Torts Cases

Intentional Torts
Battery Vosberg v. Putney (1891) Mohr v. Williams (1905) Hudson v. Craft (1949) Defenses McGuire v. Almy (1937) Courvoisier v. Raymond (1896) MIlvoy v. Cockran (1820) Bird v. Holbrook (1825) Katko v. Briney (1971) child kicks or taps other child in the shin, leads to extensive damage. defendant diagnosed plaintiff with obstruction in right ear, during operation discover that left ear was worse, operated on left ear boxing match w/minor 1. battery is an intentional, unconsented to touching; 2. damages are all injuries resulting from wrongful act. operation on left ear was not consented to and therefore constituted battery violation of statute designed to protect the class, a member of whom was injured, was enough to constitute aiding and abetting insane person liable for his torts; intentional in that defendant intended to strike the plaintiff no liability for defending yourself if the situation is such that would lead a reasonable man to believe that his life was in danger you may oppose force with force, but not escalate. defendant used too much force may not catch a man by means which may maim him or endanger his life. may use reasonable force to protect your property, but not seriously injurious force; exception for when a violent felony is being committed or human life is endangered right of recapture requires posession by the owner and purely wrongful taking; not taken against the will of the owner so recapture not allowed vicarious liability- actions of the servant are as the actions of the master; necessity will permit trespass and servant may not resist entry although no trespass due to necessity, defendant must still compensate plaintiff for damage done due to the entry on the land fear of an unconsented to touching is all that is required for assault. vindictive damages may be given when tehre is malice wilfulness, wantonness, outrage, and indignity must be fully enclosed within some limits defined by an outside power the demonstration of physical power which can only be avoided by submission operates as an imprisonment, even if no force is exerted; reasonable grounds for detainment necessary Defendants act intended to produce some effect of the type which was produced; degree did not matter. Littleton: must compensate those you injure Choke: falling was not lawful, therefore taking away was not lawful by taking the corn, he was agreeing to keep it

insane patient, kept at home, struck nurse jewelry store owner shot police officer, thinking he was a threatening robber plaintiff tearing down fence, defendant repelled him, causing injury spring gun set to shoot those who entered walled garden unoccupied house protected by spring gun which injured robber bookkeeper held responsible for missing funds, handed some money from which he took what he thought was owed him plaintiffs ship was caught in a storm, tied up at defendants dock, defendants servant untied plaintiffs ship, causing it to be destroyed ship tied up at dock caused damage to the dock during the storm W. pounded on door with hatchet, tavernkeepers wife sued for assault appellant spat in the face of the appellee in court

Kirby v. Foster (1891)

Ploof v. Putnam (1908) Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (1910) Assault I. de S. and Wife v. W de S. (1348) Alcorn v. Mitchell (1872) False Imprisonment Bird v. Jones (1845) Coblyn v. Kennedys, Inc. (1971) Emotional Distress Wilkinson v. Downton (1897)

plaintiff tried to enter a portion of the public highway which was barricaded off elderly man accused of being a shoplifter

malicious pranksters told wife that her husband was in the hospital, seriously injured

Strict Liability v. Negligence

The Thorns Case (1466) The Tithe Case (1506) defendant cut thorns, some fell on property of plaintiff, defendant came and took them plaintiffs corn was cut, left in field, defendant

came and put it in his barn where it perished Weaver v. Ward (1616) Scott v. Shepard (1773) defendant and plaintiff were soldiers, defendant accidentally shot plaintiff during exercises defendant threw a lighted squib into crowded marketplace, ultimately landed with plaintiff, in whose face it exploded two dogs fighting, defendant took stick and tried to seperate them, accidentally struck plaintiff

Brown v. Kendall (1850) Fletcher v. Rylands (1865) Fletcher v. Rylands II (1866) Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) Brown v. Collins (1873) Powell v. Fall (1880)

safe; not a good deed- if corn had been left and destroyed, plaintiff would have had his tort against the destroyer defendant committed no negligence, as plaintiff ran across his piece while it was discharging; not intentional, so no battery injury immediate: trespass lies; injury consequential: case. Method 2: trespass lies for all unlawful harms. mischief intended by throwing of squib, therefore liable for all harms if defendant was exercising due care (ordinary care), he was not liable for the striking

plaintiff owned a stone post, defendant riding along highway, lost control of horses which smashed into stone post defendant running steam engine on highway, gave off sparks which set fire to plaintiffs hay

strict liability standard principles in Rylands v. Fletcher not extendedinstead, should be negligence standard when a man brings or uses a thing of dangerous character on his own land, he must keep it at his own peril- no distinction for being on public way, use of machine dangerous, so he should pay for the expense he causes to public very small possibility of injury- but still forseeable that someone could be injured careful man must not create a substantial risk and must take reasonable care to avoid injuries. a careful man would have done nothing in this case, so no liability doctrine of strict liability does not apply to automobile drivers; especially not absolute liability; instruction was especially wrong because it did not except those people who had no reason to anticipate the seizure or illness

