Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[6] Instead, the court says that under the facts of this case, the chemical spill was caused by the negligence of either (a) the North American Car Corporation in failing to maintain or inspect the rail car properly; (b) American Cyanamid in failing to maintain or inspect the car; or (c) the Missouri Pacific Railroad when it had custody of the ...
Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000), was a case decided by the Indiana Supreme Court that adopted the loss of a chance doctrine for tort liability. [ 1 ] Decision
Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.: Landmark case for discussion of proximate cause and its relationship with duty. Court of Appeals of New York. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99. (1928) POKURA V. WABASH RY. CO., 292 U.S. 98 (1934) ([plaintiffs' negligence is determined by the facts and a reasonable person standard) Fletcher v.
Case law of United States courts related to the tort of negligence. Pages in category "United States negligence case law" The following 18 pages are in this category, out of 18 total.
such negligence caused damage to plaintiff in that the relationship was actually interfered with or disrupted and plaintiff lost in whole or in part the economic benefits or advantage reasonably expected from the relationship. [13] Some cases add that a defendant acts negligently only if the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. [14]
The plaintiff does not need the invention of novel doctrine to help it out in such conditions. The case was submitted to the jury and the verdict was returned upon the theory that even in the absence of a misstatement of a fact there is a liability also for erroneous opinion. The expression of an opinion is to be subject to a warranty implied ...
In this case, the defendant secretly videotaped himself engaging in sexual activities with the plaintiff. The defendant then showed this videotape to numerous individuals and caused severe distress to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant, asserting a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
In a 4-3 majority decision by Associate Justice Stanley Mosk, the court decided to impose a new kind of liability, known as market share liability.The doctrine evolved from a line of negligence and strict products liability opinions (most of which had been decided by the Supreme Court of California) that were being adopted as the majority rule in many U.S. states.