Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep.490 (C.P. 1837): An important case in the definition of a reasonable person standard in which a man negligently stacks hay that catches fire. Kasturilal Ralia Ram V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375 : is a Landmark case on Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortious acts ...
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 ...
Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery.The case involved an incident that occurred on February 20, 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
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]
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 Liebeck case became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. It was cited by some as an example of frivolous litigation; [5] ABC News called the case "the poster child of excessive lawsuits", [6] while the legal scholar Jonathan Turley argued that the claim was "a meaningful and worthy lawsuit". [7]
Other cases similar to the issues addressed in the Tarasoff case have been brought to the attention of the courts, such as the Jablonski by Pahls v. United States. The conclusion of that case extended the responsibility entailed in the duty to warn with the judgment that the clinician may be liable for failure to review previous records, which ...
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]