Term
| Can an action be an intentional tort even when the actor did not intend to harm the victim? |
|
Definition
| Yes, when the actor should have known of the consequences with reasonable certainty or when the actor intended similar consequences for a different person. |
|
|
Term
| Atomco is transporting highly radioactive waste through a small town. Despite all possible precautions, there is a release of this waste and a local is injured. Will Atomco be liable for these damages? |
|
Definition
| Yes, there is strict liability for such ultrahazardous activities. |
|
|
Term
| A hardware store sells glue to a minor, in violation of local law. The minor sniffs the glue, passes out, and drowns. Should the hardware store be liable? |
|
Definition
| Yes, they are per se negligent for violating a law, the purpose of which is to protect minors from themselves, so there is no comparative negligence defense. |
|
|
Term
| Two cars collide at an intersection and injure a pedestrian. Unaware of the cause of the accident, the plaintiff tries to recover from the drivers through res ipsa loquitur. Is the doctrine applicable here? |
|
Definition
| No, the plaintiff might succeed with a single driver accident but cannot create an inference that both drivers, or either particular driver, must have been negligent in this accident. |
|
|
Term
| A person watching a show in a theater was hit by a falling piece of glass from a chandelier. The theater owner showed that the chandelier was frequently inspected and that no similar accidents had occurred. Should the person be able to proceed with a lawsuit for damages? |
|
Definition
| Yes, a court found that the mere presence of the accident could reasonably create an inference of negligence by a reasonable jury. |
|
|
Term
| Ruby became angry when another driver cut her off and seized the only mall parking space. She rammed her car into that driver’s fender, which pushed his car into a third car. Is Ruby liable to the owner of the third car? |
|
Definition
| Yes, she committed an intentional tort and the third car’s damages were a natural consequence. |
|
|
Term
| Driving carelessly, Jody ran over Sam’s pet puppy. Sam was greatly traumatized and sued Jody for his emotional distress. Can Sam recover? |
|
Definition
| Not for emotional distress, because Jody was only negligent, and negligent infliction of emotional distress is not actionable on these facts. |
|
|
Term
| Joe ran a shop that rented canoes and sold cheap beer to those who rented. After a couple rented the canoe and bought lots of beer became drunk and overturned the canoe, they shouted for help. Should Joe be liable for ignoring their cries? |
|
Definition
| A court would probably hold Joe liable to take some action (even if only phoning for help), because his actions contributed to the danger. |
|
|
Term
| Ernesto Parra was eating at a restaurant when he began choking on a piece of food. Although workers at the restaurant were aware of his problem, none of them offered him any assistance. Unaided, Parra eventually died. His estate sued the restaurant for negligence, claiming that the restaurant should have done something in response to the choking. Is the restaurant liable? |
|
Definition
| In this case, Parra v.Tarasco, Inc., 595 N.E.2d 1186 (1992), the court held that the restaurant was not liable. Ordinarily, there is no duty to rescue a person from a dangerous condition. There may be such a duty to rescue, however, by a defendant that has itself created the condition of danger. The court held that the choking itself was not caused by any negligence by the restaurant but was personal to Parra. Consequently, the restaurant had no duty to rescue him from the choking. |
|
|
Term
Ricky Osmer was a heavy equipment operator for Cherokee Cable Company. A large truck was stuck in the mud near his job site and requested his assistance. Osmer loaded a bulldozer onto a flatbed trailer, drove to the spot, and pushed the truck free. Then, Osmer sought to reload the bulldozer back on the trailer by driving it on at several miles per hour. Because the trailer slowly slid into the mud, the bulldozer slipped off the trailer and fell on Osmer, killing him. His widow sued the manufacturer of the trailer and others. A key defense was that Ricky had caused his own risk by behaving negligently in loading and using the trailer. Should his widow be able to recover? |
|
Definition
| In this case, Osmer v. Belshe Industries, Inc., 585 So.2d 791 (1991), the court ruled that Osmer was not negligent as a matter of law, so that the case should go before a jury. While he may have been negligent in driving the bulldozer back on to the trailer he did not so clearly violate the reasonable person standard for a court to dismiss the case. |
|
|