Stone v. Bolton (1950) Bolton v. Stone (1951)

Defendants were playing cricket, ball flew a really long way and struck plaintiff same as above

Hammontree v. Jenner (1971)

plaintiff driving chevy truck, has seizure, crashes into bike shop, defendant had had seizures, before, but not for a while and was on medication (plaintiffs base reasoning on strict liabilities for products)

Negligence
The Reasonable Person Vaughan v. Menlove (1837) defendant stacked hay such that there was a good chance that it would spontaneously combust. 70 year old man driving at 4 or 5 mph, hits boy subjective vs. objective standard for reasonable man: answer is objective standard- ie: caution which would have been observed by a man of ordinary prudence negligence standard makes allowance for children, but all adults are treated equally. infirmaties dont relieve person from negligence minors must excercise the same standard of care as adults when engaged in adult activities up to jury to decide if she had warnings of delusions- if yes, then negligent, if no, then not negligent- insanity is a defense under certain cicumstances standard of negligence for a disabled plaintiff is the the level of care engaged in by a reasonable person with that disability reasonable person standard applies- repeal of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine (its incorporation reasonable care standard). plaintiffs conduct not legal cause of accident plaintiffs action constituted gross negligenceno contributory negligence defense to gross

Roberts v. Ring (1919)

Daniels v. Evans (1966) Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co. (1970) Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen (1959) Lyons v. Midnight Sun Transportation Services (1966) Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co. (1855)

plaintiffs decedent was killed when motorcycle colided with defendants truck defendant was driving car, experienced delusions (God pulled her steering wheel to the left, she thought she could fly because Batman could city workers failed to replace barriers around an open hole in the sidewalk, blind man came walking along and fell into hole Defendant speeding along street, plaintiff pulled out directly in front of him, defendant swerved to left to avoid her but plaintiff continued to pull out into the left lane. plaintiff killed defendants left uncovered hole in sidewalk, plaintiff was drunk and fell in.

Denver & Rio Grande R.R. v. Peterson (1902) Calculus of Risk Blythe v. Birmingham Water Works (1856)

does wealth make a difference in determining duty?

negligence wealth is irrelevent- want to make sure that people take cost effective precautions- not that rich take more non-cost effective precautions than poor. definition of negligence, not negligent in basing decision on previous history; no duty to maintain the plugs once laid no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased- when the exposure to a risk is for the purpose of saving life, it is not wrongful and therefore not negligent, unless such as to be regarded either rash or reckless reasonable alternative standard- not required to take a precaution which will create a new danger to someone else Learned Hand test- B < PL- in this case, the cost to the bargee was negligible- no excuse for his absence. since the burden was low and the probability of a high injury was high, then ther eis liability common carrier and thus owes a duty of utmost care and vigilence of a very cautious person; dillignece is only that which is consistent with the mode of conveyence and practical operation common practices of the business control; jurrors shouldnt set those standards. deceased also had full knowledge of the risks of his job Another tugboat line equipped all its boats with radios. Custom controls and the defendant should have equipped his boat as well the practices of one line do not dictate the general custom. instead, court should drive custom in cases where a whole calling may have unduly lagged in tthe adoption of new and available devices. (L. Hand) (positivism) custom does not allow a gross lack of care, even though that lack of care is universal medical custom indicates that conservative treatment is usually tried first; on other issues of divergence question was left to jury doctor negligent in failing to disclose the risk to plaintiff; could have found that laminectomy was negligenty performed; duty is of adequate disclosure- disclosure requires a standard set by law- also, no technical complexity violation of statute constitutes negligence per say if purpose of statute was to prevent that type of harm violation of the statute was direct negligence, but there must still be a causal link between the violation and the injury. statute not designed to protect against trained professionals practicing medicine; for statute to

