Bethel v. N.Y. City Transit Authority (Ct. of App. N.Y. 1998)
The old rule : Duty upon common carriers of exercise of utmost care, so far as human skill and
foresight can go, for the safety of their passengers in transit. Kelly v. Mahattan Ry. Co. (1889),
Liability and Litigation Process
Liability and litigation Process
a. Personal Injuryin accident cases the legal theory is negligence and not strict liability.
i. Hammontree v. Jenner: P was working in a shop she owned when she was st
TORTS OUTLINE - PROF MAYO
Analyzing Tort Scenarios
Identify Potential Torts
List each potential tort and its relevant elements
Search fact pattern for elements
Determine for each tort whether elements have been met
a. Strike those tort claims
Vicarious Liability : Respondent Superior
Employers are liable vicariously for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their
Its a question of fact : This question be submitted to jury whenever reasonable minds may differ
Answer : B.
The issue here is whether foreseeability alone, in the absence of special relationship, create a
duty to exercise reasonable care to protect a person from further harm when the conduct of injured was
the sole reason for creation of harm?
Torts I, Sec. 2
23 August 2015
This semester is the beginning of your year-long study of the law of torts. Our
focus this semester will be liability claims based upon negligence and
common defenses to negligence claim
Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury (Abraham, 46). In most
cases, one is under a duty not to cause injury to others, so demonstrating an injury caused by
negligence is usually the same as showing the presence o
Answer : e.) None of the above is likely to defeat her claim.
According to Section 1346(b), Federal Tort Claims Act, the federal government is liable for
damages for injury caused by negligence or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the government
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)
Brief Fact Summary. The Defendant, Mr. Wright (Defendant), contracted with the Postmaster
General to keep coaches in working order. The Defendant failed to uphold his duty and the
Plaintiff, Mr. Winterbottom (Plaintiff), was
The first motion was rightly denied because the Plaintiff could not prove per se negligence by producing
evidence satisfying the elements of duty and breach thereof. The burden of proof lied on the plaintiff to
prove all the four elements of negligence by
(Outlines for pages 30-49)
THE NEGLIGENCE PRINCIPLE
Cases discussed in this chapter :
1. Weaver v. Ward (1616) English Cases - inevitable accident that the defendant had been utterly
without fault or had committed no negligence.
2. Brown v. Kendall (Massa
Intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress:
The common law has been slow to accept plaintiffs interest in freedom from emotional distress.
Damages for emotional harm have been awarded as adjunct to (only when coupled with) some physical
Palsgraph Case discussion.
Cardozo view and Andrews view.
Discussion of foreseeability and proximate cause.
Page 426another caseThe court said that intervening cause was the superseding cause breaking the
chain and the rescuer became a superseding cause.
Lauer v. City of New York (Public duty limitation on recovery)
Ct. App. N.Y. 2000
Whether a member of the public can recover damages against a municipality
HOW DIFFERENT TYPES OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS DIFFER
The real people who form business associations have choices as to the form of
business association they may use (see Chapter II). And there are both business
and legal differences among the available typ