.iing. E"ile trying to (a.e a turn$ < lost !ontrol and e+entually "it >. Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury &ound &or <. 7"e trial *udge instru!ted t"e *ury t"at t"e ro er reasonable erson test was a reasonable 1? year old in t"e !ir!u(stan!es would use. Bnitially$ t"is was &ound to be error on a eal. Howe+er$ t"e /.=. Su re(e Court "eld t"at t"is was not error and reinstated t"e +erdi!t &or <. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 4easonable erson standard wit" (inors0 4egardless o& t"e e3a!t age o& a (inor$ a (inors reasonable erson standard is 6a reasonable erson o& li.e age$ intelligen!e$ and e3 erien!e under t"e !ir!u(stan!es.8 Howe+er$ 6t"e nature o& t"e a!ti+ity in w"i!" t"e (inor engaged8 is rele+ant sin!e so(e a!ti+ities are 6so otentially "a%ardous as to re#uire t"at t"e (inor be "eld to an adult standard o& !are.8 &reuni. v. A erican Fa ily Ins. Co. (Eis. 19?0) General Facts: ' was "it by :r(a Oeit" w"o was insured by ). : was insane and su&&ered &ro( a 6s!"i%o "reni! rea!tion$ aranoid ty e$ a!ute8 at t"e ti(e o& t"e a!!ident. : t"oug"t t"at god was !ontrolling "er !ar and t"at s"e s"ould sto( on t"e gas to be!o(e airborne a&ter s"e saw t"e tru!. in "er at". Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury awarded da(ages to '. 5n a eal$ t"e +erdi!t was u "eld be!ause t"ere was su&&i!ient e+iden!e t"at :s tenden!y towards delusion was .nown to "er and t"ere&ore$ s"e did not (eet t"e narrow e3!e tion t"at t"e !ourt (a.es. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: S!o e to w"i!" (ental de&i!ien!ies will &ore!lose liability0 >enerally$ insanity will not eli(inate liability. Bn so(e !ases it !an t"oug" i& it (eets t"e &ollowing li(ited instan!e. 67"e e&&e!t o& t"e (ental illness or (ental "allu!ination (ust be su!"

as to a&&e!t t"e ersons ability to understand and a re!iate t"e duty w"i!" rests u on "i( to dri+e "is !ar wit" ordinary !are$ or i& t"e insanity does not a&&e!t su!" understanding and a re!iation$ it (ust a&&e!t "is ability to !ontrol "is !ar in an ordinary rudent (anner. <nd in addition$ t"ere (ust be an absen!e o& noti!e or &orewarning to t"e erson t"at "e (ay be suddenly sub*e!t to su!" ty e o& insanity or (ental illness.8 :ssentially$ t"e (ental illness (ust be t"e e#ui+alent as sudden "ysi!al in!a a!ities in t"eir s!o e and une3 e!tedness. Coli!y reasons &or rule0 (1) E"ere one o& two inno!ents s"ould su&&er a loss$ it s"ould be borne by t"e one w"o !aused it (!o( ensation)1 (2) t"ose w"o are res onsible &or t"e insane erson s"ould be en!ouraged to restrain "i(F"er so as to not !ause "ar( to ot"ers (deterren!e)1 (2) insanity de&ense$ i& allowed$ !ould lead to (any &alse !lai(s o& insanity (a+oidan!e o& intra!table in#uiries). 2F1,F04 Ho'.es v. Carter (/.C. 1954) General Facts: H owned a drug store t"at burned. He sub(itted !lai(s to ea!" o& "is &our &ire insuran!e !arriers. :a!" o& t"e !arriers se+erely re*e!ted t"e !lai(s. H "ired C and 7o ing to re resent "i( in suit against t"e insuran!e !o( anies. C and 7 &iled a !o( laint and 6ser+ed8 t"e &our !o( anies +ia t"e Co((issioner o& Bnsuran!e &or t"e State o& /ort" Carolina w"o "ad yet un!"allenged statutory aut"ority to ser+e as t"e agent o& insuran!e !o( anies w"o o erate in t"e state. 7"e insuran!e !o( anies !"allenged t"e ser+i!e and e+entually t"e ser+i!e was "eld to "a+e been in+alid. H t"en started t"is legal (al ra!ti!e a!tion based on t"e error to ser+e ro erly. Case History: <&ter Hs e+iden!e$ t"e suit was dis(issed. 5n a eal$ t"is was u "eld bF! t"e attorneys a!tion was not negligent Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 5rdinary duty owed by an attorney0 6E"en an attorney engages in t"e ra!ti!e o& t"e law and !ontra!ts to rose!ute an a!tion in be"al& o& a !lient$ "e i( liedly re resents t"at (1) "e ossesses t"e re#uisite degree o& learning$ s.ill and ability ne!essary to t"e ra!ti!e o& "is ro&ession and w"i!" ot"ers si(ilarly situated ordinarily ossess1 (2) "e will e3ert "is best *udg(ent in t"e rose!ution o& t"e litigation entrusted to "i(1 and (2) "e will e3er!ise reasonable and ordinary !are and diligen!e in t"e use o& "is s.ill and in t"e a li!ation o& "is .nowledge to "is !lients !ause.8 E"at does not !onstitute negligen!e0 6<n attorney w"o a!ts in good &ait" and in an "onest belie& t"at "is ad+i!e and a!ts are well &ounded and in t"e best interest o& "is !lient is not answerable &or a (ere error o& *udg(ent or &or a (ista.e in a oint o& law w"i!" "as not been settled.8 /57:0 7"is does not (ean t"at any good &ait" (ista.e will be e3!used. < lawyer will still be *udged a!!ording to a!!e table ra!ti!e standards. E"at does !onstitute negligen!e0 6He is answerable in da(ages &or any loss to "is !lient w"i!" ro3i(ately results &ro( a want o& t"at degree o& .nowledge and s.ill ordinarily ossessed by ot"ers o& "is ro&ession si(ilarly situated$ or &ro( t"e o(ission to use reasonable !are and diligen!e$ or &ro( t"e &ailure to e3er!ise in good &ait" "is best *udg(ent in attending to t"e litigation !o((itted to "is !are.8

#usso v. Griffin (Ot. 198,) General Facts: ;ran. and 7ony 4usso re!ei+ed a dual interest in t"eir &at"ers a+ing business. ; later wanted to go into t"e laundro(at business$ and wanted to sell "is interest in t"e a+ing busines to "is brot"er. > wor.ed out t"e details$ but &ailed to (ention t"e use&ulness or desirability o& a !o+enant-not-to-!o( ete !lause. 7"ree (ont"s a&ter t"e sale$ ; started "is own a+ing &ir( in dire!t !o( etition wit" 7. > was sued &or legal (al ra!ti!e. Case History: <t trial$ t"e !ourt &ound &or ). 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed !iting t"e in!orre!t a li!ation o& t"e 6lo!ality rule8 in deter(ining t"e reasonableness o& a ro&essionals !ondu!t. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e (legal (al ra!ti!e) /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 4easons &or 6lo!ality rule80 Bt was designed to rote!t s(all-ti(e ro&essionals in rural areas to being "eld to t"e sa(e le+el o& !are as urban !ounter arts w"en t"e rural ersons would "a+e less training or te!"nologi!al ad+antages. Bn (edi!al ra!ti!e$ t"e lo!ality rule "as been abolis"ed sin!e do!tors (ust all (eet a national standard. Bn legal ra!ti!e$ t"e lo!ality rule is still in e&&e!t$ but t"e lo!ality is no longer a single town$ but t"e state. Other opinions: =usti!e Hayes would i( ose a national standard. &oyce v. &rown (<ri%. 1928) General Facts: /an!y 'oy!e bro.e "er an.le in 192?. )r. 'rown was "er "ysi!ian w"o set an (onitored t"e !ondition. <s a art o& t"at$ t"e ' la!ed a s!rew in "er an.le t"roug" surgery. Se+en years later$ /s an.le !aused "er ain. ' treated t"e ain$ but did not ta.e any T-rays. <&ter no i( ro+e(ent$ / went to a se!ond do!tor w"o too. an T-ray$ saw t"at t"e s!rew "ad been da(aged$ and surgi!ally re(o+ed t"e s!rew leading to a good re!o+ery. Case History: <t trial$ t"e !lai( o& (edi!al (al ra!ti!e was dis(issed a&ter t"e Cs e+iden!e. 5n a eal$ t"e dis(issal was u "eld due to la!. o& e+iden!e (eeting t"e a!!e ted legal standard (, art) &or t"e !lai(. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e (@edi!al (al ra!ti!e) /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: Si3 art rules o& law !on!erning a!tions o& (al ra!ti!e0 (1) 65ne li!ensed to ra!ti!e (edi!ine is resu(ed to ossess t"e degree o& s.ill and learning w"i!" is ossessed by t"e a+erage (/57:0 ot"er !ourts !"ange t"is to (ini(u() (e(ber o& t"e (edi!al ro&ession in good standing in t"e !o((unity in w"i!" "e ra!ti!es$ and to a ly t"at s.ill and leaning$ wit" ordinary and reasonable !are$ to !ases w"i!" !o(e to "i( &or treat(ent81 (2) 'e&ore liability atta!"es$ t"e ) (ust "a+e done so(et"ing w"i!" is &orbidden by t"e standards o& t"e ro&ession or &ailed to do so(et"ing ordinarily re#uired by t"e standard1 (2) 7"e a ro riate standard o& t"e !o((unity o& ro&essionals (ust be s"own by ositi+e e+iden!e and wit"out su!" e+iden!e$ a *ury is not allowed to s e!ulate as to t"e a ro riate standard1 (4) /egligen!e is ne+er resu(ed based on unsu!!ess&ul results$ but (ust be a&&ir(ati+ely ro+en1 (5) 7"e a!!e ted standard o& ra!ti!e (ust be de(onstrated by e3 ert testi(ony unless 6t"e negligen!e is so grossly a arent t"at a lay(an would "a+e no di&&i!ulty in re!ogni%ing it81 and (,) :3 ert testi(ony t"at "eFs"e would "a+e !"osen a di&&erent !ourse o& !ondu!t (treat(ent) does not establis"