Eckert v. Long Island R.R. (1871)

defendants had statutory duty to lay water mains and fire plugs. fireplugs built according to the best known system. Exceptionally cold winter caused the fireplugs to freeze, flooding plaintiffs houes child on tracks, plaintiffs decedent ran to get him off, saved child but was killed by train

Cooley v. Public Service Co (1940) United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947)

defendant power company maintained uninsulated wires, one fell and struck a phone line, which created a loud noise, causing plaintiff to faint and suffer a rare neurosis defendant moving line of barges, one broke free and was damaged. no bargee on board (hadnt returned to work) passenger hit by baggage falling from overhead compartment; airline only provided warning

Andrews v. United Airlines (1994) Custom Titus v. Bradford B. & K. R. Co. (1890) The T.J. Hooper (1931) The T.J. Hooper II (1932)

railway containers with curved bottem; decedent followed common practice and used wedges secured with wire to hold them steady Tugboat lacked radio, lost cargo in a storm which they would have had warning of if it had a working radio.

Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining Co (1884) Lama v. Borras (1994) Canterbury v. Spence (1972)

defendant cut a hole in the platform plaintiff was working on, no precautions taken. plaintiff fell plaintiff suffering from back pain, defendant went right ahead with the surgery without attempting conservative treatment plaintiff had back pains, doctor operated but discovered there was little he could do, plaintiff set to bed rest, allowed to get up unattended, slipped and fell and permantly injured himself drug store clerk gave bottle of poison without labeling it poison; statute that poisons must be labeled plaintiff killed in an auto accident. plaintiffs vehicle lacked headlights, violating a statute plaintiff went to chiropractor, after several treatments she became paralyzed, chiropractors

Statutes and Regulations Osborne v. McMasters (1889) Martin v. Herzog (1920) Brown v. Shyne (1926)

not licensed medical practitioners Ross v. Harman (1943) Vesely v. Sager (1971) Res Ipsa Loquitur Byrne v. Boadle (1863) defendant left keys in truck parked outside garage, truck stolen, theif ran over plaintiff. statute against leaving keys in car dram shop owner sued for serving alcohol to intoxicated man w/knowledge he would drive. statute against serving alcohol to drunks plaintiff walking by defendants warehouse when a barrel of flour fell out and hit him. defendant claims 3rd party was moving it plaintiffs were injured on an elevator owned by defendant and maintained by 3rd party.

be evidence of negligence it must be something statute was designed to protect against; standard of care: qualified chiropractors purpose of statute was to promote public safety in the streets, not for protection of vehicle owner. harm within the risk. 3 step test: violation of statute, violation proximately casued injury, injury resulted from occurance the statute was designed to prevent duty of determining whose the barrel was rests on defendant, because he is in best position to know; barrel rolling out of warehouse couldnt happen without negligence 3 part test: accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur w/o negligence; caused by an agency within the exclusive control of defendant; not due to any voluntary action on part of plaintiff same test as above, but especially important to avoid conspiracy of silence; multiple defendants does not preclude application of res ipsa loquitur if you cast yourself on an obstruction which reasonable care would have avoided, your action is blocked act of not checking to see if the cars had stopped was not contributory negligence, since he was authorized to act without checking plaintiffs negligence is a contributing cause onligy if it is a substantial factor in bringing about his harm.- negligence must be proximate cause rights of use of your land do not give way to wrongs of others; Holms (conncurrance): call in the jury to see whether it was to close if there was a substantial certainty of fire a. contributory negligence only goes to the event itself, not the damages resulting from it. (eggshell skull) b. contributory negligence would be a complete bar to recovery Even in cases where there might be contributory negligence, the defense is voided if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. (stems from reckless behavior)

Comenares Vivas v. Sun Alliance Insurance Co (1986)

Ybarra v. Spangard (1944)

operation for appendicitis; after operation he had pain in his arm, later paralysis, resulting from traumatic sources defendant obstructed highway, plaintiff coming along at high speed was injured RR worker uncoupling cars, signaled engineer to stop, engineer didnt stop, RR workers foot caught in ties, died. plaintiff was stacking fishmeal sacks in an unsafe pattern, they fell down and injured him; didnt report to anyone plaintiff stored flax on his land 70 feet from defendants right of way; sparks from train set it on fire plaintiff not wearing seat belt; defendant argues contributory negligence in accident

