Torts Case Overview

Topic: Liability for Battery – Prima Facie Case

 Vosberg v. Putney:
Rule: Battery requires intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, even if actual harm was not intended.
Quick Facts: A schoolboy's kick led to serious injury, establishing liability for even minor intentional contact.

Topic: Intent
 Garratt v. Dailey:
Rule: Intentional torts require knowledge with substantial certainty that contact will occur.
Quick Facts: A child moved a chair, causing the plaintiff to fall; court analyzed intent.

Topic: Contact & Consent

 Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel:
Rule: Battery can occur without direct contact if something closely associated with the person is touched.
Quick Facts: Waiter snatched a plate from the plaintiff’s hand, constituting battery.
 Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications:
Rule: Intentionally blowing smoke in someone’s face can constitute offensive contact.
Quick Facts: A radio host blew smoke in the plaintiff’s face as an act of protest.
 O’Brien v. Cunard:
Rule: Consent can be implied from actions or circumstances.
Quick Facts: A woman received a vaccination, which she later claimed was without consent; court found implied consent.
 Barton v. Bee Line:
Rule: Consent is not valid if it is induced by fraud or incapacity.
Quick Facts: Minor consented to sexual contact but claimed incapacity due to age.

Topic: Privileges – Consent

 Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital:
Rule: Consent must be informed, particularly in medical cases.
Quick Facts: A patient was not informed of the nature of a surgery, leading to a claim of battery.
 Kennedy v. Parrott:
Rule: Consent may extend to necessary incidental actions during surgery.
Quick Facts: A surgeon caused damage during a related but undisclosed procedure.

Topic: Self-Defense, Defense of Others, & Defense of Property

 Katko v. Briney:
Rule: Deadly force cannot be used to protect property alone.
Quick Facts: A spring gun injured a trespasser in an unoccupied house.
 Ploof v. Putnam:
Rule: Necessity can justify trespass.
Quick Facts: A boat moored during a storm was untied by the defendant, leading to damage.
 Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation:
Rule: Necessity allows for trespass, but compensation for damage is required.
Quick Facts: A ship caused damage while moored during a storm.

Topic: Offensive Battery, Assault, & False Imprisonment

 Read v. Coker:
Rule: Threatening gestures can constitute assault if they create a reasonable fear of harm.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was threatened with violence if he didn’t leave premises.
 Beach v. Hancock:
Rule: Assault occurs when there is a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful contact.
Quick Facts: Defendant pointed an unloaded gun at the plaintiff.
 Whittaker v. Sanford:
Rule: False imprisonment requires an unlawful restraint of movement.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was held on a ship against her will.
 Rougeau v. Firestone Tire & Rubber:
Rule: Detaining an individual without proper justification can be false imprisonment.
Quick Facts: Employee was locked in a room during a theft investigation.
 Coblyn v. Kennedy’s Inc.:
Rule: False imprisonment can occur in retail settings if detention is unreasonable.
Quick Facts: Elderly man detained on suspicion of theft without proper evidence.
 Sindle v. New York City Transit Authority:
Rule: Reasonable restraint by authority figures does not constitute false imprisonment.
Quick Facts: Bus driver detained students as part of maintaining order.

Topic: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

  State Rubbish Collectors Association v. Siliznoff:
Rule: Emotional distress claims require extreme and outrageous conduct.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was threatened with violence to compel business cooperation.
 Rich v. Fox News Network:
Rule: Public figures face higher thresholds for emotional distress claims.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff claimed distress from false reporting related to a family tragedy.
Topic: Actual Causation
 Hoyt v. Jeffers:
Rule: Causation requires that the defendant's actions are the actual cause of the plaintiff's harm.
Quick Facts: A spark from the defendant’s mill caused the plaintiff’s house to burn down.
 Smith v. Rapid Transit:
Rule: Mere statistical probability is not enough to establish causation.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was injured by a bus but could not prove definitively which company owned the bus.

Topic: Alternative Liability / Market Share Liability

 Summers v. Tice:
Rule: When two parties act negligently, but only one causes harm, the burden shifts to defendants to prove who caused the harm.
Quick Facts: Two hunters shot in the direction of the plaintiff; it was uncertain which shot caused the injury.
 Ybarra v. Spangard:
Rule: Res ipsa loquitur applies in medical cases where multiple defendants had control over the plaintiff's body or treatment.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff woke up from surgery with injuries unrelated to the procedure.
 Suffolk County Water v. Dow:
Rule: Market share liability allows apportionment of damages when specific causation cannot be proven among multiple defendants.
Quick Facts: Multiple chemical companies were sued for water contamination.
 State v. Exxon Mobil:
Rule: Defendants who contribute to a common harm can be held jointly liable.
Quick Facts: Oil company liable for environmental damage caused by fuel leaks.