(al ra!ti!e unless it also a ears 6t"at t"e !ourse o& treat(ent &ollowed de+iated &ro( one o& t"e (et"ods o& treat(ent a ro+ed by t"e standard in t"at !o((unity.8 Scott v. &ra'for' (5.la. 19?9) General Facts: S was noti&ied by "er nor(al do!tor t"at s"e "ad se+eral &ibroid tu(ors on "er uterus. 7"e do!tor re&erred S to '$ a s e!ialist. ' er&or(ed a "ystere!to(y. -ater S de+elo ed a +esi!o-+aginal &istula w"i!" allowed urine to lea. &ro( t"e bladder into t"e +agina. S"e went to a urologist w"o was able to re(edy t"e !ondition. ' did not in&or( S o& t"e ris. o& t"is !ondition resulting &ro( t"e surgery. Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury &ound &or t"e ). 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt sustained t"e +erdi!t$ but !"anged t"e a li!able law in su!" a!tions in t"e &uture w"i!" would "a+e altered t"e result i& a lied to t"is !ase. Cause of Action: -a!. o& Bn&or(ed Consent ((odi&i!ation o& negligen!e) -a!. o& Bn&or(ed Consent0 (1) )uty o& !are to dis!lose ris.s$ sub*e!t to t"ree e3!e tions1 (2) 'rea!" o& t"e duty1 (2) Causation s"own by a sub*e!ti+e (nor(ally ob*e!ti+e) assess(ent t"at t"e C would "a+e !"osen a di&&erent !ourse o& treat(ent but &or t"e la!. o& dis!losure1 (4) )a(ages &ro( t"e la!. o& dis!losure. Law: Coli!y &or -a!. o& Bn&or(ed Consent as a C5<0 6< atients rig"t to (a.e u "is (ind w"et"er to undergo treat(ent s"ould not be delegated to t"e lo!al (edi!al grou .8 7"ree e3!e tions to t"e duty to dis!lose ele(ent0 (1) /o duty to dis!lose i& t"e ris.s oug"t to be or are .nown by t"e lainti&&1 (2) /o duty to dis!lose i& dis!losure would a!tually be detri(ental to t"e atients o+erall "ealt"1 (2) /o duty in an e(ergen!y situation w"ere t"e atient is in no osition to deter(ine t"e !ourse o& !ondu!t &or "i(sel&. Sub*e!ti+e +s. 5b*e!ti+e standard &or Causation ele(ent0 <lt"oug" (ost !ourts re#uire t"at t"e C would "a+e not underwent t"e treat(ent but &or t"e la!. o& dis!losure &ro( an ob*e!ti+e stand oint$ t"is !ourt re&ers t"e sub*e!ti+e so as to rote!t t"e atients rig"t o& sel&-deter(ination. 7"e !ourt also dis(isses t"e !lai( t"at t"is oli!y would sub*e!t t"e do!tor to t"e "indsig"t o& t"e atient by e( "asi%ing t"at t"e do!tor !ould a+oid t"e !lai( by (eeting t"e duty. Hellin. v. Carey (Eas". 19?4) General Facts: @edi!al (al ra!ti!e !ase &or &ailure to dete!t glau!o(a. H was a young atient in t"e o&&i!e o& C and "is artner -aug"lin. Starting in 1959$ C and treated H &or near-sig"tedness +ia !onta!t lens. Howe+er$ o+er t"e !ourse o& t"e ne3t 9 years$ H !a(e in to t"e o&&i!e on 10 ti(es due to la!. o& +ision. :a!" ti(e until t"e last$ C and - t"oug"t t"e roble( was si( ly &aulty or (isaligned !onta!ts. Howe+er$ on t"at last +isit t"e do!tor er&or(ed t"e si( le glau!o(a ressure test and &ound t"e disease. Howe+er$ by t"is oint$ t"e disease "ad !aused so(e irre+ersible "ar(. /or(al ra!ti!e does not in!lude routine ressure tests &or atients under 40 (H was 22)1 "owe+er$ nor(al ra!ti!e does in!lude t"e test i& t"e !ir!u(stan!es indi!ate t"at glau!o(a s"ould be sus e!ted. Case History: Oerdi!t &or t"e )s. <&&ir(ed initially on a eal. Howe+er$ t"is !ourt re+ersed and de!lared a new standard wit" regard to glau!o(a testing !ases. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages

Law: 4easonable standard o& !are is t"is ty e o& !ir!u(stan!es (glau!o(a testing)0 6<s a (atter o& law$ t"e reasonable standard t"at s"ould "a+e been &ollowed under t"e undis uted &a!ts o& t"is !ase was t"e ti(ely gi+ing o& t"is si( le$ "ar(less ressure test to t"is lainti&& and t"at$ in &ailing to do so$ t"e de&endants were negligent$ w"i!" ro3i(ately resulted in t"e blindness sustained by t"e lainti&& &or w"i!" t"e de&endants are liable.8 Coli!y reason &or t"e rule !"ange0 Cersons under 40 are 6entitled to t"e sa(e rote!tion$ as a&&orded ersons o+er 40.8 ;urt"er(ore$ 6t"e re!aution o& gi+ing t"is test to dete!t t"e in!iden!e o& glau!o(a to atients under 40 years o& age is so i( erati+e t"at irres e!ti+e o& its disregard by t"e standards o& t"e o "t"al(ology ro&ession$ it is t"e duty o& t"e !ourts to say w"at is re#uired to rote!t atients under 40 &ro( t"e dangerous results o& glau!o(a.8 -al+er v. &i.nell (Eis. 1981) General Facts: E and ' were in an a!!ident at an interse!tion o& two rural "ig"ways in Eis!onsin. E !lai(s t"at t"e !ounty and nearby (uni!i ality were negligent in t"eir (aintenan!e o& weeds at t"e interse!tion w"i!" (ade seeing tra&&i! nearly i( ossible. < sa&ety statute de!lared t"at it is t"e res onsibility o& 6"ig"way aut"orities8 to (aintain t"e +egetation and t"at t"e (easure was designed to ro(ote sa&ety. Case History: <t trial t"e go+t )s were dis(issed out +ia su((ary *udg(ent. Bt was initially a&&ir(ed1 "owe+er$ it was re+ersed on &inal a eal due to a &ailure to !onsider t"e a li!ability o& t"e sa&ety statute to !reate negligen!e er se. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: :3tent to w"i!" sa&ety statutes (ay !reate negligen!e er se0 (1) t"e "ar( in&li!ted (ust be t"e ty e t"at t"e statute was designed to re+ent1 (2) t"e erson "ar(ed (ust be wit"in t"e !lass o& ersons soug"t to be rote!ted1 (2) so(e legislati+e intent to "a+e t"e statute ser+e as t"e basis &or negligen!e er se is re#uired. )el+ey v. &rennan (/.J. < . 19,1) General Facts: C was 12 year old girl w"o was in*ured w"ile at 's roller-s.ating rin.. < statute re#uires t"at in order to sustain (oral and edu!ation standards o& !"ildren$ it is a (isde(eanor to allow !"ildren under 1, to be at !ertain la!es ast ?000 in!luding roller rin.s. Case History: <t trial$ t"e Cs won. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed "olding t"at t"e statute did not a ly bF! t"e legislature did not intend it to a ly in t"is situation. Cause of Action: /egligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: :3tent to w"i!" a non-!i+il liability statute (ay !reate liability &or its +iolation0 5nly i& t"e da(age soug"t u on +iolation o& a statute ena!ted &or t"e rote!tion o& a s e!ial !lass is t"e sa(e as t"e arti!ular interest rote!ted by t"e statute$ !an liability atta!" &or its (ere +iolation. Stachniewic: v. %ar*Ca Corp. (5r. 19?1) General Facts: S was in*ured in a bar &ig"t as a bystander. 7wo grou s o&

already into3i!ated ersons w"o were still being ser+ed by t"e bar$ started &ig"ting and a general (elee bro.e out. <&ter t"e grou ran to t"e ar.ing lot in &ear o& t"e oli!e$ S was &ound on t"e &loor. He su&&ered retrograde a(nesia and !ould not re(e(ber t"e e+ents o& t"e &ig"t. <n 5regon statute re#uired t"at no one s"ould ser+e an already drun. erson. <n 5regon regulation re#uired t"at a li!ensee o& a li#uor li!ense (ust not allow drun.en &ig"ting in t"eir establis"(ent or er(it any +isibly into3i!ated erson to re(ain on t"e re(ises. Case History: 7"e *ury ruled &or t"e ). 7"e trial *udge &ound t"at t"e alleged +iolations o& t"e statute and t"e regulation did not !onstitute negligen!e er se. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt &ound t"at t"e statutory standard !ould a ly$ but t"e standard was too +ague to a ly to any !ir!u(stan!e. Howe+er$ t"e regulation standard o& !are did a ly and (eant t"at t"e +iolation o& it s"ould result in negligen!e er se on t"e art o& t"e ). Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: E"at is re#uired in order to "a+e a statutory (regulatory) +iolation a(ount to negligen!e er se0 6< +iolation o& a statute or regulation !onstitutes negligen!e as a (atter o& law w"en t"e +iolation results in in*ury to a (e(ber o& t"e !lass o& ersons intended to be rote!ted by t"e legislation and w"en t"e "ar( is o& t"e .ind w"i!" t"e statute or regulation was ena!ted to re+ent.8 6Howe+er$ in addition$ it is ro er &or t"e !ourt to e3a(ine reli(inarily t"e a ro riateness o& t"e standard L&ro( t"e statuteM as a (easure o& !are &or !i+il litigation under t"e !ir!u(stan!es resented.8 B& t"e +iolation o& t"e (easure would be able to s"ow t"at but &or t"e +iolation t"e in*ury would not o!!ur$ t"e !ourt will not ado t t"e standard &or negligen!e. &rown v. Shyne (/.J. 192,) General Facts: ' !ontra!ted wit" S &or S to ro+ide !"iro ra!ti! treat(ents. <lt"oug" S !lai(ed to be a do!tor$ but was not li!ensed in +iolation o& t"e Cubli! Heat" laws. -ater$ a&ter nine treat(ents$ ' be!a(e araly%ed. Case History: <t trial$ t"e *ury awarded I10A to '. 7"e trial *udge instru!ted t"e *ury t"at a +iolation o& t"e ubli! "ealt" laws !ould be t"e basis &or t"e *urys de!ision &or '. 5n a eal$ t"is instru!tion was "eld to be error and t"e !ase was re(anded &or a new trial. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: :3tent to w"i!" &ailure to !o( ly wit" a li!ensing law !an be negligen!e er se0 <lt"oug" su!" li!ensing statutes are generally intended to ro(ote sa&ety$ t"ere is no logi!al relations"i between t"e +iolation o& t"e li!ensing law and ro+iding !are or treat(ents below t"e re#uired standard o& !are. 7"ere&ore$ t"e +iolation o& su!" a law is not su&&i!ient to (a.e our a ri(a &a!ie negligen!e !ase. /57:0 So(e legislatures "a+e e3 li!itly (ade t"e +iolation o& so(e li!ensing laws ri(a &a!ie !ases o& negligen!e. %artin v. Her:o. (/.J. 1920) General Facts: < !ollision o!!urred between a !ar and a buggy w"i!" resulted in t"e deat" o& t"e buggy dri+er. 7"e !ar allegedly was dri+ing on t"e wrong side o& t"e road w"ile t"e buggy was not using "eadlig"ts (it was wit"out t"e() nearly an "our a&ter sundown. < "ig"way law re#uired t"at all +e"i!les !arry "eadlig"ts.

