Source: https://stus.com/Sovereign-Immunity-under-FTCA-cartoon-cto0032
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:48:05+00:00

Document:
United States v. Olson; FTCA requires a court to look to state law on the liability of private entities, not public entities, when assessing the government's liability in activities that private persons do not perform; discretionary function.
532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc.; adjoining landowners; purely economic losses; construction defects.
Winter v. DC Comics; copyright; the first amendment; appropriation of a likeness; more than merely copying the likenes; right of publicity claim; significant transformative elements; value of work does not derive primarily from celebrity's fame; fair use; parody.
Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160; Contributory fault may not be assessed against thirteen-year-old child based on failure to protect from sexual abuse when defendant stands in special relationship to child and has duty to protect child.
United States v. Olsen. The Federal Tort Claims Act authorizes civil actions against the United States under circumstances in which a private person would be liable under the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.
State v. Karl. Manufacturers of prescription drugs are subject to the same duty to warn consumers about the risks of their products as other manufacturers.
Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh; a possessor of land is not liable to invitees for physical harm caused by an activity or condition whose danger is known or obvious, unless should have anticipated despite knowledge or obviousness.
Lasley v. Combined Transport, Inc.; factual cause exists if someone examining the event without regard to legal consequences would conclude that the allegedly faulty conduct or condition in fact played a role in its occurrence.
Neel v. Sewell; claims of negligent supervision are properly viewed as involving the exercise of reasonable parental authority over a child, and are thus barred by parental immunity.
Pohl v. County of Furnas; an intervening cause cuts off a tortfeasor's liability only when it is not foreseeable; tthe new and independent conduct of a third person is itself the proximate cause of the injury and breaks the causal connection.
Touchet v. Hampton; mere words, even though designed to excite or irritate, cannot excuse a battery. The privilege of self-defense is based on the prevention of harm to the actor, not on the desire for retaliation or revenge.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.