Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The limited vs. full tort terminology is used primarily in the three no-fault states previously mentioned: Kentucky, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. ... In these cases, ... New Jersey tort. In New ...
The court felt the proof was not sufficient to make out a prima facie case of negligence and gave the case to the jury solely on the warranty theory. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Henningsen, against both defendants. The appellate case was argued on December 7, 1959 and was decided on May 9, 1960.
Both full tort and limited tort coverage only apply in situations where the driver or passengers have been injured in an accident that is not the driver's fault. The victim then has the option of bringing charges against the at-fault driver to sue in court for unpaid medical bills, property damage, loss of income, pain, and suffering.
In three U.S. states – Kentucky, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania – policyholders are permitted to choose between traditional tort and no-fault recovery regimes. Under such systems, known as "choice" or "optional" no-fault, policyholders must select between "full tort” and "limited tort" (no-fault) options at the time the policy is written or ...
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. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 11-year-old boy, George Putney, while the ...
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc 1 All ER 873, – also known as the Jif Lemon case – is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off. The Court reaffirmed the three part test (reputation and goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage) in order to establish a claim of passing off. Background per Slade LJ: Reckitt, sold lemon juice under the name "Jif Lemon" which came in ...
Case history; Prior: City of Philadelphia v. State, 376 A.2d 888 (N.J. 1977); probable jurisdiction noted, 434 U.S. 964 (1977).: Holding; A state may not prohibit or place barriers to articles of commerce entering or exiting its boundaries without express Congressional authorization or a compelling state interest; solid and liquid refuse and the rights to landfill space to dispose thereof are ...
Case history; Prior: United States v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 173 F. 177 (C.C.E.D. Mo. 1909): Holding; The Standard Oil Company conspired to restrain the trade and commerce in petroleum, and to monopolize the commerce in petroleum, in violation of the Sherman Act, and was split into many smaller companies.