Case History: <t trial t"e *ury &ound &or t"e lainti&& (buggy). 7"e trial *udge said t"at t"e buggys &ailure to "a+e "eadlig"ts !ould be !onsidered as e+iden!e o& !ontributory negligen!e$ but it did not re#uire a &inding o& !ontributory negligen!e. 5n a eal$ t"is was "eld to be error and re(anded. 7"e "ig" !ourt agreed. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: 7"e une3!used +iolation o& t"e "ig"way law "ere was not (erely so(e e+iden!e o& negligen!e0 it was negligen!e er se. /57:0 7"is is not t"e uni+ersal rule. So(eti(es su!" a +iolation is reasonable. 5t"er ti(es$ a +iolation will only !reate a resu( tion o& negligen!e. 5t"er ti(es$ t"e +iolation will only ser+e as e+iden!e o& negligen!e. 2F15F04 -a.on %oun' No. 2(Cri+y Coun!il 19,1) General Facts: < &reig"ter in Sydney "arbor s illed a great deal o& &urna!e oil. Si3 "undred &eet away$ (en on a do!. were using welding e#ui (ent. <s t"e oil assed by in t"e water$ a rag t"at !aug"t on &ire and &ell to t"e water ignited t"e oil. 7"e resulting &ire destroyed t"e do!.. Case History: 7"e trial !ourt &ound t"at t"e )s were negligent and t"e +erdi!t was &or t"e lainti&&. 7"e issue o& ro3i(ate !ausation was a&&ir(ed by t"e Su re(e Court o& /ew Sout" Eales relying on t"e reasoning o& Polemis$ w"i!" endorsed a dire!t !onse#uen!es a roa!" to ro3i(ate !ausation w"ere any result t"at &ollowed an a!tors negligen!e and w"ere t"e !ausal !"ain was not bro.en by an inter+ening !ause$ t"e a!tor is liable. 7"e Cri+y Coun!il o+erruled and allowed t"e a eal w"ile dis!rediting Polemis as good law. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: :3tent o& liability &or tenuous "ar(s0 6Bt is a rin!i le o& !i+il liability$ sub*e!t only to #uali&i!ations w"i!" "a+e no resent rele+an!e$ t"at a (an (ust be !onsidered to be res onsible &or t"e robable !onse#uen!es o& "is a!t. 7o de(and (ore o& "i( is too "ars" a rule$ to de(and less is to ignore t"at !i+ili%ed order re#uires t"e obser+an!e o& a (ini(u( standard o& be"a+ior. -a.on %oun' No. 3(Cri+y Coun!il 19,?) General Facts: Sa(e as E@1$ but t"e resulting &ire also destroyed two s"i s. Case History: <t trial$ relying on E@1$ t"e *udge ruled &or t"e )s saying t"at t"e li.eli"ood o& t"e oil !at!"ing &ire was too re(ote &or t"e "ar( to be &oreseeable1 t"ere&ore$ t"e ro3i(ate !ause was la!.ing. 5n a eal to t"e CC$ t"e *udg(ent was re+ersed and t"e Coun!il !ited t"e &a!t t"at t"e issue o& &oreseeability between t"e two !ases was di&&erent so t"e !on!lusion in E@1 was not binding on E@2. 8i )on:io v. #ior'an(/.J. 199?) General Facts: )i was &illing "is !ars tan. at t"e )e&. 94Cs station w"en t"e ot"er )e&. 4 also !a(e into t"e station to get gas. 4 too. about 5 (inutes to &ill "is tan. w"ile lea+ing t"e !ar on. 7"is was in +iolation o& 94Cs oli!ies and i& t"e e( loyees

"ad "ad t"e inter!o( syste( on t"ey s"ould "a+e &or!ed 4 to turn o&& "is !ar or !ut t"e gas to t"e u( . 4 t"en le&t t"e running !ar in ar. to ay &or "is gas. 4 did not want to lea+e t"e !ar o&& be!ause o& a !arburetor roble(. 7"e ar.ing syste( on 4s !ar &ailed and t"e !ar rolled ba!. into )i inning "i( between "is !ar and 4s !ar. )i su&&ered a bro.en leg. )i sued bot" 4 and 94C. Case History: 94C (o+ed &or su((ary *udg(ent to dis(iss t"e !ase against t"e(. 7"e trial *udge denied t"e s.*. and "eld t"at t"e ro3i(ate !ausation de&ense raised by t"e (otion was an issue &or t"e *ury. 5n a eal$ t"e a ellate !ourt re+ersed. 7"e "ig" !ourt u "eld t"e re+ersal. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6Condu!t is !onsidered negligent w"en it tends to sub*e!t anot"er to an unreasonable ris. o& "ar( arising &ro( one or (ore arti!ular &oreseeable "a%ards. E"en t"e erson is "ar(ed by an o!!urren!e resulting &ro( one o& t"ose "a%ards$ t"e negligent a!tor (ay be "eld liable.8 B& 94C "ad a duty o& !are towards )i$ t"e duty to &or!e 4 to turn o&& "is !ar did not e3tend to t"e arti!ular "ar( o& t"e bro.en leg. 7"e "ar( !aused to )i was not wit"in t"e ris. o& t"e "ar( asso!iated wit" not turning o&& a !ar w"ile re&ueling. %cCahill v. New <or+ Transp. Co.(/.J. 1911) General Facts: @ was "it by a ta3i owned by ). @ sustained in*uries to "is .nee and t"ig". Howe+er$ "e died two days later be!ause "e de+elo ed deliriu( tre(ens. < do!tor testi&ied t"at "e would not "a+e de+elo ed t"e disease w"en "e did wit"out t"e a!!ident. Howe+er$ be!ause o& @s al!o"olis( "e robably would "a+e de+elo ed t"e disease e+entually. Case History: 7"e *ury &ound t"e ) liable and @ not !ontrib. ) a ealed arguing t"at t"e !ause o& @s deat" was not &oreseeable &ro( t"e negligen!e$ essentially a ro3i(ate !ausation de&ense. 7"e "ig" !ourt disagreed and u "eld t"e +erdi!t and announ!ed w"at "as be!o(e .nown as t"e 6eggs"ell s.ull do!trine.8 Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 67"e rin!i le is also true$ alt"oug" less &a(iliar$ t"at one w"o "as negligently &orwarded a diseased !ondition$ and t"ereby "astened and re(aturely !aused deat"$ !annot es!a e res onsibility$ e+en t"oug" t"e disease would "a+e resulted in deat" at a later ti(e wit"out "is agen!y.8 %erhi v. &ec+er(Conn. 19?2) General Facts: @ was in*ured by ' w"ile attending a union i!ni!. 7"e i!ni! was organi%ed by t"e -o!al 1010 and it was de!ided t"at oli!e ersons s"ould su er+ise t"e i!ni!. 7"ere was to be a great deal o& al!o"ol ser+ed and t"e lanning !o((ittee de!ided t"at 2-4 oli!e o&&i!ers would be ade#uate. Howe+er$ only one se!urity guard w"o was ,0 years old and not a oli!e o&&er was "ired. <lt"oug" t"is was .nown rior to t"e i!ni!$ not"ing was done to !orre!t it. <t t"e arty$ ' was drun. and got into two &ig"ts. ' was not re(o+ed &ro( t"e arty. -ater ' went to "is !ar to run down t"e erson "e was &ig"ting wit" and "it @ instead o& t"e ot"er erson. Case History: <t trial t"e *ury awarded @ a +erdi!t. 1010 a ealed arguing t"at

t"e *ury &inding o& a duty o& !are brea!"ed as to @ was unwarranted and t"e *ury was unreasonable in &inding t"at i& t"ey were negligent t"at t"e negligen!e was t"e ro3i(ate !ause o& @s in*uries. 7"e !ourt u "eld t"e +erdi!t. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6B& t"e de&endants !ondu!t is a substantial &a!tor in bringing about "ar( to anot"er$ t"e &a!t t"at t"e de&endant neit"er &oresaw nor s"ould "a+e &oreseen t"e e3tent o& t"e "ar( or t"e (anner in w"i!" it o!!urred does not re+ent "i( &ro( being liable.8 67"e test is w"et"er t"e "ar( w"i!" o!!urred was o& t"e sa(e general nature as t"e &oreseeable ris. !reated by t"e de&endants negligen!e.8 $ins an No. 2(2d Cir. 19,4) General Facts: Bn winter w"en t"e 'u&&alo 4i+er "ad !"un.s o& i!e in it$ 7"e S"iras$ owned by Ains(an$ was i( ro erly (oored to t"e do!.s o& Continental due to a &aulty 6dead(an.8 7"e s"i $ due to ressure build-u &ro( t"e i!e$ bro.e &ree$ !ollided wit" anot"er s"i (7"e 7ew.sbury) and e+entually !ras"ed into t"e @i!"igan street bridge artially be!ause t"e bridge o erators (!ity e( loyees) were not resent. 7"e !ras" !aused &looding in addition to t"e ro erty da(age to t"e ot"er s"i and t"e bridge. Case History: <t trial$ Ains(an$ Continental and t"e City were all "eld to be liable. 5n a eal based on ro3i(ate !ausation #uestion$ t"e !ourt "eld t"at t"e )s all owed a duty to t"e C (Calsgra& #uestion)$ and t"at ro3i(ate !ausation was (et. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6;oreseeability o& danger is ne!essary to render !ondu!t negligent.8 67"e weig"t o& aut"ority in t"is !ountry re*e!ts t"e li(itation o& da(ages to !onse#uen!es &oreseeable at t"e ti(e o& t"e negligent !ondu!t w"en t"e !onse#uen!es are 6dire!t$8 and t"e da(age$ alt"oug" ot"er and greater t"an e3 e!table$ is o& t"e sa(e general sort t"at was ris.ed.8 6Ee see no reason w"y an a!tor engaging in !ondu!t w"i!" entails a large ris. o& s(all da(age and a s(all ris. o& ot"er and greater da(age$ o& t"e sa(e general sort$ &ro( t"e sa(e &or!es$ and to t"e sa(e !lass o& ersons$ s"ould be relie+ed o& res onsibility &or t"e latter si( ly be!ause t"e !"an!e o& its o!!urren!e$ i& +iewed alone$ (ay not "a+e been large enoug" to re#uire t"e e3er!ise o& !are.8 $ins an No. 3(2d Cir. 19,8) General Facts: Sa(e as A1$ t"is !lai( was broug"t by an owner o& grain in a s"i u strea( t"at was &or!ed to ay e3tra trans ortation !osts due to t"e a!!ident. 7"e !ourt "eld t"at t"is !lai( went beyond t"e bounds o& liability by a lying t"e sa(e rin!i les. 2F1?F04 Alta uro v. %ilner Hotel, Inc.(:.). Ca. 1982) General Facts: < was .illed w"ile atte( ting to res!ue ersons during a "otel &ire. 7"e &ire was !aused by a &aulty 7O w"i!" was .nown by t"e Hs e( loyee1

t"ere&ore t"e H was negligent. Howe+er$ t"e &ire&ig"ters "ad ordered t"at all !i+ilians to be e+a!uated rior to <s &inal atte( t to sa+e li+es. <s wi&e sued t"e H &or da(ages resulting &ro( <s deat". Case History: 7"is is t"e trial !ourt. 7"e !ourt "eld t"e H liable and awarded <s estate I29,$2?2 basing its de!ision on t"e res!uer do!trine. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 7"e res!ue do!trine0 Cro+ides t"at w"en one erson is e3 osed to eril o& li&e or li(b by t"e negligen!e o& anot"er$ t"e latter will be liable in da(ages &or in*uries re!ei+ed by a t"ird erson$ in a reasonable e&&ort to res!ue t"e one so i( eriled. Howe+er$ t"e res!uer (ust not a!t ras"ly or i( rudently w"en t"e !ir!u(stan!es are ta.en under !onsideration. 6Bn su!" a !ase$ "e s"ould not be !"arged wit" t"e !onse#uen!es o& errors o& *udg(ents resulting &ro( t"e e3!ite(ent and !on&usion o& t"e (o(ent.8 ;i+e situations w"ere t"e res!ue do!trine !o(es into lay0 Su er!eding !ause0 /or(al$ alt"oug" negligent$ res!ue e&&orts do not brea. t"e !ausal !"ain as against t"e original wrongdoer. B& t"e res!ue negligen!e was so out o& t"e ordinary$ it (ay brea. t"e !"ain. 4es!uers liability to t"e +i!ti(0 <lt"oug" a negligent res!uer !an be "eld liable &or in*uries in&li!ted u on t"e +i!ti($ t"e !ir!u(stan!es surrounding t"e atte( ted res!ue are ta.en into a!!ount and t"e res!uer usually is not "eld liable. Bn*uries sustained by res!uer in res!ue atte( t0 7"e original tort&easor also owes a duty to t"e res!uer and !an be "eld liable &or t"e in*uries sustained by a res!uer in a reasonable atte( t to res!ue. Si(ilarly$ a +i!ti( w"o la!ed "i(sel& in eril owes a duty to t"ose w"o (ay atte( t to res!ue "i(. )e&enses based on t"e res!uers !ondu!t0 So(e !ourts "old t"at only i& t"e res!uer was re!.less will "is !ondu!t bar "is re!o+ery w"ile ot"er !ourts a ly !ontributory negligen!e rin!i le to bar re!o+ery i& t"e res!uer was negligent in !ausing "is own in*uries. Bn*uries to res!uers arising &ro( anot"ers negligen!e during a res!ue0 B& t"e res!uer is in*ured by a strangers negligen!e$ t"at stranger as well as t"e original tort&easor (ay be "eld liable &or t"e in*uries. 7"e do!trine will arise w"en !onsidering t"e !ir!u(stan!es o& a otential de&ense o& t"e stranger. &arnes v. Gei.er(@ass. < . Ct. 1982) General Facts: @ot"er ran out to t"e s!ene o& an a!!ident w"ere a boy was "it by >s !ar. ' t"oug"t t"at t"e boy was "er son. Bt wasnt$ but t"e ne3t day$ ' died o& a !erebral +as!ular "e(orr"age triggered by t"e a!!idents distress. Case History: <t trial > su!!ess&ully (o+ed &or s.*. 5n a eal$ t"is was u "eld be!ause ' was only an obser+er at best$ not a res!uer. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: <n obser+er !annot be e3tended t"e rote!tions o& t"e res!ue do!trine. 67o