Topic: Concurrent and Successive Causation

 Dillon v. Twin State Gas:
Rule: Where a plaintiff was already in peril, the defendant’s action is considered only if it accelerated or exacerbated harm.
Quick Facts: Boy fell off a bridge and was electrocuted on wires.
 Kingston v. Chicago N.W. RR:
Rule: If two independent causes lead to harm, both actors can be held liable.
Quick Facts: Two fires converged to destroy the plaintiff’s property; it was uncertain which caused the actual damage.

Topic: Negligence – General Standard

 Brown v. Kendall:
Rule: To prove negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant failed to exercise ordinary care.
Quick Facts: Defendant struck the plaintiff while trying to separate fighting dogs.
 United States v. Carroll Towing:
Rule: Liability is determined by a cost-benefit analysis (Hand Formula: B < P x L).
Quick Facts: A barge broke loose, and the court analyzed the duty of care owed by the barge owners.
 Washington v. Louisiana Power Co.:
Rule: Utilities owe a duty of care to prevent foreseeable risks to the public.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff electrocuted by a power line that the company failed to maintain properly.
 Rodriguez v. Del Sol Shopping Center:
Rule: Property owners must address foreseeable dangers to invitees.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff injured in a parking lot due to a dangerous condition.
 Bassett v. Lamantia:
Rule: Liability is based on whether harm was foreseeable and preventable.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was injured by a stray bullet while sitting inside their home.

Topic: Special Rules Governing Proof of Negligence

 Martin v. Herzog:
Rule: Violation of a statute designed to protect public safety constitutes negligence per se.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff drove without lights on at night and was struck by another vehicle.
 Tedla v. Ellman:
Rule: Statutory violations may be excused if following the statute would have increased the risk of harm.
Quick Facts: Pedestrians walked on the wrong side of the road to avoid traffic and were struck by a vehicle.
 Brown v. Shyne:
Rule: Unauthorized practice of a profession can be negligence if harm results.
Quick Facts: Unlicensed chiropractor injured a patient.
 The T.J. Hooper:
Rule: Customary practices are not conclusive of the standard of care if the precautions taken are insufficient.
Quick Facts: Tugboats without radios failed to avoid a storm, leading to cargo loss.
Topic: Custom
 Helling v. Carey:
Rule: Following industry custom does not absolve a defendant of negligence if the practice itself is negligent.
Quick Facts: Doctor followed standard medical procedure but failed to detect a patient's glaucoma early.
 Warren v. Dinter:
Rule: Custom can establish the standard of care, but it is not dispositive.
Quick Facts: Nurse followed standard protocol but failed to detect a patient's serious condition.

Topic: Res Ipsa Loquitur

 Boyer v. Iowa High School Athletic Assoc.:
Rule: Res ipsa loquitur applies when the accident itself suggests negligence.
Quick Facts: Bleachers collapsed at a sporting event, and the plaintiff was injured.
 Shutt v. Kaufman:
Rule: Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden to the defendant to prove lack of negligence.
Quick Facts: The plaintiff was injured by a falling sign at the defendant's store.
 Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.:
Rule: Res ipsa loquitur applies when the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused harm.
Quick Facts: A soda bottle exploded, injuring the plaintiff.

Topic: Absence of a General Duty to Rescue

 Erie Railroad Co. v. Stewart:
Rule: No general duty to rescue exists unless there is a special relationship or the defendant created the danger.
Quick Facts: Railroad company failed to warn about an approaching train, causing an accident.
 Tubbs v. Argus:
Rule: Duty to rescue may exist if the defendant creates the hazardous condition.
Quick Facts: Defendant's truck caused an accident but failed to assist the injured plaintiff.
 Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California:
Rule: A duty to warn arises when there is a foreseeable risk of harm to a specific individual.
Quick Facts: Therapists failed to warn a potential victim about threats made by a patient.
Topic: Particularized Foreseeability & Restatement Approach
 Marshall v. Nugent:
Rule: Foreseeability of harm extends to events immediately following a negligent act.
Quick Facts: A driver’s negligence caused a truck to stop, and another car hit a pedestrian while helping the truck.
 Herra v. Quality Pontiac:
Rule: Foreseeability is key in determining liability for the consequences of negligent conduct.
Quick Facts: A negligently parked car led to a chain of events that injured the plaintiff.
 Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co.:
Rule: Manufacturers are not liable for unforeseeable criminal acts of third parties.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was assaulted after her car broke down due to a defect.
 Gorris v. Scott:
Rule: Statutory protections are limited to the risks they are designed to prevent.
Quick Facts: Defendant failed to follow quarantine regulations, but the harm suffered was unrelated to the intended purpose of the
regulation.

