Ybarra v. Spangard

25 Cal. 2d 486, 154 P.2d 687 (1944)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff suffered serious injuries and pain after receiving a surgery at a hospital. Other doctors told him that his injuries were caused by trauma by pressure. Plaintiff sued all doctors and nurses that cared him during the previous surgery and hospitalization.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies where a plaintiff received unusual injuries while unconscious and in the course of medical treatment. All defendants who had any control over his body or the instrumentalities which might have caused the injuries were inferred negligent and had to give an explanation of their conduct.

 

 

Continue reading “Ybarra v. Spangard”

Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Manufacturing Co.

248 F. 853 (C.C.A.N.Y 1918)

Brief Fact Summary.

The defendant sold the plaintiff the patent and equipment to manufacture vacuum cleaners, but the defendant exaggerated the vacuum’s abilities and its past sale performance.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Statements of opinion can be actionable on grounds of misrepresentation if they are material and indicate a reflection of facts that the reasonable person would accept as true.

 

 

Continue reading “Vulcan Metals Co. v. Simmons Manufacturing Co.”

Vosburg v. Putney

80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (1891)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff was originally injured, but was recovering well. Defendant kicked Plaintiff light in the shin and reactivated the bacteria which entered in plaintiff’s body due to the first injury. Because of this reactivation, Plaintiff’s leg had a severe infection. Plaintiff’s parents sued for assault and battery against the defendant.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

  1. Defendant could be held liable for a battery despite an express finding by the jury that he did not intend to harm the plaintiff. If the intended act is unlawful, the intention to commit it must necessarily be unlawful.
  2. The rule of damages in actions for torts is that the wrong-doer is responsible for all damages (harms) resulting from battery regardless of whether the results are foreseeable to the wrong-doer.

 

Continue reading “Vosburg v. Putney”

Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.

124 N.W. 221 (Minn. 1910)

Brief Fact Summary.

Defendant tied its steamship to plaintiffs’ dock during a severe storm to preserve its ship. Due to the severity of the storm, the ship hit the dock constantly and caused damages to the dock. Plaintiffs sought compensation from defendant.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party who damages the property of another while acting out of private necessity must compensate the property owner for the resulting damage.

 

 

Continue reading “Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.”

Ventura v. Kyle

8 F. Supp 3d 1115 (D. Minn. 2014)

Brief Fact Summary.

In a chapter of the defendant’s bestselling book, he describes an altercation between himself and the unnamed plaintiff, whom the defendant later named in interviews. The book chapter portrays the plaintiff in a negative light, which the plaintiff claims is defamatory.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Actual malice can be inferred in a defamation case from a false statement about unambiguous events.

 

 

Continue reading “Ventura v. Kyle”

United States v. Carroll Towing Co.

159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947)

Brief Fact Summary.

While the bargee was away from the barge, the towing company tried to move the barge to another dock. The attempt accidentally loosed the barge and caused it to drift away and eventually sank.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

If the probability is P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B less than PL.

 

 

Continue reading “United States v. Carroll Towing Co.”

Trimarco v. Klein

56 N.Y. 2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 (1982)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff is the tenant of an apartment owned by defendant. One day, plaintiff was injured by the shattered glass door in the bathroom while he was sliding it. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligence for not replacing the door with shatterproof safety glass.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

A party is liable for negligence when their failure to follow an accepted custom and that this departure is the proximate cause of an injury.

 

 

Continue reading “Trimarco v. Klein”

Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc.

446 Md. 543, 132 A.3d 866 (2016)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff’s cows were scared by firework displayed by defendant. As a result, the scared cows damaged plaintiff’s property and four cows died. Plaintiff sued defendant for conducting abnormally dangerous activity and should thus be strictly liable for plaintiff’s injury.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Lawful fireworks displays were not an abnormally dangerous activity.

 

 

Continue reading “Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc.”

Thing v. La Chusa

Citation. 48 Cal. 3d 644 | 771 P.2d 814 | 257 Cal. Rptr. 865

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff’s son was injured in a car accident, but plaintiff did not witness the accident.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Foreseeability of the injury alone was not a meaningful restriction on the scope of an action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

 

 

Continue reading “Thing v. La Chusa”

The Florida Star v. B.J.F.

491 U.S. 524 (1989)

Brief Fact Summary.

The defendant newspaper published the name of a rape victim which it had obtained from a publicly released police report, despite a Florida law prohibiting such action.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

If a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful information about a matter of public significance, then state officials may not punish publication of that information without a highly compelling reason.

 

 

Continue reading “The Florida Star v. B.J.F.”

Tedla v. Ellman

19 N.E.2d 987 (1939)

Brief Fact Summary.