a!"ie+e t"e status o& a res!uer$ a !lai(ants ur ose (ust be (ore t"an in+estigatory. 7"ere (ust be asserted so(e s e!i&i! (ission o& assistan!e by w"i!" t"e lig"t o& t"e i( eriled !ould reasonably be t"oug"t to be a(eliorated. 4e#uire(ents o& t"e 4es!ue )o!tine0 (1) < ris. o& i((inent eril (ob*e!ti+e standard) to erson or so(eti(es ro erty o& anot"er1 (2) an a!t o& inter+ention in res onse to t"e eril by t"e ur orted res!uer1 and (2) i& t"e a!tion is against t"e !reator o& t"e eril$ t"e C (ust establis" t"at t"e eril resulted &ro( t"e !reators tortuous !ondu!t$ rat"er t"an an una+oidable a!!ident. < res!uer w"o was artially res onsible &or t"e !reation o& t"e eril (ay be allowed da(ages resulting &ro( t"e res!ue !onsidering t"e e3tent o& t"e res!uers &ault under !o( arati+e &ault rin!i les. Fuller v. )reis(/.J. 19?4) General Facts: )r. -ewis$ de!edent$ !o((itted sui!ide se+en (ont"s a&ter a !ar a!!ident. <lt"oug" "e belie+ed t"at "e was &ine$ - de+elo ed se+ere sei%ures w"i!" debilitated "i(. -s neurologist said t"at o+er t"e !ourse o& t"e se+en (ont"s$ - "ad at least 28 sei%ures and was destined &or (any (ore be&ore t"ey would e+entually destroy "is brain. 5n t"e day o& t"e sui!ide$ - su&&ered 2 di&&erent sei%ures and see(ed +ery unstable. He went into t"e bat"roo( and e+entually s"ot "i(sel&. He le&t t"ree sui!ide notes$ !lai(ing t"at "e was sane. 7"e do!tors belie+e ot"erwise. Case History: <t trial$ C was awarded I200$000 by t"e *ury. 5n a eal$ t"e +erdi!t was o+erturned based on a la!. o& e+iden!e and &ailure to state a !lai(. 5n &inal a eal$ t"e !ause o& a!tion was u "eld and a new trial awarded. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6Sui!ide$ as a (atter o& law$ is not a su er!eding !ause in negligen!e law re!luding liability. <n initial tort&easor (ay be liable &or t"e wrong&ul a!ts o& t"e t"ird arty i& &oreseeable.8 Howe+er$ 6t"ere (ay be and undoubtedly "a+e been !ases w"ere t"e !ausal ne3us be!o(es too tenuous to er(it a *ury to Rs e!ulate as to t"e ro3i(ate !ause o& t"e sui!ide.8 /57:0 7"is is a new de+elo (ent in t"e law. Bn t"e ast$ due to a general dis&a+or and &ear o& sui!ide$ a erson w"o !o((itted sui!ide see(ingly lost all rig"ts in!luding t"e ability to "a+e a wrong&ul deat" suit broug"t on t"eir be"al& by a sur+i+or. Goar v. 1illa.e of Stephen(@inn. 1922) General Facts: > was se+erely in*ured by an ele!tri!al surge &ro( t"e owerline negligently installed by t"e Co( any and negligently (aintained o+er a year and "al& by t"e Oillage. Bn t"e A go+erning t"e relations"i between t"e Co( any and t"e Oillage$ t"e Co( any agreed t"at t"e lines were &ree o& &ault and t"at t"e Co( any would (a.e all re airs &ree &or a year. Howe+er$ t"e Oillage "ad e3!lusi+e !ontrol and res onsibility &or seeing to t"e (aintenan!e o& t"e lines. Case History: C "ad a *ury +erdi!t against bot" t"e Co( any and t"e Oillage. 7"e award was re(itted to I8$500 &ro( I12$500. 5n a eal$ t"e +erdi!t against t"e Oillage was sustained w"ile t"e one against t"e Co( any was re+ersed bF! t"e Oillages negligen!e ser+ed as an inter+ening !ause o& t"e "ar(. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot"

&a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: /or(ally$ t"e do!trine o& s"i&ting res onsibility will not allow t"e negligent o(ission to a!t o& a t"ird arty to end t"e liability o& an original tort&easor1 "owe+er$ t"is was dee(ed one o& t"e unusual !ases in w"i!" it would. 6E"ere t"ere "as been su!" a la se o& ti(e as we "a+e "ere$ and t"ere is a duty$ !lear and a&&ir(ati+e$ on t"e art o& t"e ur!"aser$ to ins e!t an (aintain as against t"at sure deterioration w"i!" is bound to &ollow &ro( ordinary use$ and a !o( lete &ailure o& t"e er&or(an!e o& duty$ but &or w"i!" t"e a!!ident !ould not "a+e "a ened$ su!" &ailure be!o(es t"e ro3i(ate and not (erely a !on!urring !ause.8 &ali'o v. I prove' %achinery, Inc.(Cal. < . Ct. 19?2) General Facts: 's "and was !rus"ed by a ie!e o& (anu&a!turing e#ui (ent. 7"e (a!"ine was negligently (ade by B( ro+ed$ sold originally to Ca er @ate w"o later sold it to 5ly( i! ('s e( loyer). B( ro+ed was aware o& a ossible de&e!t wit" t"e (a!"ine and noti&ied 5 t"at t"ey !ould &i3 t"e de&e!t wit" a .it !osting I500. 5 de!lined and t"e in*ury o!!urred to '. Case History: < nonsuit was de!lared as against all t"ree )s. 5 bF! Cal.s Eor.(ens Co( law &orbid t"e suit. C@ bF! t"ere was too little e+iden!e to sustain a +erdi!t against t"e(. B bF! t"e assing o& ti(e assed t"e res onsibility to 5 and bF! B in&or(ed 5 and o&&ered to &i3 t"e roble( and was denied w"i!" assed t"e res onsibility to 5. 5n a eal$ t"e nonsuit was u "eld against 5 and C@$ but re+ersed &or a trial against B bF! a *ury !ould ossibly &ind against t"e(. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6Bt is a arently i( ossible to state any !o( re"ensi+e rule as to w"en su!" a de!ision Ls"i&t o& dutyM will be (ade. Oarious &a!tors will enter into it. <(ong t"e( are t"e degree o& danger and t"e (agnitude o& t"e ris. o& "ar($ t"e !"ara!ter and osition o& t"e t"ird erson w"o is to ta.e t"e res onsibility$ "is .nowledge o& t"e danger and t"e li.eli"ood t"at "e will or will not e3er!ise ro er !are$ "is relation to t"e C or to t"e )$ t"e la se o& ti(e$ and er"a s ot"er !onsiderations.8 <not"er !onsideration (ay be t"e e3isten!e o& a A between t"e ) and t"e t"ird erson de&ining t"eir obligations. 6<s a general ro osition it !an be said t"at a (anu&a!turer w"o "as ta.en all reasonable ste s to !orre!t its error (ay su!!eed in absol+ing itsel& &ro( &uture liability.8 /ohnson v. %inn.(@inn. 199,) General Facts: Stewart was a arolee w"o was su osed to re ort to a "al&way "ouse. He didnt and went on a !ri(e s ree in w"i!" "e ra ed and .illed @elissa =o"nson. Her &a(ily sued t"e state$ !ounty$ and t"e "al&way "ouse. E"ile t"e state and !ounty "a+e so+ereign and o&&i!ial i((unity generated by !.l. and statute$ t"e issue o& t"e "al&way "ouses duty was le&t. Case History: <t trial t"e !ourt granted all de&endants (otion &or s.*. 5n a eal$ t"ese were re+ersed. 5n &inal a eal$ t"e s.*. (otions were reinstated bF! t"e "al&way "ouse "ad no duty to !ontrol or re+ent t"e a!tions o& Stewart. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 67"e &a!t t"at an a!tor reali%es or s"ould reali%e t"at a!tion on "is art in

ne!essary &or anot"ers aid or rote!tion does not itsel& i( ose u on t"e a!tor a duty to ta.e su!" a!tion.8 4.2d 214 67"ere is no duty so to !ontrol t"e !ondu!t o& a t"ird erson as to re+ent "i( &ro( !ausing "ysi!al "ar( to anot"er unless (a) a s e!ial relation e3ists between t"e a!tor and t"e t"ird erson w"i!" i( oses a duty u on t"e a!tor to !ontrol t"e t"ird ersons !ondu!t$ or (b) a s e!ial relation e3ists between t"e a!tor and t"e ot"er w"i!" gi+es rise to t"e ot"er a rig"t to rote!tion.8 4.2d 215 6Su!" s e!ial relations"i s e3ist between arents and !"ildren$ (asters and ser+ants$ ossessors o& land and li!ensees$ !o((on !arriers and t"eir !usto(ers$ or eo le w"o "a+e !ustody o& a erson wit" dangerous ro ensities.8 8e 1era v. Lon. &each )u!lic Transportation Co.(Cal. < . Ct. 198,) General Facts: )O was a assenger on a ubli! bus w"i!" was stru!. negligently by a t"ird erson. )O !lai(s t"at t"e bus !o. "ad a duty to assist "i( in &inding out in&or(ation about t"e a!!ident to ursue a !lai( against t"e ot"er dri+er. 7"e !o. &ailed and )O sued. 'y statute$ 6a !arrier o& ersons &or reward (ust use t"e ut(ost !are and diligen!e &or t"eir sa&e !arriage$ (ust ro+ide e+eryt"ing ne!essary &or t"at ur ose$ and (ust e3er!ise to t"at end an reasonable degree o& s.ill.8 Case History: 7"e *ury awarded )O I1?$500. 5n a eal$ t"is was sustained and a new duty o& !are was e3tended to !o((on !arriers$ t"e duty to assist wit" in&or(ation about a!!idents to t"e assengers. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6< !o((on !arrier is under a duty to its assengers to ta.e reasonable a!tion (a) to rote!t t"e( against unreasonable ris. o& "ysi!al "ar($ and (b) to gi+e t"e( &irst aid a&ter it .nows or "as reason to .now t"at t"ey are ill or in*ured$ and to !are &or t"e( until t"ey !an be !ared &or by ot"ers.8 7"e !ourt &ound t"at ubli! oli!y &a+ored t"e e3tension o& t"e new duty bF! t"e !o((on !arriers are in a better osition to "el and t"e end result it a good one. $line v. 2>55 %assachusetts Ave. Apart ent Corp.().C. Cir. 19?0) General Facts: A was assaulted and robbed in t"e "allways o& "er a art(ent building by a t"ird erson. E"ile a door(an guarded t"e entran!es w"en A began "er tenan!y$ as o& 19,, t"ese se!urities were sto ed. Case History: 7"e trial !ourt "eld t"at t"e landlord owed no duty to rote!t A against t"e !ri(inal a!ts o& t"ird ersons. 5n a eal$ a duty was &ound and t"e !ase re+ersed and re(anded &or trial on da(ages. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) CausationUbot" &a!tual and ro3i(ate1 and (4) )a(ages. Law: 6Certain duties are assigned to t"e landlord bF! o& "is !ontrol o& !o((on "allways$ lobbies$ stairwells$ et!. used by all tenant in (ulti le dwelling units. 7"e duty is t"e landlords bF! by "is !ontrol o& t"e areas o& !o((on use and !o((on danger "e is t"e only arty w"o "as t"e ower to (a.e t"e ne!essary re airs or to ro+ide t"e ne!essary rote!tion.8 2F29F04