Contributory negligence Butterfield v. Forrester (1809) Beems v. Chicago, Rock Island & Peoria R.R. (1882) Gyerman v. United States Lines Co. (1972) LeRoy Fibre Co. V. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. (1914) Derheim v. N. Fiorito Co. (1972) Last Clear Chance Fuller v. Illinois Central R.R. (1911) Mills v. Armstrong (The Bernina) (1888) Assumption of Risk Lamson v. American Axe & Tool Co. (1900) Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co. (1929) Obstetrics & Gynecologists Ltd. v. Pepper (1985)

decedent in cart crossing railroad, train aproaches, engineer blows one blast, train hits decedent

defendant installs new ax rack, plaintiff complains its more dangerous, defendant says get back to work, axes fall on plaintiff plaintiff gets on amusement park ride named the Flopper, falls down and breaks his knee cap. plaintiff went to birth control clinic, has to sign arbitration agreement, does so and later sues.

plaintiff assumed the risk, even though one of his motives was to not lose his job. plaintiff knew that he was getting on a moving belt which would jerk him around; one who takes part in a sport accepts the dangers inherent in it a. contract was an adhesion contract- weaker party has no choice as to its terms, no informed consent b. clear notice of the strong terms must

be given Comparative Negligence Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California (1975) plaintiff attempted to cross 3 lanes of oncoming traffic, defendant was speeding California court decides to accept comparative negligence- want to avoid bar of contributory negligence; shifts to pure form

Multiple Defendants
Joint and Several Liability Unoin Stock Yards Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. (1905) American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court (1978) Vicarious liability Ira S. Bushey & Sons v. United States (1968) Petrovich v. Share Health Plan of Illinois (1999) one of the cars on a train had a defective nut. Both the terminal company and the railroad could have discovered it by inspection. railroad previously sued; seeking indemnity plaintiff injured; defendant moves to recover partial indemnity from parents, who were also negligent drunk sailor returning to ship opened the drydock valves plaintiff brought action against HMO for failing to diagnose her cancer in time. railroad company has no action against the terminal company; joint liability means that either can be sued without indemnity against the other; no exceptional circumstances although Li in itself does not discard the doctrine of joint tortfeasors, the underlying principles hold for a system of partial indemnity between concurrent tortfeasors (Cal) sailors conduct was not so unseeable as to make it unfair to charge the government with responsibilty; incident related to seefaring activity, not domestic life. vicarious liability may exist for the actions of independant contractors when an agency relationship is established under a)apparent authority or b)implied authority

Causation
Cause in Fact New York Central R.R. v. Grimstad (1920) Zuchowicz v. United States decedent fell into water off barge not equipped with life preservers decendent proscribed an overdose of Danocrine, died of primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH) plaintiff worked with electrical transformers, sticking his arms in the cooling liquid. later discovered the fluid was contaminated with PCBs. eventually he developed cancer doctor failed to diagnose lung cancer early, lead to a 5 year survival rate drop from 39% to 25% 2 fires, one of known origin, the other of unknown origin 2 shotgun blasts fired by two defendants. 2 seperate balls hit plaintiff. unknown as to which person, or both, fired the striking shot plaintiff had house with lead paint, painted sometime between 1870 and 1977. many defendants joined DES used, later discovered that it caused birth defects. too hard to determine which company manufactured the specific pills sold proximate cause was decedent falling into water; belief that life buoy would have saved him was pure speculation- did not contribute to his death finder of fact could have concluded that Danocrine was the cause of the PPH; must be the overdose which caused the PPH; increased risk principle based on epidemiological studies, conclusion was that the type of cancer plaintiff got was not one caused by PCBs; no causal link, studies note enough to prove link. this drop was enough to allow proximate cause to go to jury; no total recovery against negligenct party for plaintiffs death- only that based on premature death where two causes, each attributable to the negligence of a responsible person, concur in producing an injury to another, either cause is a basis for suit both were negligent and the injury resulted from this negligence, so both are liable- shifts burden to defendant use of alternate liability, conspiracy, concert of action, and collective liability (market share liability) not appropriate here- time too expansive, paints not fungible, not all parties joined market share liability: appropriate when: a. all the named defendants are potential tortfeasors b. the allegedly harmful products are identical and share the same defective qualities (fungible

