Source: https://stus.com/Torts
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:57:14+00:00

Document:
Roessler v. Novak; a principal may be held liable for the acts of an agent if the principal permits the appearance of authority in the agent. Independent contractor.
States v. Lourdes Hospital; doctrine of res ipsa loquitor; factfinder; draw an inference of negligence; kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence.
Doe v. Manheimer; a negligent act is the legal cause of a plaintiff's injury only if the injury would not have occurred without the act, and if the negligent act was a substantial factor in producing the plaintiff's injury.
Levandoski v. Cone; the firefighter's rule does not bar recovery from a tortfeasor who is neither a landowner nor a person in control of the premises; invitee; licensee.
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.; a website host is not liable for false information posted by a visitor as a publisher or speaker; invasion of privacy; defamation; right of publicity.
Pipher v. Parsell; when the actions of a passenger that interfere with the driver's safe operation of his vehicle are foreseeable, the failure to prevent such conduct may be a breach of the driver's duty to other passengers or the public.
Clarke v. Oregon Health Sciences University; The Remedy Clause of the Oregon Constitution provides that, although the legislature may change a remedy or procedure, it cannot deny a remedy entirely.
Malchose v. Kalfell; The family car doctrine imposes liability on a vehicle owner for negligent operation of that vehicle with the owner's express or implied consent, for purposes of the business or pleasure of the owner's family; negligent entrustment.
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.; The Medical Device Amendments preempt state requirements that are different from, or in addition to, any requirements applicable to a medical device under federal law; preemption.
Peters v. Menard, Inc; A merchant and its agents are immune from liability for actions taken while attempting to detain a person, including off-premises pursuit of that person, if reasonable cause to believe person violated the shoplifting law.
O'Guin v. Bingham County; to replace a common law duty of care with a duty of care from a statute or regulation, the statute or regulation must clearly define the required standard of conduct, be intended to prevent the same type of harm.
Right v. Breen; when the action sounds in negligence, no purpose would be served by a nominal damages award; exemplary damages.
Hale v. Ostrow; negligence claim requires proof by preponderance of evidence of both causation in fact and proximate causation; both generally involve questions of fact for jury unless uncontroverted facts or all reasonable inferences; but-for-cause.
Lewellen v. Schneck Medical Center; A hospital must provide appropriate medical screening within emergency department; the patient may not be discharged until he has received stabilizing treatment or has been appropriately transferred.
Whisnant v. United States; Because removing an obvious health hazard is a matter of safety rather than policy, the government's alleged failure to do so is not protected under discretionary function exception.
Podias v. Mairs; common law has persistently refused to impose on strangers a moral obligation to aid another human being who is in danger but an exception exists for failure to render assistance when social policy justifies imposition of duty to act.
Spengler v. ADT Security Services, Inc; under Michigan law action for an action in tort to arise out of a breach of contract, the act complained of must constitute (1) a breach of duty separate and distinct from the breach of contract, and (2) active negligence.
Iseberg v. Gross; An affirmative duty to warn or protect against the criminal conduct of a third party may be imposed on one for the benefit of another only if there exists a special relationship between them; agency; agent; principle.
Weigel v. Lee; Compensable damages in wrongful death actions specifically include both economic and non-economic damages, the latter of which include mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of consortium damages; survival action.
Wait v. Traveler's Indemnity Co. of Illinois; to recover under Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, injury must both arise out of and occur in the course of an employee's employment.
Dalury v. S-K-I Ltd. An exculpatory agreement requiring skiers to release a ski resort operator from liability for injuries sustained on the property is void as contrary to public policy.
Virden v. Betts and Beer Constr. Co.. Defendant's conduct is the proximate cause of a plaintiff's injury only if injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct and was a substantial factor. But-for cause; substantial factor test.
Hebert v. Enos. Summary judgment is appropriate if the plaintiff's injuries were not a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence.
Doe a/k/a Twist v. TCI Cablevision The First Amendment protects the defendant's expressive speech against a plaintiff's right of publicity claim if newsworthy, but not if for profit.
Sides v. St. Anthony's Medical Center. A plaintiff in a medical malpractice case can use res ipsa loquitur theory where the plaintiff offers a medical expert's opinion that the injury would not have occurred in the absence of negligence by the defendant.
State of Rhode Island v. Lead Industries Association, Inc. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public by a person or persons with control over the instrumentality alleged to have created the nuisance.
Thyroff v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. Electronic records are subject to the common law tort of conversion.
Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. LTK Consulting Services, Inc.; The economic loss rule, a doctrine that has attempted to describe the dividing line between the law of torts and the law of contracts, should not be treated as a bright line rule.
Board of County Commissioners of Teton County v. Bassett; each defendant in a case is liable only to the extent of that defendant's proportion of the total fault in Wyoming.
Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Service, Inc.; an actor whose conduct has not created a risk of physical harm to another has no duty of care to the other unless there is some other affirmative basis for the existence of a duty.
Dillon v. Frazer; new damages trial if verdict is so grossly inadequate or excessive as to shock the conscience and clearly indicates passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption, or some other improper motive.
Doomes v. Best Transit Corp.; the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act includes a savings clause stating that compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard does not exempt liability at common law. Premeption Doctrine.
Dyer v. Maine Drilling & Blasting, Inc.; an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to liability for harm to the person, land, or chattels of another from the activity, even if has exercised the utmost care to prevent the harm. Strict Liability.
Gortarez v. Smitty's Super Valu, Inc.; A merchant with reasonable cause may detain in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable time any person suspected of shoplifting for questioning or summoning a law enforcement officer.
Lincoln Electric Co. v. McLemore; A plaintiff's cause of action accrues at the point at which he discovered, or by reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury. Statute of limitations.
Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc.; there are no definitive rules establishing a precise methodology for computing punitive damages.
Mavrikidis v. Petullo; when a person engages a contractor, who conducts an independent business by means of his own employees, he is not liable for the negligent acts of the contractor.
Mohr v. Grantham; treating the loss of chance as a cognizable injury permits plaintiffs to recover for the loss of an opportunity for a better outcome. But for causation. Substantial Factor Test.
Posas v. Horton; The fact that the actor is not negligent after the emergency arises does not preclude his liability for tortious conduct that produced the emergency.
Purcell v. United States; under the Feres doctrine, the government is not liable under the FTCA for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service.
Sama v. Hannigan; Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions (medical care here), from liability for civil damages if conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.
Van Camp v. McAfoos; A child cannot be held liable in tort without some allegation of negligence or wrongful conduct on his or her part.
Vreeland v. Ferrer; if federal law does not expressly preempt state law, preemption may be inferred only if scheme of federal regulation is sufficiently comprehensive to reasonably infer Congress left no room for supplementary state regulation.
Ward v. Inishmaan Assocs. Ltd. Partnership; Generally speaking, landlords have no duty to protect tenants from criminal attack by third parties.
Blumenthal v. Drudge; Under the Communications Decency Act, no provider or user of interactive computer service treated as publisher or speaker of information provided by another content provider for tort liability. ISP. Internet Service Provider.
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino; written defamatory communications published by means of the Internet are properly characterized as libel, not slander. No prior restraint.

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