Lewis v. -estin.house (lectric Corp. (Bll. < . 1985) General Facts: - got stu!. in t"e ele+ator o& t"e ) a art(ent !o( le3 w"i!" was (aintained by ) Eesting"ouse. S"e was stu!. t"ere &or 40 (inutes. - !lai(s t"at during t"at ti(e s"e was in &ear o& su&&o!ation and serious bodily "ar(. <s a result o& t"e e3 erien!e$ - su&&ered an unstable 6angina8 and aggra+ation o& "er 6!oronary arterios!leroti! "eart disease8 and 6"y ertension.8 - sued &or negligent in&li!tion o& e(otional distress. Case History: 7"e trial !ourt dis(issed t"e !ase &or &ailure to state a !ause o& a!tion. 5n a eal$ t"is was u "eld bF! t"e !ourt did not +iew t"e situation as one in w"i!" t"e C !ould "a+e ob*e!ti+ely been reasonably in &ear &or "er sa&ety. @oreo+er$ i& t"e C truly did su&&er t"ese "ar(s$ s"e was not a erson o& ordinary sensibilities so no !ause o& a!tion e3ists. Cause of Action: /egligent Bn&li!tion o& :(otional )istress /B:)0 Law: ;ear o& sa&ety in t"e !ase o& /B:) is to be ad*udged by an ob*e!ti+e standard. 6Bndis!ri(inate allowan!e o& a!tion &or (ental anguis" would en!ourage neuroti! o+errea!tions to tri+ial "urts$ and t"e law s"ould ai( to toug"en t"e sy!"e o& t"e !iti%en rat"er t"an a( er it.8 /ohnson v. New <or+ (/.J. 19?5) General Facts: = was t"e daug"ter o& a atient in a State "os ital. S"e and "er aunt were &alsely in&or(ed t"at t"eir (ot"erFsister died. 4at"er a di&&erent erson by t"e sa(e na(e in t"e "os ital died. Howe+er$ = (ade t"e &uneral arrange(ents in!luding t"e &inan!ial reser+ations. Howe+er$ w"ile +iewing t"e body$ t"e two "ad doubts as to w"et"er t"e erson was really t"e (ot"er. 7"en$ during t"e wa.e$ w"ile e(otionally distraug"t$ = e3!lai(ed t"at t"e erson was not "er (ot"er and be!a(e 6+ery$ +ery "ysteri!al.8 7"e de!eased was not "er (ot"er1 t"e "os ital ulled t"e wrong &ile. -ater$ = de+elo ed re!urring nig"t(ares about deat" and was diagnosed as su&&ering &ro( an3iety neurosis (e3!essi+e an3iety). = sued &or !o( ensatory and uniti+e da(ages. Case History: <t trial$ t"e aunts (estate) !lai( was dis(issed and s"e did not a eal. 7"e !ourt awarded I?500 &or t"e &uneral e3 enses and &or e(otional "ar($ but denied uniti+e da(ages. 5n a eal$ t"e lower !ourt (odi&ied t"e award to I1,58.4? w"i!" re resents =s a!tual out-o&- o!.et &uneral e3 enses alone. 5n &inal a eal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed to allow t"e e(otional "ar( to be re&le!ted in t"e award. 7"e !ourt said0 64e!o+ery &or e(otional "ar( to one sub*e!ted dire!tly to t"e tortious a!t (ay not be disallowed so long as t"e e+iden!e is su&&i!ient to s"ow !ausation and substantiality o& t"e "ar( su&&ered toget"er wit" a Rguarantee o& genuineness.8 Cause of Action: /B:) /:B)0 Law: 6Bn t"e absen!e o& !onte( oraneous or !onse#uential "ysi!al in*ury$ !ourts "a+e been relu!tant to er(it re!o+ery &or negligently !aused sy!"ologi!al trau(a$ wit" ensuing e(otional "ar( alone.8 Howe+er two e3!e tions e3ist. (1) 67"e (inority rule er(itting re!o+ery &or e(otional "ar( resulting &ro( t"e negligent trans(ission by a telegra " !o( any o& a (essage announ!ing deat".8 (2) 64e!o+ery &or e(otional "ar( to a !lose relati+e resulting &ro( negligent (is"andling o& a !or se.8 Bn t"ese situations t"ere are a s e!ial !ir!u(stan!es w"i!" gi+es rise to an a!!urate guarantee o& genuineness.

B& a erson (ay re!o+er &or t"e e!uniary loss !aused by a tortious a!t$ t"ere is no logi!al reason to e3!lude t"e genuine e(otional "ar( !ased by t"e sa(e tortious !ondu!t. /a es v. Lie! (/eb. 1985) General Facts: < garbage tru!. owned by ) !or . and o erated by - ba!.ed into an interse!tion and ran o+er )e(etria$ .illing "er. Her brot"er >regory "el lessly wat!"ed t"e e+ent. 'e!ause o& t"is$ > de+elo ed "ysi!al illness as well as (ental anguis" and e(otional distress. Howe+er$ > was not dire!tly t"reatened "ar( by t"e !ondu!t o& -. Case History: 4elying on Fournell v. Usher Pest Control$ t"e trial !ourt dis(issed t"e !ase bF! > was not in t"e 6%one o& danger8 o& t"e e+ent1 t"ere&ore$ "e !ould not re!o+er &or t"e e(otional distress !aused by witnessing it. Howe+er$ on a eal t"e !ourt o+erruled Fournell and ado ted a (odi&ied &or( o& t"e Dillon v. Legg$ 441 C.2d ?2 (Cal. 19,8) &oreseeability a roa!" &or bystander e(otional distress !lai(s. Cause of Action: /B:) /B:) Law: 7"ree &a!tors to guide t"e deter(ination o& bystander liability &ro( Dillon0 (1) E"et"er t"e C was lo!ated near t"e s!ene o& t"e a!!ident as !ontrasted wit" one w"o was a distan!e away &ro( it1 (2) E"et"er t"e s"o!. resulted &ro( a dire!t e(otional i( a!t u on C &ro( t"e sensory and !onte( oraneous obser+an!e o& t"e a!!ident$ as !ontrasted wit" learning o& t"e a!!ident &ro( ot"ers a&ter its o!!urren!e1 and (2) E"et"er C and t"e +i!ti( were !losely related$ as !ontrasted wit" an absen!e o& any relations"i or resen!e o& only a distant relations"i . 7"e /eb. !ourt (ade t"e &urt"er obser+ations about t"ese &a!tors0 (1) 7"e relations"i &a!tor is t"e (ost i( ortant. 7"is !ourt re#uires t"at t"ere be a (arital or inti(ate &a(ilial relations"i . Howe+er$ it would not e3!lude aunts$ un!les and grand arents$ but would rat"er i( ose a greater burden on t"ose to de(onstrate signi&i!ant atta!"(ent. (2) E"ile t"e ro3i(ity re#uire(ents o& t"e &irst two o& t"e Dillon &a!tors are satis&ied by a!tually seeing t"e a!!ident$ sensory witnessing is not absolutely re#uired. B& t"e C and t"e +i!ti( are signi&i!antly related$ t"e i( a!t would be *ust as trau(ati! i& t"e C learned o& t"e a!!ident rat"er t"an witnessing it1 (2) 7"e +i!ti( (ust "a+e su&&ered eit"er se+ere "ar( or deat" &or t"e "ar( to be a!tionable1 and (4) 7"e C need not also su&&er !on!urrent "ysi!al in*ury &or t"e e(otional "ar( to be a!tionable. /57:0 :le(ents o& bystander /:B) !lai( a!!ording to Sout" Carolina0 (1) t"e negligen!e o& t"e ) (ust !ause deat" or serious "ysi!al in*ury to anot"er1 (2) t"e C bystander (ust be in !lose ro3i(ity to t"e a!!ident1 (2) t"e C and t"e +i!ti( (ust be !losely related1 (4) t"e C (ust !onte( oraneously er!ei+e t"e a!!ident1 and (5) t"e e(otional distress (ust bot" (ani&est itsel& by "ysi!al sy( to(s !a able o& diagnosis and be establis"ed be e3 ert testi(ony. F.G. v. %ac8onell (/.=. 199?) General Facts: ;.>. was in need o& !ounseling and soug"t out "er (inister &or su!". @ was t"e re!tor at St. -u.es : is!o al C"ur!". 7"e se!ond )$ Har er was t"e assistant re!tor and later assu(ed t"e re!tor *ob. @ !ounseled ;.>. and sedu!ed "er into a se3ual relations"i (but no inter!ourse). H a arently (ade t"is !ondu!t ubli! a&ter ;.>. !a(e to "i( to dis!uss @s ina ro riate be"a+ior. ;.>. sued @ &or negligent astoral !ounseling$ /B:)$ and brea!" o& a &idu!iary duty. ;.>. sued H &or brea!" o&

&idu!iary duty. Case History: <t trial$ t"e !ourt dis(issed t"e !ase based on 1st <(end !on!erns. 7"e a ellate !ourt re+ersed as to all !ounts. 7"e /.=. Su re(e Court (odi&ied by only allowing a re(and &or t"e !lai(s o& brea!" o& &idu!iary duty and /B:) against @$ and ending a "earing about religion entangle(ent issues$ a !lai( &or brea!" o& &idu!iary duty against H. Cause of Action: /B:) /B:)0 Law: < !lai( based on &idu!iary relations"i robably wont in&ringe u on anyones &ree e3er!ise o& religion1 t"ere&ore$ !ourts (ay ad*udi!ate t"ere. B& su!" a !lai( su!!eeds$ a /B:) (ay also lie bF! t"e e(otional "ar( results &ro( t"e sa(e tortious !ondu!t. Other Opinions: =. 5Hern dissented bF! "e saw a real roble( wit" entangle(ent. E"ile !learly t"e : is!o al religions (inisters (ay "old t"e(sel+es out as &idu!iaries$ t"is de!ision !ould be t"e basis &or "olding ot"er religious leaders as &idu!iaries w"en t"at &ait" (ay not be t"e sa(e as "ere. &oyles v. $err (7e3. 1992) General Facts: ' (1?) indu!ed A (19) to "a+e se3 wit" "i( (!onsensual). Howe+er$ ' also arranged to +ideota e t"e e3 erien!e wit" two &riends. 7"ese eo le t"en s"owed t"e ta e to ot"er &riends. Soon t"e gossi s read to su!" an e3tent t"at A was "u(iliated in t"e !o((unity. S"e was labeled as t"e 6 orno #ueen8 and t"e "u(iliation !aused oor a!ade(i! er&or(an!e and needed sy!"ologi!al !ounseling. A sued ' and t"e ot"er two in+ol+ed &or intentional in+asion o& ri+a!y$ negligent in+asion o& ri+a!y$ and /B:). Howe+er$ A dro ed all !ounts e3!e t t"e /B:) be&ore t"e !ase went to t"e *ury. Case History: 7"e *ury awarded A I500$000 !o( ensatory da(ages$ and I500$000 uniti+e (I250$000 o& w"i!" belonged to ' alone). ' a ealed and t"e a ellate !ourt a&&ir(ed. Howe+er$ t"e 7e3as Su re(e Court re+ersed and o+erruled t. !li"a#eth $os%ital v. Garrard$ w"i!" re!ogni%ed /B:) as a C5< inde endent o& any ot"er legal rig"t. 7"e !ourt will now only re!ogni%e /B:) in !on*un!tion wit" t"e in+asion o& so(e ot"er legal rig"t. Howe+er$ in t"e interest o& *usti!e t"e !ourt allowed A a new trial. Cause of Action: /B:) /B:)0 Law: 67"ere is no general duty not to negligently in&li!t e(otional distress.8 Howe+er$ 6we are not i( osing a re#uire(ent t"at e(otional distress (ani&est itsel& "ysi!ally to be !o( ensable.8 2F21F04 $elly v. Gwinnell (/.=. 1984) General Facts: > dro+e =ose " Qa. "o(e. E"ile t"ere$ t"e two dran. s!ot!". > "ad at least 2-2$ but "ad a '<C o& .28,. Q saw > out to "is !ar and > le&t. Q !alled "is "ouse 20 (inutes later to see i& > (ade it "o(e. 7"en Q &ound out t"at > was in a "ead-on a!!ident in w"i!" > and t"e C$ Aelly$ was se+ered in*ured. A sued > and Q. Case History: <t trial$ t"e !ourt granted Q su((ary *udg(ent. 5n a eal$

