Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Donoghue v. Stevenson: A formative House of Lords case. Caparo v. Dickman: 3 Tests for duty of care is whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable, whether there was a relationship of proximity between claimant and defendant; and whether it is just and reasonable to impose a duty. House of Lords case.
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 ...
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]
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United ...
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]
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]
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 ...
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: On writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. Holding; The Federal Tort Claims Act’s exception to waiver of sovereign immunity for claims “arising in a foreign country,” bars claims based on any injury suffered in a foreign country, regardless of where the tortious act or omission occurred.