The plaintiff and her brother were walking on the highway when they were struck by the defendant’s car. They were walking on the right side of the highway, rather than on the left as dictated by a statute.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

When adherence to a statute would defeat the overall purpose of the statute, the person in violation of the statute is not considered to be acting negligently.

 

 

Continue reading “Tedla v. Ellman”

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California

17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14 (1976)

Brief Fact Summary.

Poddar told his therapist at school that he would kill Tatiana Tarasoff during his therapy session. The therapist did not warn Tatiana, and Poddar killed her. Tatiana’s parents sued the therapist and the university.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

There’s no general duty to control a third party, unless there’s a special relationship, then you have to take reasonbale steps to prevenrt foreseeable violence.

 

 

Continue reading “Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California”

Summers v. Tice

33 Cal. 2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948)

Brief Fact Summary.

Both defendants shot at plaintiff’s direction at the same time. Plaintiff was seriously injured but there was no way to determine which one of the defendants fired the shot that injured plaintiff.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

  1. Two tortfeasors can both be liable even the injury could only be caused by one of them.
  2. If there is no way to determine which defendant’s negligence caused the injury, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants.
  3. When defendants cannot not work out apportionment of liabilities among themselves, they will all be held liable.

 

Continue reading “Summers v. Tice”

Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Co.

44 Misc. 3d 569 (2014)

Brief Fact Summary.

The water wells in Suffolk County were contaminated by a harmful chemical called perc, manufactured and distributed by the defendants. It is unclear which defendant manufactured the perc that caused the contamination, as perc lays latent for a long and undetermined period of time.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

In this case, the combination of the fungibility of the brands of perc, the inherent danger of the perc, and the chemical’s latency period all point to an acceptable use of market share liability.

 

 

Continue reading “Suffolk County Water Authority v. Dow Chemical Co.”

State v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

126 A.3d 266 (N.H. 2015)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff, the State of NH sued several gasoline suppliers and chemical manufacturers for causing groundwater contamination. Defendant was one of those companies.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under market share liability, the burden of identification shifts to the defendants if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case on every element of the claim except for identification of the actual tortfeasors. Each defendant would be severally liable for the portion of the judgment that represents its share of the market at the time of the injury.

 

 

Continue reading “State v. Exxon Mobil Corp.”

State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff

38 Cal. 2d 330, 240 P.2d 282 (1952)

Brief Fact Summary.

The defendant acquired an account for rubbish collection through his father-in-law, who was a member of the plaintiff trade association. The account was taken from Abramoff, another member of the association. The defendant, a non-member, was threatened that if he did not pay Abramoff for the account and join the trade association, he would be beaten up and his career would be over.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

The jury is in the best position to determine whether a claim for emotional distress is recoverable. Emotional distress can form the basis of a claim without the presence of physical injury.

 

 

Continue reading “State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff”

Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.

108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972)

Brief Fact Summary.

The defendant lawfully maintains feedlots in an area outside of Phoenix. Upon the development of a residential community nearby, the feedlots, albeit still lawful, became a nuisance to the new population in the area.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

When a lawful business becomes a nuisance due to the encroachment of a residential development, that lawful business can be enjoined, but may be owed damages in the form of indemnification.

 

 

Continue reading “Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.”

Soule v. General Motors Corp.

8 Cal. 4th 548, 882 P.2d 298, 34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 607 (1994)

Brief Fact Summary.

The plaintiff’s ankles were badly injured when her car made by the defendant collided with another car. She claimed that defects in her car allowed its left front wheel to break free, collapse backwards, and smash the floorboard of the car into her feet. The defendant claims that the force of the collision alone caused the injury, not a design defect.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

In cases of design defects in complex products, the risks and benefits of the design should be weighed against each other to determine whether the design embodies excessive preventable danger.

 

 

Continue reading “Soule v. General Motors Corp.”

Smith v. Rapid Transit Inc.

317 Mass. 469, 58 N.E.2d 754 (1945)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff was driving on the road when a bus coming toward her and forced her to make a right turn. She then collided with another car. Plaintiff claimed defendant was the owner of the bus and sued.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

It is not enough to prove actual causation only because mathematically the chances somewhat favor a proposition to be proved.

 

 

Continue reading “Smith v. Rapid Transit Inc.”

Sindle v. New York Transit Authority

33 N.Y.2d 293, 307 N.E.2d 245 (1973)

Brief Fact Summary.

On the last day of school, plaintiff was on the bus home with his classmates when they started to destroy the bus out of excitement for the summer break. The bus driver informed them that he was taking them to the police station, at which point the plaintiff tried to jump out the window of the bus. He landed on the ground and was then run over by the bus, causing severe personal injury.

 

 

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Restraint or detention under reasonable circumstances imposed for the purpose of protecting property or preventing injury of persons in one’s lawful possession or custody is not unlawful.

 

 

Continue reading “Sindle v. New York Transit Authority”