General Electric v. Joiner (1997) Herskovits v. Group Helath Cooperative (1983) Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. (1927) Summers v. Tice (1948) Skipworth v. Lead Industries Association (1997)

Sindell v. Abbot Laboratories (1980)

c. plaintiff is unable to identify which defendant caused the injury through no fault of her own d .all the manufacturers which created the defective products during the reletive time are named as defendants Proximate Cause Ryan v. New York Central R.R. (1866) Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough (1899) Brower v. New York Central & H.R.R. (1918) In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co. (1921) Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. (1928) Marshall v. Nugent (1955) fire started on defendants property, spread to plaintiffs house, onward train car was speeding, branch fell on it wouldnt have happened if it hadnt been there train ran into cart and wagon, barrels scattered, thieves stole the barrels ship was being loaded by defendants, plank fell and struck side, causing a spark which caused an explosion, destoying the ship negligence of RR workers caused package to fall on tracks where it detonated. the blast caused a scale to tip over, injuring plaintiff truck accident: defendants negligence created a situation which ultimately lead to plaintiff (not a party to the original accident)s injury defendants ship leaked oil, the left docks. oil floated over near plaintiffs ship, supervisor determined oil to be non-flamable, but rags under oil caught fire plaintiff was engaged in puting out a fire, after fire was out climbed over some pipes to turn off a valve, on way back she slipped and fell New York fire rule: damages are the remote result of defendants negligence- destruction of second and other buildings was not a natural result of the first firing- cant insure against speed was not the cause of the accident, nor did it contribute to it- just mere chance that it was there at the time act of thieves did not intervene- not a usperceding cause- substantial certainty that theives would make off (detectives on board) directness test- negligence caused plank to fall, which directly caused spark- doesnt matter that this is unusual or unforseen- direct result distinguishes between liability and causationonly forseeable harms bear liability- no negligence in the abstract harm within the risk: liability of negligent actor confined to those harmful consequences which result from the operation of the risk, or of a risk, the foreseeabilty of which renderedthe defendants conduct negligent forseeability test: harm was not forseeableforesight of the reasonable man determines responsibility fire had been extinguished, situation no longer existed. harm within the risk- risk was over, so no liability

Wagon Mound No. 1 (1961)

Union Pump v. Allbritton (1995)

Affirmative Duties
Duty to Rescue Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co. (1897) Owners and Occupiers Robert Addie & Sons v. Dumbreck (1929) child came into mill w/friend who was worker, injured by machinery defendant operated a wheel and cable which were attractive to children; employees regularly told trespassers to get off the property, but were ignored plaintiff was visitor in defendants apartment, while there a broken faucet caused him to slice open his hand defendant offered to move casks of brandy, while doing so he broke several of them truck struck by defendants train; prior to this defendant had maintained a watchman at the crossing but the watchman was not there this time; no other duty to maintain wachman one of plaintiffs cats scratched defendant, they promised to keep it under observation defendants did not owe plaintiff a legal dutychild was a trespasser and therefore not bound to warn him against hidden or secret dangers 3 categories of visitors: a. invitation- express or implied b. with the leave and license of the occupier c. as trespassers- the child was determined to be one of these duty to warn social guests of dangerous conditions owner trusting him with goods is consideration enough; miscarriage of trust results in liability (reliance) company established standard of due care for itself; others relied upon that standard- practice may not be discontinued without excercising reasonable care once he agreed to keep the cat under observation, he was bound to- reliance argument

Rowland v. Christian Gratuitous Undertakings Coggs v. Bernard (1703) Erie R.R. v. Stewart (1930)

Marsalis v. LaSalle (1957)

Moch v. Rensselaer Water Co (1928)

defendant maintained water supply, negligently allowed water supply to fall, plaintiffs building burned down- no water to put it out

1. not maintainable for breach of contractbenefits to public incidental and secondary 2. not tort- provision of water did not create a relationship with the defendants 3. not breach of statutory duty- not liable to a third party who may be counting upon the performance of the duty applicable standard of care was that of the point at which plaintiff became a resident of the complex- tenant led to expect this level of precaution. also, special relationship between landlord and tenants of an apartment complex special relationship existed: a. between teh actor and the third person which imposes a duty upon the actor to control the 3rd persons conduct

Special Relationships Kline v. 1500 Mass. Ave. Apartment Corp. (1970)

apartment complex- defendant consistently reduced security until, at one point, plaintiff was assaulted plaintiffs decedent was killed; killer had expressed a desire to kill deceased to psychologist

