Vaughan v. Menlove
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 3 Bing. (N.C.) 467, 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (Court of Common Pleas 1837). Brief Fact Summary. Defendant paced a stack of hay near cottages owned by Plaintiff. Defendant was warned that there was a substantial possibility that the hay would ignite, and Defendant replied that he would "chance it". The hay eventually did ignite and burn Plaintiff's cottages, and Plaintiff sued to recover for their value. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The standard for negligence is an objective one. One has behaved negligently if he has acted in a way contrary ...

Vaughan v. Menlove
Brief

View this case and other resources at: Citation. 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (C.P. 1837). Brief Fact Summary. Defendant's rick of hay burst into flames after several repeated warnings of the possibility of fire. Plaintiff's neighboring cottages were consumed in the fire. Plaintiff sued Defendant for gross negligence. Synopsis of Rule of Law. In assessing Defendant's liability under a theory of gross negligence, Defendant is bound to proceed with such reasonable caution as a prudent man would have exercised under similar circumstances. ...

Table of Cases
StudyBuddy

Table of Cases A; R. v. Aaron; People v. Abbott v. Queen Abdallah; State v. Acosta; People v. Addington v. Texas Adjutant; Commonwealth v. Aiken; People v. Allen v. Ulster County Court Almeida; Commonwealth v. Alsondo; United States v. Alston-Graves; United States v. Alvarez; United States v. Anderson; People v.,447 P.2d 942 (Cal. 1968) Anderson; State v.,79 S.W.3d 420 (Mo. 2002) Anderson; State v.,227 Conn. 518, 631 A.2d 1149 (1993) Apollo Energies; United States v. Apprendi v. New Jersey Arizona v. Clark Arteaga; People v. Arthur Andersen, LLP v. United States Arzon; Pe ...

The Doctrines of Mens Rea
StudyBuddy

CHAPTER 4 The Doctrines of Mens Rea OVERVIEW As we saw in Chapter 2, criminal law is distinguished from all other fields of law because of the sanctions it can impose: loss of liberty and moral stigmatization. We regularly incarcerate, or otherwise deprive of freedom, persons who are not morally blameworthy---the mentally ill, the addicted, the fatally contagious, and so on. However, only criminal punishment declares that defendants are to blame for their acts; the essence of the judgment is not that they should be incarcerated for our sakes, but that they deserve punishment because they ha ...

Table Of Cases
StudyBuddy

TABLE OF CASES Alexander v. Medical Assoc. Clinic Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. Ash v. Cohn Ault v. International Harvester Co. Avila v. Citrus Community College District Baker v. Bolton Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. Barr v. Matteo Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. Becker v. IRM Corp. Bennett v. Stanley Berkovitz v. U.S. Bierczynski v. Rogers Bigbee v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. Bird v. Jones Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of FBI Blakeley v. Shortal’s Estate Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co. Bonkowski v. Arlan’s Department Store Boomer v. Atlantic Cement ...

Dandelions in the Bluebook Garden: Six Classic Exam Writing Mistakes
StudyBuddy

28 Dandelions in the Bluebook Garden: Six Classic Exam Writing Mistakes The last chapter explored the type of analysis most law professors want to see on first-year law essay exams. It is a skill you can learn, once you recognize what we want. Once you grasp the basic approach, you can continue to improve at it through practice. This chapter comes at the topic from the other direction: the classic mistakes students make, year after year, in answering essay questions. These mistakes reflect basic misconceptions students have about the nature of legal analysis and the exam process. If you lea ...

That Odious Character: The Reasonable Person
StudyBuddy

 7 That Odious Character: The Reasonable Person INTRODUCTION Surely the most common basis for tort liability is negligent conduct. This chapter is about the meaning of negligence. Let's begin by clarifying our terminology. Courts often speak of a “claim for negligence.” In this sense, negligence is a tort with four elements: (1) a duty of reasonable care, (2) breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) resulting damages. A plaintiff must prove all four of these elements to “recover on a claim for negligence.” But courts also use the term “negligence” in a related but more limi ...

NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY
StudyBuddy

Chapter 5 NEGLIGENCE GENERALLY   Tort law recognizes a broadly-defined “omnibus” tort called “negligence.” The essence of this tort is that the defendant has imposed an “unreasonable” risk of harm on the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has been injured as a result. Here are the most important concepts covered in this Chapter: Negligence generally:  The tort of “negligence” occurs when D’s conduct imposes an unreasonable risk upon another, resulting in an injury to that other. D’s mental state is irrelevant. Balancing:  In determining whether the risk of har ...

Case Overviews
Outline

Lubitz v. Wells (1955) Facts: Wells left his golf club lying on the ground in his backyard. While playing in the yard, Wells' son swung the club hitting and injuring Lubitz. ...