t"e !ourt u "eld t"is bF! o& a la!. o& de!isions allowing liability &or a so!ial "ost. 5n &inal a eal$ t"e !ourt i( osed a duty on so!ial "osts &or t"e "ar(s !aused by t"eir into3i!ated guests. 6< "ost w"o ser+es li#uor to an adult so!ial guest$ .nowing bot" t"at t"e guest is into3i!ated and will t"erea&ter be o erating a (otor +e"i!le$ is liable &or in*uries in&li!ted on a t"ird arty as a result o& t"e negligent o eration o& a (otor +e"i!le by t"e adult guest w"en su!" negligen!e is !aused by into3i!ation.8 Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e0 /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: )uty &or so!ial "osts to re+ent in*uries !aused by t"e drun. dri+ing o& t"eir guests. Otis (n.ineerin. Corp. v. Clar+ (7e3. 1982) General Facts: @at"eson was an e( loyee o& 5 w"o "ad a "istory o& al!o"ol roble(s and being drun. at wor.. 5ne nig"t "e was se+erely into3i!ated ('<C o& .2,8)$ and "is su er+isor (4oy) sent "i( "o(e. 4 a!!o( anied @ to "is !ar and as.ed "i( i& "e was alrig"t to dri+e. @$ o& !ourse$ said yes$ and @ le&t. 7"ree (iles away$ @ "ad an a!!ident in w"i!" t"e wi+es o& t"e Clar. brot"ers (or &at"erFson) were .illed. 4 a!tually i((ediately t"oug"t o& @ w"en "e "eard about t"e a!!ident. Cs sued t"e !o( any &or negligently er&or(ing a duty w"i!" t"ey assu(ed. Case History: <t trial$ 5s (otion &or s.*. was granted. 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt re+ersed. 5n &inal a eal$ t"e !ourt u "eld t"e a ellate !ourt and re(anded t"e !ase &or trial. 7"e !ourt i( osed a duty on e( loyers w"o are aware o& t"e drun.enness o& t"eir e( loyees to "andle t"e (anner as a reasonably rudent !or oration would. Cause of Action: 7"e tort o& negligen!e /egligen!e0 (1) )uty o& !are1 (2) 'rea!" o& duty1 (2) Causation1 (4) )a(ages Law: /or(ally$ a erson "as no duty to !ontrol t"e a!tions o& ot"ers absent s e!ial !onditions between t"e arties. ;a!tors to be used to deter(ine i& a duty s"ould be i( osed0 (1) t"e ris.$ (2) &oreseeability1 and (2) li.eli"ood o& in*ury weig"ed against (1) t"e so!ial utility o& t"e a!tors !ondu!t$ (2) t"e (agnitude o& t"e burden o& guarding against t"e in*ury and !onse#uen!es o& la!ing t"at burden on t"e e( loyer. L-earned Hands balan!ing testM 67"e standard o& duty t"at we now ado t...is0 w"en$ be!ause o& an e( loyees in!a a!ity$ an e( loyer e3er!ises !ontrol o+er t"e e( loyee$ t"e e( loyer "as a duty to ta.e su!" a!tion as a reasonably rudent e( loyer under t"e sa(e or si(ilar !ir!u(stan!es would ta.e to re+ent t"e e( loyee &ro( !ausing an unreasonable ris. o& "ar( to ot"ers.8 %c$ernan v. Aashei (Eas". 1984) General Facts: Aaren @!A "ad "er &allo ian tubes tied as a (eans o& !ontra!e tion by <. Howe+er$ s"e !on!ei+ed and bore a "ealt"y !"ild. 7"e @s sued &or t"e negligent er&or(an!e o& t"e o eration. 7"ey re#uested da(ages relating to t"e !ost and ain o& t"e o eration$ t"e !ost and ain o& t"e resulting regnan!y$ loss o& t"e leasure o& "a+ing t"e ro!edure er&or(ed !orre!tly$ and t"e loss o& !onsortiu( asso!iated wit" t"e &ailure o& t"e ro!edure and t"e regnan!y. 7"ey also sued &or t"e !osts o& raising a nor(al !"ild in!luding t"e !osts o& rearing$ !ollege$ and ser+i!es o& t"e arents$ and e(otional burdens. Case History: 7"e trial !ourt allowed <s (otion &or artial s.*. &or t"e last da(ages !lai( (!ost o& rearing). 5n a eal$ t"e !ourt u "eld t"is ruling. 7"e !ourt based

its de!ision ri(arily u on a re*e!tion o& t"e (inority +iew t"at allowed t"ese da(ages (6bene&its rule8) as well as a roble( wit" t"e a!!ura!y o& assess(ent o& t"ese da(ages. Cause of Action: /egligent !on!e tion Law: @ost !ourts deny t"is ty e o& re!o+ery &or a +ariety o& reasons. (1) So(e "old t"at t"e intangible bene&its o& arent"ood always outweig" t"e !osts. (2) So(e reason t"at to allow t"is would er(it a wind&all &or t"e arents. (2) So(e deny re!o+ery out o& !on!ern &or t"e sy!"e o& t"e !"ild. (4) 5t"ers deny re!o+ery &or being too s e!ulati+e and rone to &raud. 7"e (inority o& !ourts allow t"is re!o+ery eit"er in &ull or redu!ed by t"e bene&its o& arent"ood gained by t"e Cs. 7"is !ourt denied re!o+ery bF! o& t"e s e!ulati+e nature o& t"e award and t"e 6bene&its rule8 analysis$ t"e roble( t"at arents would be &or!ed to de(onstrate t"at t"e !"ild is (ore trouble t"an its wort"$ and a !on!ern &or t"e (ental and e(otional "ealt" o& t"e !"ild w"o was not only unwanted but w"ose arents got so(eone else to ay &or t"e !"ilds e3isten!e. S ith v. Cote (/.H. 198,) General Facts: -inda S(it" was regnant and was under t"e !are o& C. :arly in "er regnan!y$ - !ontra!ted rubella. Howe+er$ C did not dis!o+er t"e rubella nor did C alert - to t"e ossible roble(s wit" t"e !"ilds de+elo (ent t"at t"e disease would "a+e "ad or t"e ossible o tions (na(ely abortion). -s !"ild (Heat"er) was born wit" !ongenital rubella syndro(e w"i!" "as !aused blindness$ a "eart !ondition re#uiring nu(erous o erations$ (otor retardation$ and "earing i( air(ent. - sued C &or wrong&ul birt" (6a !lai( broug"t by t"e arents o& a !"ild born wit" se+ere de&e!ts against a "ysi!ian w"o negligently &ails to in&or( t"e($ in a ti(ely &as"ion$ o& an in!reased ossibility t"at t"e (ot"er will gi+e birt" to su!" a !"ild$ t"ereby re!luding an in&or(ed de!ision as to w"et"er to "a+e t"e !"ild8). @eanw"ile$ H sued C &or wrong&ul li&e (a !lai( broug"t by a !"ild 6!ontendLingM t"at "e de&endant "ysi!ian negligently &ailed to in&or( t"e !"ilds arents o& t"e ris. o& bearing a de&e!ti+e in&ant$ and "en!e re+ented t"e arents &ro( !"oosing to a+oid t"e !"ilds birt"8). Case History: 9n!lear as to t"e trial !ourt$ but t"at !ourt robably did not re!ogni%e t"e two torts. 7"e /.H. S.Ct. did re!ogni%e t"e tort o& wrong&ul birt"$ but not wrong&ul li&e. <s to wrong&ul birt"$ t"e !ourt de!lared t"at t"e a ro riate (easure o& da(ages are 6t"e e3traordinary (edi!al and edu!ational !osts attributable to t"e !"ilds de&or(ities$ but (ay not re!o+er ordinary !"ild-raising !osts.8 ;urt"er(ore$ 6a arent (ay re!o+er &or "is or "er (inistrations to "is or "er !"ild to t"e e3tent t"at su!" (inistrations0 (1) are (ade ne!essary by t"e !"ilds !ondition1 (2) !learly e3!eed t"ose ordinarily rendered by arents o& a nor(al !"ild1 and (2) are reasonably sus!e tible o& +aluation.8 Howe+er$ da(ages &or e(otional distress (ay not be re!o+ered due to a need to li(it t"e already large liability &or t"e do!tor. Causes of Action: Erong&ul birt" and Erong&ul li&e Law: <s a result o& t"e ad+an!es in (edi!al te!"nology t"at allow &or early dete!tion o& t"ese diseases t"at !ause "ar( to &etuses and t"e legali%ation o& abortion as an o tion in 4oe +. Eade$ a C5< &or wrong&ul birt" (ay e3ist. :3traordinary !osts rule0 E"ile traditional tort rin!i les o& da(ages would allow &or t"e re!o+ery o& t"e nor(al and e3traordinary !osts o& raising a !"ild a&ter t"is negligen!e$ a s e!ial rule "as de+elo ed in t"ese !ases. 7"is rule allows only t"e re!o+ery o& t"e e3traordinary !osts o& !"ild rearing. 7"is rule is based u on t"e