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976)

Strict Liability
Conversion Moore v. Regents of U of Cal (1990) plaintiff had operation to remove spleen, defendants kept spleen after operation and made into an extremely profitable cell line conversion liability not extended- use of excised medical cells in research does not amount to conversion. instead enforcement of physicians disclosure obligations- lack of informed consent keeping a dog with a demonstrated history of biting imposes strict liability- assumption of any injury the dog might cause liable even though not careless- one who engages in blasting is strictly liable for any injuries caused. application of restatement test for abnormally dangerous activities. in this case, the activity was not abnormally dangerous, thus no strict liability private nuisance: nontrespassory invasion of anothers interest in the private use and enjoyment of land (no) intentional invasion nuisance: invasion of the land with knowledge that a harm is being caused (not intentional here) blocking access to sunlight and air does not constitute an actionable nuissance (no legal right to it.) standard to use when determining whether a nuissance exists: that of an ordinary person (no eggshell skull to determine liability) coming to the nuisance is not a defense- cannot control the use of neighboring land injunction would cause too serious effectspermanant damages are a better solutionprovide plaintiff with full economic redress. if situation is such that single recovery can be had. normally public nuisance is not actionable, but in this case the plaintiff suffered special harm, beyond that of the public nuisance

Animals and blasting Baker v. Snell (1908) Spano v. Perini Corp (1969)

Dog bites maid plaintiff sustained damage when defendant blasted, was creating a tunnel

Ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. Railroad tanker car filled with acrylonitrile American Cyanamid Co. (1990) leaked into and contaminated plaintiffs switching yard Nuissance Vogel v. Grant-Lafayette Electric Coop. (1996) Stray voltage bothered dairy cows

Fonainebleau Hotel v. FortyFive Twenty-Five (1959) Rogers v. Elliott (1888) Ensign v. Walls (1948) Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (1970)

Defendant seeking to build annex which will overshadow Plaintiffs sunbathing area Defendant ringing churchbell causing plaintiffs convulsions Defendant bred St. Bernards, neighbors complained, even though she had been there first cement plant caused a nuissance; plaintiffs sought injunction

Public Nuisances Anonymous (1535)

Defendant stopped highway such that plaintiff could not get to his property

Union Oil Co. v. Oppen (1974)

Defendants oil pollution killed fish which fishermen relied upon for their livelihood.

loss of economic advantage: not a legally cognizable injury- but in this case defendants were able to see the dangers of their negligent actions- direct duty. application of Cabresi standard Economic loss rule: cannot recover under tort without evidence of injury are medical service providers sellers when providing medical devices? no- necessary adjunct to the treatment administered- 4 part test use of negligence test in manufacturing the fan(Alabama law) negligence test again- was design negligent? car crashes were forseeable, choice of seating design was thus negligent- duty of reasonable carein the design of vehicle open and obvious not an absolute defenserelevent to issue of defectiveness, but in itself does not preclude a plaintiff from establishing that a reasonable alternative designe should ahve been adopted which would have reduced or prevented injury

Products liability
Casa Clara Condominium Association v. Charley Toppino & Sons (1993) Calfazzo v. Central Medical Health Services, Inc. (1995) Manufacturing defects Pouncey v. Ford Motor Co. (1972) Design defects Volkswagen v. Young (1974) defendant used concrete with a high amount of salt when constructing the condos. Manibular jaw implant was defective, plaintiff sued hospital and surgeon for damages under strict liability Plaintiff was putting antifreeze in his car with the engine running. blade on radior fan broke off and struck him in the face Seat of car was designed such that when the car was struck from behind it broke free, causing death plaintiff sought to remove hickie from the printing press while it was running, finger was caught in press. alleged no safty guard.

Micallef v. Miehle (1976)

Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Co. (1985) McDougal v. Garber ( OShea v. Runaway Towing ( Pacific Mutual v. Haslip ( Ford v. Grimshaw (

Plaintiff using high-lift loader on uneven terrain, tried to escape from it and was struck by a board. alleged design defect. Plaintiff on the Pill, suffered a stroke. Alleged that the defendant failed to warn her that she could suffer a stroke. plaintiff was a cook on defendants ship, slipped and fell, suffering an injury which prevented her from working as a cook for the rest of her life damages due to lost wages: see outline