Case Summary - Case Information Alcorn v Mitchell Supreme...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case Information Fact Summary Rule of Law Alcorn v. Mitchell Supreme Court of Illinois, Southern Grand Division, 1872 63 Ill. 553 Pg. 63 Upon adjournment of a trespass trial, the plaintiff (appellant) spat on the defendant (appellee). Court may instruct jury to award "vindictive damages where there are circumstances of malice, willfulness, wantonness, outrage and indignity attending the wrong complained of." Andrews v. United Airlines United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1994 24 F.3d 39 Pg. 184 Suitcase fell on the head of passenger. Common carriers have a duty of the utmost care. Baltimore and Ohio R.R. v. Goodman Supreme Court of the United States, 1927 275 U.S. 66 Pg. 251 Plaintiff approaches a railroad crossing in his automobile. Instead of getting out of his car and checking for an oncoming train, plaintiff relies on his hearing and drives on. Train (defendant) strikes and kills our hapless plaintiff. When the standard of care is clear, it should be "laid down once and for all by the Courts" as a question of law. NOTE: THIS IS NO LONGER GOOD LAW. See Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. Supreme Court of California, 1978 573 P.2d 443 Pg. 712 Plaintiff was injured while operating a Lull High-Lift Loader. While attempting to lift a load of lumber on uneven ground, the plaintiff lost control of the loader and as he attempted to jump to safety was struck and serioulsy injured by some falling timber. A product may be found defective in design if the plaintiff demonstrates that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner. Beems v. Chicago, Rock Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines, 1882 12 N.W. 222 Pg. 289 Man was killed while attempting to uncouple a railroad car. When he went to uncouple the cars, the cars were travelling at an improper and unusual rate of speed. The defense "His act, therefore, in going between the cars after having made the signal to check their speed, was not necessarily contributory negligence," because he was authorized to belief that his signal to check
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
charges that this finding establishes contributory negligence. the speed of the cars would be obeyed. ". .. defendant is liable, notwithstanding intestate's negligence, if ordinary care was not exercised to prevent the accident, after the intestate's negligence was known to defendant's employes. .. . Whatever was the intestate's condition at the time of the accident, whether free to move, or fastened to the place, the defendant is liable if its cars were negligently driven over him." Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1899 43 A. 240 Pg. 440 Plaintiff was running his car on borough street in a violent wind storm. As he passed under a tree, it was blown down crushing the roof of his car and causing him serious injury. Plaintiff was running his
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/30/2008 for the course TORTS 001 taught by Professor Mikhail during the Spring '08 term at Georgetown.

Page1 / 24

Case Summary - Case Information Alcorn v Mitchell Supreme...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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