assu( tion t"at t"e Cs in a wrong&ul birt" !ase were already lanning to "a+e and ay &or an ordinary !"ild. 7"ere&ore$ t"e only !o( ensation needed to restore t"e( is to allow &or t"e (oney needed &or t"e e3tra !osts o& raising a disabled !"ild. :(otional da(ages0 :(otional da(ages are not allowed. 7"is is not &or any logi!al reason ot"er t"an to se+er liability at so(e oint. 7"e liability &or t"e do!tor is already "ig"$ so t"e liability needs to be !ut o&& so(ew"ere. 7"e !ourts "a+e !"osen t"is as t"at !ut-o&&. Erong&ul li&e0 6Bn order to re!ogni%e Hs wrong&ul li&e a!tion$ t"en$ we (ust deter(ine t"at t"e &etal H "ad an interest in a+oiding "er own li&e$ t"at it would "a+e been best &or $ i& s"e "ad not been born.8 7"is resents a #uestion t"at t"e !ourts !annot de!ide. /ot only is it i( ossible to a!tually (a.e a de!ision about t"is$ a de!ision would ne!essarily in+ol+e ad*udi!ating t"e relati+e +alue o& so(eones li&e. 7"is is a bad idea so t"e !ourts "a+e not !"osen to re!ogni%e t"is tort. Farley v. Sartin (E. Oa. 1995) General Facts: Cynt"ia ;arley was regnant wit" 'aby ;arley$ w"o was 22 wee.s (5 V (ont"s) o& gestation and not +iable at t"e ti(e. C was .illed in a !ar a!!ident wit" t"e ) (S)$ w"o was dri+ing a tru!. owned by ) -ee Sartin 7ru!.ing Co. HF; ;arley &iled t"is a!tion &or wrong&ul deat" &or "is unborn !"ild. 7"e #uestion is w"et"er t"e non-+iable &etus #uali&ies as a erson under t"e E. Oa. wrong&ul deat" statute. Case History: )s s.*. was granted and a&&ir(ed. 5n &inal a eal$ t"e !ourt re+erses and re!ogni%es a &etus$ w"et"er +iable or not$ as a erson under t"e wrong&ul deat" statute &or w"o( an a!tion (ay be broug"t by "is sur+i+ors. Cause of Action: Erong&ul deat" Law: Sin!e !ourts allow &or a renatal in*ury to a &etus w"o is born ali+e !an be a!tionable by t"e in&ant$ t"e !ourt "ad no roble( e3tending t"e 6 erson8 !ategory to any &etus w"et"er +iable or not. 7"e wrong&ul deat" statute allows &or re!o+ery &or a erson w"o !ould "a+e broug"t an a!tion i& "eFs"e "ad not died. Sin!e a li+e-born in&ant !ould$ t"en t"at in&ant is !o+ered by t"e statute. 7"e !ourt also relied on ubli! oli!y o& not allowing a wrongdoer to es!a e liability &or a tort (erely bF! t"e +i!ti( was a non-+iable &etus w"o died as a result o& t"e tort. /57:0 7"is !ourt is in t"e (inority o& *urisdi!tions. &urr v. &'. of County Co rs. of Star+ City (5"io 198,) General Facts: 's ado ted a !"ild &ro( t"e )s. 7"e e( loyee o& t"e )s re resented t"at t"e !"ild (Catri!.) was t"e son o& a 18 year old (ot"er w"ose arents were treating t"e !"ild badly. 7"ey also said t"at t"e (ot"er was (o+ing to &ind a better *ob and !ould no longer !are &or t"e !"ild and t"at s"e t"en ga+e u t"e !"ild &or ado tion. 7"e erson also said t"at t"e !"ild 6was a ni!e big$ "ealt"$ baby boy.8 Howe+er$ t"e !"ild de+elo ed se+ere (ental retardation roble(s and Huntingtons disease. Bn &a!t$ t"e (ot"er o& t"e !"ild was 21 and a (ental atient. <lt"oug" t"e &at"er is un.nown$ "e too was a (ental atient. <lt"oug" t"e (ot"er o& t"e !"ild did not "a+e Huntingtons disease$ t"e !"ild was !learly an at ris. erson &or t"e in"eritable disease w"i!" e+entually .ills !"ildren wit"in 8-10 years. Case History: < *ury awarded t"e 's I125$000 &or t"e !osts o& treat(ent as well as ot"er da(ages ((ental da(ages robably). 5n a eal$ it was a&&ir(ed. 7"e 5"io S.Ct. u "eld t"e +erdi!t w"i!" was based on &raud. Howe+er$ t"e !ourt was !are&ul to

note t"at t"e de!ision did not i( ose an absolute !ontra!t o& insuran!e on ado tion agen!ies to ro+ide "ealt"y and "a y !"ildren. 4at"er$ t"is was an intentional tortious a!t t"at t"e e+iden!e su orted. Cause of Action: ;raud ;raud0 (1) a re resentation or$ w"ere t"ere is a duty to dis!lose$ !on!eal(ent o& a &a!t1 (2) w"i!" is (aterial to t"e transa!tion at "and1 (2) (ade &alsely$ wit" .nowledge o& its &alsity$ or wit" su!" utter disregard and re!.lessness as to w"et"er it is true or &alse t"at .nowledge (ay be in&erred1 (4) wit" t"e intent o& (isleading anot"er into relying u on it1 (5) *usti&iable relian!e u on t"e re resentation or !on!eal(ent1 and (,) a resulting in*ury ro3i(ately !aused by t"e relian!e. Law: 6Bn no way do we i( ly t"at ado tion agen!ies are guarantors o& t"eir la!e(ents. <do ti+e arents are in t"e sa(e osition as$ and !on&ront ris.s !o( arable to t"ose$ o& natural arents relati+e to t"eir !"ilds &uture. Howe+er$ *ust as !ou les (ust weig" t"e ris.s o& be!o(ing natural arents$ ta.ing into !onsideration a "ost o& &a!tors$ so too s"ould ado ti+e arents be allowed to (a.e t"eir de!ision in an intelligent (anner.8 6Bt is t"e deliberate a!t o& (isin&or(ing t"is !ou le w"i!" de ri+ed t"e( o& t"eir rig"t to (a.e a sound arenting de!ision and w"i!" led to t"e !o( ensable in*uries.8

Fe'eral Torts Clai Act ( assed a&ter EEBB) 7"e 9.S. go+t "as wai+ed tort i((unity !aused by negligent or wrong&ul a!t or o(ission by go+t e( loyee w"ere t"e go+t would be negligent i& t"ey were a ri+ate arty. State tort law will go+ern t"e e3tent and s!o e o& liability. S"ould .ee in (indHt"ere are "uge 6"oles8 or e3!e tions in t"e ;ederal 7ort Clai(s <!t t"at (a.e it di&&i!ult to sue t"e &ederal go+t. 1. ;7C< does not a ly to (any intentional torts !o((itted by its e( loyees. 2. 6)is!retionary ;un!tion :3!e tion8 >o+t is not liable &or a!tions t"at done in due !are in &urt"eran!e o& oli!y or t"ose &un!tions w"i!" are dis!retionary in nature$ e+en i& t"e a!t or o(ission t"at is in abuse o& t"at dis!retion. 2. /o stri!t liability !ases against t"e &ederal go+t. <t State le+el$ all but a &ew states "a+e abolis"ed state so+ereignty at t"at le+el. So(e (a.e distin!tion between go+ern(ental &un!tions (no liability) and ro rietary &un!tions (liability). >o+ern(ental 5&&i!ers and :( loyees E"en e3er!ising a *udi!ial or legislati+e &un!tion$ a go+ern(ental o&&i!er is i((une. C"arities 9sed to be i((une &ro( tort liability. 'ut now$ all but one or two o& t"e States$ !"aritable i((unity "as been totally abolis"ed. So(e states still will "a+e so(e sort o& !a on da(ages against !"aritable organi%ations.

;a(ilial B((unity HusbandFEi&eHused to be i((une &ro( torts !o((itted against ea!" ot"er based on t"e notion t"at "Fw were one erson. @ore t"an "al& "a+e abolis"ed. 7"e ot"ers "a+e at least (odi&ied t"e i((unity to allow &or intentional torts or t"ose !o((itted outside t"e (arriage. CarentFC"ildHused to be i((une &ro( all torts. /ow a good nu(ber "a+e !o( letely abolis"ed$ ot"ers "a+e se+erely li(ited to allow so(e su!" as intentional torts. (Ba Si3 #uestions$ 1H15 (inutes$ 2H20 (inutes$ 2H15 (in$ 4H20 (in$ 5H,0 (in$ ,H,0 (in. :a!" answer in weig"ted a!!ording to t"e ti(e needed to answer. 4ead ea!" #uestion twi!e to &igure out w"at K or Ks are really being as.ed. /egligen!e will be (ost i( ortant.

Torts Glossary A <bsolute -iabilityH4es onsibility wit"out &ault or negligen!e. L4ylands +. ;let!"erM <ssaultH<ny will&ul atte( t or t"reat to in&li!t in*ury u on t"e erson o& anot"er$ w"en !ou led wit" t"e a arent resent ability so to do$ and any intentional dis lay o& &or!e su!" as would gi+e t"e +i!ti( reason to &ear or e3 e!t i((ediate bodily "ar($ !onstitutes an assault. <n assault (ay be !o((itted wit"out a!tually tou!"ing$ or stri.ing$ or doing bodily "ar($ to t"e erson o& anot"er. <ssault and 'atteryH<ny unlaw&ul tou!"ing o& anot"er w"i!" is wit"out *usti&i!ation or e3!use. Bt is bot" a tort and a !ri(e. 7"e two !ri(es di&&er &or( ea!" ot"er in t"at battery re#uires "ysi!al !onta!t w"ile assault does not. <ssu( tion o& 4is.H7"e do!trine o& assu( tion o& ris.$ also .nown as volenti non &it in'uria$ (eans legally t"at a lainti&& (ay not re!o+er &or an in*ury to w"i!" "e assents i.e.$ t"at a erson (y not re!o+er &or an in*ury re!ei+ed w"en "e +oluntarily e3 oses "i(sel& to t"e danger. 7"e re#uire(ents &or assu( tion o& ris. are t"at0 (1) t"e lainti&& "as .nowledge o& &a!ts !onstitution a dangerous !ondition$ (2) "e .nows t"e !ondition is dangerous$ (2) "e a re!iates t"e nature or e3tent o& t"e danger$ and (4) "e +oluntarily e3 oses "i(sel& to t"e danger. <n e3!e tion (ay be a li!able e+en t"oug" t"e abo+e &a!tors "a+e entered into a lainti&&s !ondu!t i& "is a!tions!o(e wit"in t"e res!ue or "u(anitarian do!trine. & 'atteryHBntentional and wrong&ul "ysi!al !onta!t wit" a erson wit"out "is or "er !onsent t"at entails so(e in*ury or o&&ensi+e tou!"ing. <n a!tor is sub*e!t to liability to anot"er &or batter i&0 (1) "e a!ts intending to !ause a "ar(&ul or o&&ensi+e !onta!t wit" t"e erson o& t"e ot"er or a t"ird erson$ or an i((inent a re"ension o& su!" a !onta!t$ and (2) an o&&ensi+e !onta!t wit" t"e erosn o& t"e ot"er dire!tly or indire!tly results. L4.2d o& 7orts 18M 'la(ewort"y Condu!tH C Casus 'elliH Co( arati+e ;aultH Co( arati+e /egligen!eH9nder !o( arati+e negligen!e statutes or do!trines$ negligen!e is (easured in ter(s o& er!entage$ and any da(ages allowed s"all be di(inis"ed in ro ortion to a(ount o& negligen!e attributable to t"e erson &or w"ose in*ury$ da(age or deat" re!o+ery is soug"t. @any states "a+e re la!ed !ontributory negligen!e a!ts or do!trines wit" !o( arati+e negligen!e. E"ere negligen!e by bot" arties is !on!urrent

