Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (Cal. 1976): A case in which a patient told his psychiatrist that he had thoughts of killing a girl. Later he did kill the girl. A leading case in defining the standard of the duty of care, and the duty to warn. Trimarco v. Klein, Ct. of App. of N.Y., 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502 ...
The tort of trespass was inapplicable, as the flooding was deemed not to be "direct and immediate"; the tort of nuisance was rejected as this was a one-off event. [13] The case was first heard by Judge John Mellor and a special jury in September 1862 at the Liverpool Assizes; [14] a court order led to an arbitrator from the Exchequer of Pleas being appointed in December 1864. [15]
Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), is a court case decided by the Iowa Supreme Court, in which homeowners Edward and Bertha Briney were held liable for battery for injuries caused to trespasser Marvin Katko, who set off a spring gun set as a mantrap in an uninhabited house on their property. [1]
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
Haxey's case [15] is a leading case in English law that established the right to free speech within Parliament. [16] Beaulieu v Finglam (1401) early tort case. [17] establishing principle of liability. [18] [19] Case of the Thorns (1466) [20] established a tort of trespass to property. [21] Luckers Case' [22]
Consequently, this case serves as a significant example in American law education, illustrating the importance of intent within tort cases. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin heard the case on three separate occasions, with its opinions, especially the second one, becoming prominent in legal education materials on Damages and Torts. These opinions ...
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was a landmark court decision in Scots delict law and English tort law by the House of Lords.It laid the foundation of the modern law of negligence in common law jurisdictions worldwide, as well as in Scotland, establishing general principles of the duty of care.
Initially, in the lower court the case was dismissed through a directed verdict because the plaintiff could provide no evidence. Subsequently the appellate court concluded that under the conditions, the fact of the accident itself provided sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the breach of a duty of care.