Search Results

Citation151 N.Y. 107 Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff testified that the fright and excitement caused by Defendant’s approach and proximity of the horse-driven car resulted in her miscarriage and other injuries. Synopsis of Rule of Law. No recovery can be had for injuries sustained by fright occasioned by the negligence of another, where there is no immediate personal injury. ...

Citation68 Cal. 2d 728 Brief Fact Summary. While driving his car, Defendant stuck and killed Dillon, a child as she was crossing a public street. Plaintiffs sued for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress even if he is not within the “zone of danger.” ...

Citation222 F.2d 604, 1955 U.S. App. 4810, 58 A.L.R.2d 251. Brief Fact Summary. Defendant’s truck ran Plaintiff’s car off the road. Defendant stopped to help Plaintiff and told him to direct traffic. Another car stuck Plaintiff while attempting to avoid hitting Defendant’s truck. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any extra risk created by a negligent tortfeasor is the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries if it is reasonably foreseeable. ...

Citation[1961] A.C. 388 (P.C. Aust.). Brief Fact Summary. Defendants carelessly discharged oil from their ship. Oil was carried by the wind and tide to Plaintiff’s wharf, which was destroyed by fire. Such damage could not have been foreseen. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Defendant is not liable for the damage solely because it directly resulted from his negligent act. The rule in Polemis is overturned. ...

Citation232 N.Y. 176, 133 N.E. 437,1921 N.Y. 490, 19 A.L.R. 1. Brief Fact Summary. As International Ry. Co.’s (Defendant’s) train turned a curve, a violent lurch threw Plaintiff’s cousin out of the car. Wagner (Plaintiff) got out and walked 445 feet until he arrived at the bridge where he thought he would find his cousin’s body. Plaintiff lost his footing in the dark, fell from the structure, and was injured. Synopsis of Rule of Law. A tortfeasor is liable to all those who are injured in a reasonable rescue attempt. A tortfeasor will not be held liable for injuries s ...

Citation[1921] 3 K.B. 560. Brief Fact Summary. Furness chartered the Polemis to carry a cargo of petrol and benzene. While discharging at Casablanca, a heavy plank fell into the hold and caused an explosion, which eventually destroyed the ship. The falling of the blank was due to Defendant’s negligence. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the negligent act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the damage it in facts causes is not the exact kind of damage one would expect is immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact directly traceable to the negligent act. ...

Citation191 Pa. 345, 43 A. 240, 1899 Pa.. Brief Fact Summary. Berry (Plaintiff) was going faster than eight miles per hour, in violation of a statute. A gust of wind blew a tree on top of his car. Plaintiff sued Defendant to recover damages for trespass for personal injuries. Synopsis of Rule of Law. To impose liability based on the violation of a statute, the violation must be the cause of the injury sustained, and not some mere coincidence. ...

Citation91 N.J.L. 190, 103 A. 166, 1918 N.J. 155, 1 A.L.R. 734. Brief Fact Summary. New York Central & R.R.’s (Defendant’s) train hit Browe’s (Plaintiff’s) wagon. Plaintiff was still confused from the accident, while third parties stole his goods. Plaintiff sued Defendant for damages resulting from the accident and sought recovery for the stolen goods. Synopsis of Rule of Law. The acts of a third party do not affect the liability of the original wrongdoer if the act should have been reasonably foreseen. ...

Citation547 Pa. 224, 690 A.2d 169,1997 Pa. 351, 69 A.L.R.5th 693. Brief Fact Summary. Skipworth (Plaintiff) was hospitalized for lead poisoning on three separate occasions. Testing of the residence where she lived revealed the presence of lead based paint at various locations throughout the home. Plaintiff filed an action against several manufacturers of lead pigment and their successors, as well as a trade association (Defendants). Synopsis of Rule of Law. Market share liability is not proper in lead paint poisoning cases ...

Citation35 N.Y. 210, 1866 N.Y. 86. Brief Fact Summary. New York Central R.R.’s (Defendant’s) woodshed was set on fire either by carelessness or by a defect in one of its engines. Plaintiff’s house was 130 feet from the shed. It was consumed in the fire despite diligent efforts to save it. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Every person is liable for the consequences of his own acts. He is liable for damages for the proximate results of his own acts, but not for remote damages. ...

Citation99 Wn.2d 609, 664 P.2d 474, 1983 Wash. 1564. Brief Fact Summary. Group Health Cooperative’s (Defendant’s) failure to diagnosis Herskovits (Plaintiff) with cancer caused a 14% reduction in Plaintiff’s chance for survival. Plaintiff, at all times, had less than a 50% chance of survival. Plaintiff sought damages from Defendant. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Medical testimony of a reduction of the chance of survival from 39 % to 25% is sufficient evidence to allow the issue of proximate cause to go to the jury. ...

Citation191 Wis. 610, 211 N.W. 913,1927 Wisc. 108. Brief Fact Summary. Two fires were the proximate cause of the destruction of Plaintiff’s land. Chicago & N.W. Ry. (Defendant) negligently set one of the fires, therefore, Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any one of two or more joint tortfeasors, or one of two or more wrongdoers whose concurring acts of negligence result in injury, are each individually responsible for the entire damage resulting from their joint or concurrent acts of negligence. ...

Citation33 Cal.2d 80, 199 P.2d 1 (1948) Brief Fact Summary. Charles A. Summers (Plaintiff) was struck in the eye and lip by shots from one or both of Defendants’ guns. There was no way to determine whose bullet struck the Plaintiff. The trial court held that both Defendants were liable to Plaintiff. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If two defendants cause damage that either one would be liable for, then both defendants will be held liable if it cannot be easily determined which defendant was the cause in fact of the injury. ...

Citation140 F.3d 381, 1998 U.S. App. 5366. Brief Fact Summary. Ms. Zuchowicz (Plaintiff) took an overdose of the drug, Danocrine because of the erroneous directions of a prescription. Plaintiff brought suit against the United States (Defendant) under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If (a) a negligent act was deemed wrong because the act increase the chances that a particular type of accident would occur; and (b) a mishap of that very sort did happen, this is enough to support a finding by a tier of fact that the negligent behavior caused the harm. ...

Citation522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508, 1997 U.S. 7503. Brief Fact Summary. Joiner (Plaintiff) was exposed to PCBs and diagnosed with cancer. PCBs are dangerous to human health. Plaintiff sued General Electric Co. (Defendant) for “promoting” his cancer. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Abuse of discretion is the proper standard of review of a district court’s evidentiary ruling, i.e. did the district court abuse its discretion in granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment? ...

Citation264 F. 334, 1920 U.S. App. 1261. Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff drowned when he fell into the water from the deck of a barge. Plaintiff sued Defendant, the barge owner, for negligence in failing to equip the barge with life-preserving jackets. Synopsis of Rule of Law. To be liable for negligence the cause of the accident must be more than pure conjecture and speculation. It must be the cause in fact of the injury. ...