and !ontributes to t"e in*ury$ re!o+ery is not barred under su!" do!trine$ but lainti&&s da(ages are di(inis"ed ro ortionately$ ro+ided "is &ault is less t"an de&endants$ and t"at$ by e3er!ise o& ordinary !are$ "e !ould not "a+e a+oided !onse#uen!es o& de&endants negligen!e a&er it was or s"ould "a+e been a arent. Contributory /egligen!eH7"e a!t or o(ission a(ounting to want o& ordinary !are on art o& !o( laining arty$ to w"i!"$ !on!urring wit" de&endants negligen!e$ is ro3i(ate !ause o& in*ury. Condu!t by lainti&& w"i!" is below t"e standard t w"i!" "e is legally re#uired to !on&or( &or "is own rote!tion and w"i!" is a !ontributing !ause w"i!" !oo erates wit" t"e negligen!e o& t"e de&endant in !ausing t"e lainti&&s "ar(. Cul abilityH'la(ewort"iness. :3!e t in !ases o& absolute liability$ t"e ersons !ul ability (ust be s"own. 8 )uty to )e&endH7"e obligation o& an insurer to de&end t"e insured in a liability !ase &or w"i!" t"e insuran!e oli!y in #uestion is in *eo ardy. 7"is duty atta!"es w"en t"e insured is sued$ and will re+ail as long as t"e situation is !learly one in w"i!" t"e oli!y does !o+er t"e insured otential liability. )uty to CayH7"e obligation o& an insured to ay t"e ad+erse *udge(ent o& t"e insured to t"e e3tent o& t"e oli!y li(its as long as t"e oli!y a!tually !o+ers t"e in!ident. 7"is latter #uestion (ay be de!ided in a se arate suit. ( F ;aultH/egligen!e1 an error or de&e!t o& *udg(ent or o& !ondu!t1 any de+iation &ro( ruden!e$ duty$ or re!titude1 any s"ort!o(ing$ or negle!t o& !are or er&or(an!e resulting &ro( t"e inattention$ in!a a!ity$ or er+ersity1 a wrong tenden!y$ !ourse$ or a!t1 bad &ait" or (is(anage(ent1 negle!t o& duty. 9nder general liability rin!i les$ 6&ault8 is a brea!" o& a duty i( osed by law or !ontra!t. 7"e ter( !onnotes an a!t to w"i!" bla(e$ !ensure$ i( ro riety$ s"ort!o(ing or !ul ability atta!"es. ;oreseeabilityH7"e ability to see or .now in ad+an!e1 e.g. t"e reasonable anti!i ation t"at "ar( or in*ury is a li.ely result &ro( !ertain a!ts or o(issions. Bn tort law$ t"e 6&oreseeability8 ele(ent o& ro3i(ate !ause is establis"ed by roo& t"at a!tor$ as erson o& ordinary intelligen!e and ruden!e$ s"ould reasonably "a+e anti!i ated danger to ot"ers !reated by "is negligent a!ts. 7"at w"i!" is ob*e!ti+ely reasonable to e3 e!t$ not (erely w"at (ig"t !on!ei+ably o!!ur. G H I

Bnsuran!e Co( any 'ad ;ait"H BntentH)esign$ resol+e$ or deter(ination wit" w"i!" erson a!t. < state o& (ind in w"i!" a erson see.s to a!!o( lis" a gi+en result t"roug" a !ourse o& a!tion. <s used in intentional torts$ 6intent8 is desire to bring about result t"at will in+ade interests o& anot"er. < (ental attitude w"i!" !an seldo( be ro+ed by dire!t e+iden!e$ but (ust ordinarily be ro+ed by !ir!u(stan!es &ro( w"i!" it (ay be in&erred. 7"e word 6intent8 is used t"roug"out t"e 4.2d o& 7orts to denote t"at t"e a!tor desires to !ause !onse#uen!es o& "is a!t$ or t"at "e belie+es t"at t"e !onse#uen!es are substantially !ertain to result &ro( it. /ot to be !on&used wit" (oti+e. Bntentional Bn&li!tion o& (Se+ere) :(otional )istressH / $ AnowledgeH<!#uaintan!e wit" &a!t or trut". Bt "as also been de&ined as a!t or state o& .nowing or understanding1 a!tual .nowledge$ noti!e or in&or(ation1 assuran!e o& &a!t or ro osition &ounded on er!e tion by senses$ or intuition 1 !lear er!e tion o& t"at w"i!" e3ists$ or o& trut"$ &a!t or duty1 noti!e or .nowledge su&&i!ient to e3!ite attention and ut erson on guard and !all &or in#uiry1 ersonal !ogni%an!e. L -iabilityHBt "as been re&erred to as o& t"e (ost !o( re"ensi+e !"ara!ter o& "a%ard or res onsibility$ absolute$ !ontingent$ or li.ely. Condition o& being a!tually or otentially sub*e!t to an obligation1 !ondition o& being res onsible &or a ossible or a!tual loss$ enalty$ e+il$ e3 ense$ or burden1 unli#uidated !lai(. % N /egligen!eH7"e o(ission to do so(et"ing w"i!" a reasonable (an$ guided by t"ose ordinary !onsiderations w"i!" ordinarily regulate "u(an a&&airs$ would do$ or t"e doing o& so(et"ing w"i!" a reasonable and rudent (an would not do. Condu!t w"i!" &alls below t"e standard establis"ed by law &or t"e rote!tion o& ot"ers against unreasonable ris. o& "ar(1 it is a de arture &ro( t"e !ondu!t e3 e!table o& a reasonably rudent erson under t"e !ir!u(stan!es. Bt is !"ara!teri%ed !"ie&ly by inad+erten!e$ t"oug"tlessness$ inattention and t"e li.e$ w"ile 6wantonness8 or 6re!.lessness8 is !"ara!teri%ed by will&ulness. 7"e law o& negligen!e is &ounded on reasonable !ondu!t or reasonable !are under all !ir!u(stan!es o& arti!ular !ase. )o!trine o& negligen!e rests on duty o& e+ery erson to e3er!ise due !are in "is !ondu!t toward ot"ers &ro( w"i!" in*ury (ay result. O 5utrage (7ort o&)H

) Cer ContraH Cuniti+e )a(agesH)esigned to unis" t"e de&endant &or "is e+il be"a+ior or to (a.e an e3a( le o& "i(. 9nli.e !o( ensatory or a!tual da(ages$ uniti+e da(ages are based u on an entirely di&&erent ubli! oli!y !onsiderationHt"at o& unis"ing t"e de&endant or o& setting an e3a( le &or si(ilar wrongdoers. Bn !ases in w"i!" it is ro+ed t"at a de&endant "as a!ted will&ully$ (ali!iously$ or &raudulently$ a lainti&& (ay be awarded uniti+e da(ages in addition to !o( ensatory or a!tual da(ages. Cur oseH7"at w"i!" one sets be&ore "i( to a!!o( lis" or attain1 an end$ intention$ or ai($ ob*e!t$ lan ro*e!t. 7er( is synony(ous wit" ends soug"t$ an ob*e!t to be attained$ an intention$ et!. A # 4e!.lessnessH4as"ness1 "eedlessness1 wanton !ondu!t. 7"e state o& (ind a!!o( anying an a!t$ w"i!" eit"er ays no regard to its robably or ossibly in*urious !onse#uen!es$ or w"i!"$ t"oug" &oreseeing su!" !onse#uen!es$ ersists in s ite o& su!" .nowledge. 4e!.lessness is a stronger ter( t"an (ere or ordinary negligen!e$ and to be re!.less$ t"e !ondu!t (ust be su!" as to e+in!e disregard o& or indi&&eren!e to !onse#uen!es$ under !ir!u(stan!es in+ol+ing danger to li&e or sa&ety o& ot"ers$ alt"oug" no "ar( was intended. 4es ondeat Su eriorH-et t"e (aster answer. 7"is do!trine or (a3i( (eans t"at a (aster is liable in !ertain !ases &or t"e wrong&ul a!ts o& "is ser+ant$ and a rin!i al &or t"ose o& "is agent. 9nder t"is do!trine (aster is res onsible &or want &o !are on ser+ants art toward t"ose to w"o( t"e (aster owes duty to use !are$ ro+ided &ailure o& ser+ant to use !are$ ro+ided &ailure o& ser+ant to use su!" !are o!!urred in !ourse o& "is e( loy(ent. 9nder do!trine an e( loyer is liable &or in*ury to erson or ro erty o& anot"er ro3i(ately resulting &ro( a!ts o& e( loyee done wit"in s!o e o& "is e( loy(ent in t"e e( loyers ser+i!e. )o!trine only a lies w"en relation o& (ster and ser+ant e3isted between de&endant and wrongdoer at t"e ti(e o& in*ury sued &or$ in res e!t to +ery transa!tion &ro( w"i!" it arose. Hen!e$ do!trine is ina li!able w"ere in*ury o!!urs w"ile e( loyee is a!ting outside legiti(ate s!o e o& aut"ority. S Stri!t -iabilityH-iability wit"out &ault. < !on!e t a lied by !ourts in rodu!t liability !ases in w"i!" seller is liable &or any and all de&e!ti+e or "a%ardous rodu!ts w"i!" unduly t"reaten a !onsu(ers ersonal sa&ety. Con!e t o& stri!t liability in tort is &ounded on t"e re(ise t"at w"en (anu&a!turer resents "is goods to t"e ubli! &or sale$ "e re resents t"ey are suitabel &or t"eir intended use$ and to in+o.e su!" do!trine it is essential to ro+e t"at t"e rodu!t was de&e!ti+e w"en la!ed in t"e strea( o& !o((er!e. (1) 5ne w"o sells any rodu!t in a de&e!ti+e !ondition unreasonably dangerous to

t"e user or !onsu(er or to "is ro erty is sub*e!t to liability &or "ysi!al "ar( t"ereby !aused to t"e ulti(ate user or !onsu(e$ or to "is ro erty$ i& (a) t"e seller is engaged in t"e business o& selling su!" a rodu!t$ and (b) it is e3 e!ted to and does rea!" t"e user or !onsu(er wit"out substantial !"ange in t"e !ondition in w"i!" it is sold. (2) 7"e rule state in Sub (1) a lies alt"oug" (a) t"e seller"as e3er!ised all ossible !are in t"e re aration and sale o& "is rodu!t$ and (b) t"e user or !onsu(er "as not boug"t t"e rodu!t &or( or entered into any !ontra!tual relation wit" t"e seller. L4.2d o& 7orts 402<M Substantial CertaintyH T 7ortH< ri+ate or !i+il wrong or in*ury$ in!luding a!tion &or bad &ait" brea!" o& !ontra!t$ &or w"i!" !ourt will ro+ide a re(edy in t"e &or( o& an a!tion &or da(ages. < legal wrong !o((itted u on t"e erson or ro erty inde endent o& !ontra!t. Bn (ay be eit"er (1) a dire!t in+asion o& so(e legal rig"t o& t"e indi+idual1 (2) t"e in&ra!tion o& so(e ubli! duty by w"i!" s e!ial da(age a!!rues to t"e indi+idual1 (2) t"e +iolation o& so(e ri+ate obligation by w"i!" t"e da(age a!!rues to t"e indi+idual. 7rans&erred Bntent ()o!trine o&)HBn tort law$ i& <$ intending to stri.e '$ (isses ' and "its C instead$ t"e intent to stri.e ' is trans&erred and su lies t"e ne!essary intent &or t"e tort against C. " 9na+oidable <!!identH<n ine+itable a!!ident1 one w"i!" !ould not been re+ented by e3er!ise o& due !are by bot" arties under !ir!u(stan!es re+ailing. /ot ne!essarily an a!!ident w"i!" was "ysi!ally i( ossible$ in t"e nature o& t"ings &or t"e erson to "a+e re+ented$ but one not o!!asioned in any degree$ eit"er re(otely or dire!tly$ by t"e want o& su!" !are or s.ill as t"e law "olds e+ery erson bound to e3er!ise. Su!" ty e o& a!!ident is resent w"en an e+ent o!!urs w"i!" was not ro3i(ately !aused by t"e negligen!e o& any arty to t"e e+ent. 9na+oidable @ista.eH 1 Oi!arious liabilityH7"e i( osition o& liability on one erson &or t"e a!tionable !ondu!t o& anot"er$ based solely on a relations"i between t"e two ersons. Bndire!t or i( uted legal res onsibility &or a!ts o& anot"er1 &or e3a( le$ t"e liability o& an e( loyer &or t"e a!ts o& an e( loyee$ or$ a rin!i al &or torts and !ontra!ts o& an agent. C,<,0