Tort-ClassNotes1 - Torts Class Notes Page...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Torts - Class Notes Page 1 of 63 Professor Weisburg Fall 2004 TortWeisClassNotes1.pdf 8/30/04 When you make an answer, state the claim and then define thoroughly the term. Then analyze the elements of the cause of action that you think will fail. You could then cite cases that support the failure to establish a claim in similar situations. Identify, define, analyze, compare. Test is limited open book-you can bring the text to the test, notes, and outlines prepared by you. -Under tort law, you have no obligation to warn/rescue s/o if you see them in danger. Inductive-we reason inductively as lawyers in the US. We work from the facts of the cases. Rules develop from the facts of the cases (we don’t make cases fit existing rules-deductive) Torts-what torts aims to accomplish, what is this body of law? It is an attempt for peaceful resolution of what could be angry situations (see this from cases) Chapter 1 The development of liability based on fault: Anonymous- (1466)-older approach to tort law that if s/o injures your person or property, you are entitled to recover (regardless of intent or circumstances) Weaver v. Ward-(1616)-A soldier shot another accidentally, and held responsible. • Ancient law: defendant always held responsible, unless utterly w/o his fault. i.e. s/o pushes the trigger, then won’t be held responsible. **this added to Anonymous a possibility for the defendant to have an excuse-if s/o else caused the action with his object. Brown v. Kendall-(1850)-below Cohen v. Petty-(1933)-A driver falls ill and not held liable. According to earlier cases, should have been held liable; but this new approach to determining liability takes into account 9/1/04 Brown v. Kendall-2 dogs fighting. D lifted stick to separate dogs and hit P. • In Anonymous, hypothetical gave that if hit s/o w/ a stick, liable. If this is precedent, Kendall should be held responsible. • Clearly, 1 D’s actions caused 1 P’s injuries. o Suggestion: maybe it should be the law that any loss should rest on the shoulders of the person injured. Accidents will happen, and therefore, if s/o gets hurt, we perhaps should have a rule that never allows a P to win b/c ‘it’s an accident after all!’ • The least we can also say that the D took a voluntary action and intended to do s/t with the stick (in Anonymous and Brown v. Kendall). o In these 2 cases, the D intended to fend off dogs/person. In Cohen v. Petty, he did not intend to hurt the P. So, we cannot say that to be liable the D needs to have intended the ultimate injury. But they’re similar b/c we can say that Petty took a voluntary step to drive the car=they all took a voluntary step to use the object that caused injury....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 02/13/2008 for the course LAW 6703 taught by Professor Gilles during the Fall '06 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 63

Tort-ClassNotes1 - Torts Class Notes Page...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online