enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Sheridan v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheridan_v._United_States

    In a majority opinion by Justice Stevens, the Court noted that the injury arose from two claims: negligence by Carr's co-workers and assault by Carr. In United States v. Muniz, 374 U.S. 150 (1963), the Supreme Court held that the intentional tort exception did not apply when prison guards were negligent in preventing a prisoner from assault ...

  3. Intentional tort - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_tort

    An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable ...

  4. United States tort law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_tort_law

    Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) [citation needed] It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to ...

  5. Garratt v. Dailey - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garratt_v._Dailey

    Relying on the definition of battery from the Restatement of Torts, the Court held that battery could only be found if it is shown that the boy knew with "substantial certainty" that after the chair was moved Garratt would attempt to sit in the chair's original position. That is, the accused must be substantially certain that his action would ...

  6. Legal malpractice - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_malpractice

    A loss or injury to the client caused by the negligence, and Financial loss or injury to the client. To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ( "but for" causation ). [ 3 ]

  7. Letang v Cooper - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letang_v_Cooper

    The Court of Appeal, consisting of Lord Denning MR, Diplock LJ and Danckwerts LJ, held unanimously that since Mr Cooper's actions were negligent rather than intentional, the statute of limitations barring claims actions for damage caused by negligence applied, meaning that Mrs. Letang could not recover as she had filed suit too late.

  8. images.huffingtonpost.com

    images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-03-23-1130Jud_01.pdf

    %PDF-1.4 %âãÏÓ 9 0 obj > endobj xref 9 15 0000000016 00000 n 0000000786 00000 n 0000000864 00000 n 0000000993 00000 n 0000001111 00000 n 0000001552 00000 n 0000001973 00000 n 0000002429 00000 n 0000002506 00000 n 0000002752 00000 n 0000002992 00000 n 0000003232 00000 n 0000005400 00000 n 0000005789 00000 n 0000000596 00000 n trailer ...

  9. Vicarious liability in English law - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability_in...

    Historically, most actions alleging vicarious liability for intentional torts failed, primarily on the grounds that no employer employs an individual to be dishonest, or to commit crimes. [58] This was the view taken with regard to most intentional torts, with several exceptions.