tort class notes 3,01

tort class notes 3,01 - Missed Burns Philip food inc v...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Missed Burns Philip food inc v cavalea (p 754) What is the intent need for trespass. If truck, heart attack, go on property – no trespass. Yet book says it is a strict liability tort? Its an intent tort – intent to be in place you are, however, its such a basic intent that can be liable eventhough no fault of his own. If it is a trespass and trial court agrees – could take down fence and no pay for it, why is cavalea appealing? Trail court says get no damages because no notice, its demanded by elemental justice. Appealett court no buy the argument based on the eri doctoring. This is a federal court in a diversity case, need a state law, and Illinois doesn’t have this idea in their laws but says if trespass then pay damages. Burns claimed they consented to the fence by not complaining. Talk about if have permission to leave book on your land, consent extends until landowner says cant leave it there anymore. Here ocurt says they never consented origionally, silencei isn’t consent.’
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

tort class notes 3,01 - Missed Burns Philip food inc v...

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