Topic: Special Instances of Non-Liability for Harmful Consequences – Mental and Emotional Upset
 Waube v. Warrington:
Rule: Emotional distress claims are limited to those in the "zone of danger."
Quick Facts: Plaintiff witnessed the death of her child but was not physically harmed.
 Dillon v. Legg:
Rule: Bystanders outside the zone of danger may recover for emotional distress if the harm was foreseeable.
Quick Facts: Mother saw her child hit by a car and successfully claimed emotional distress.
 Thing v. La Chusa:
Rule: Bystanders can only recover for emotional distress if they are closely related to the victim and present at the scene.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was not present during her child’s accident but claimed emotional distress.
 Burgess v. Superior Court:
Rule: A parent may recover for emotional distress if the harm to their child was caused by negligence during medical treatment.
Quick Facts: Mother witnessed her child being harmed during childbirth.

Topic: Injury to Personal Relationships & Purely Consequential Economic Loss

 Feliciano v. Rosemar Silver Co.:
Rule: Emotional distress claims are allowed when harm to personal relationships is involved.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff claimed distress after the death of her husband due to negligence.
 Borer v. American Airlines:
Rule: Emotional distress claims are typically denied for loss of consortium of a child.
Quick Facts: Mother’s claim for emotional harm due to her child’s injury was dismissed.
  Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru:
Rule: Purely economic losses without accompanying physical damage are not recoverable in tort.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff claimed lost profits after an oil spill delayed shipping.
 Southern California Gas Leak Cases:
Rule: Economic loss claims require direct physical injury to the plaintiff or their property.
Quick Facts: Businesses affected by a gas leak sought damages for lost profits.

Topic: Affirmative Defenses – Contributory Fault

 Butterfield v. Forrester:
Rule: Contributory negligence bars recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the harm.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was injured after riding his horse into an obstruction left by the defendant.
 Davies v. Mann:
Rule: The last clear chance doctrine allows a negligent plaintiff to recover if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the harm.
Quick Facts: Defendant's wagon hit a donkey left in the road by the plaintiff.
 Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions:
Rule: Assumption of risk applies when the plaintiff knowingly engages in a dangerous activity.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was injured while ice skating on negligently maintained ice.
 Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises LLC:
Rule: A release of liability for ordinary negligence is enforceable if it is voluntarily signed.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff signed a waiver before using exercise equipment and was injured.

Topic: Affirmative Defenses – Comparative Negligence & Immunities

 Knight v. Jewett:
Rule: Comparative negligence allows recovery to be reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
Quick Facts: Plaintiff was injured during a game of touch football and sued another player for negligence.

Topic: Trespass to Land and Nuisance

 Peters v. Archambault:
Rule: Intentional intrusion on another’s land constitutes trespass even if no harm is caused.
Quick Facts: Defendant extended a fence onto the plaintiff’s property.
 Davis v. Georgia Pacific Corp.:
Rule: Trespass claims require proof of intent to invade another’s property.
Quick Facts: Defendant’s industrial activities caused chemicals to drift onto the plaintiff’s land.
 Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union:
Rule: Trespass can be claimed for airborne particles that settle on land and cause harm.
Quick Facts: Pesticide drift damaged the plaintiff’s organic crops.
 Waschak v. Moffat:
Rule: Nuisance claims require proof of substantial interference with the use of land.
Quick Facts: Defendant’s factory emitted odors and fumes that affected the plaintiff’s property.

Topic: Trespass to Land and Nuisance (continued)

 Jost v. Dairyland Power Cooperative:
Rule: Nuisance claims can be based on substantial and unreasonable interference with property rights.
Quick Facts: Emissions from a power plant caused damage to nearby farms.
 Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.:
Rule: Permanent damages may be awarded in nuisance cases where the cost of abatement is excessive.
Quick Facts: Cement plant operations caused dust and vibrations, but an injunction was denied.
 Spur Industries Inc v. Del E. Webb:
Rule: Public nuisances can be enjoined, but the party seeking the injunction may need to indemnify the defendant.
Quick Facts: A feedlot was declared a nuisance after a developer built homes nearby.

Topic: Strict Liability – Custody of Animals & Abnormally Dangerous Activities

 Fletcher v. Rylands:
Rule: Landowners are strictly liable for harm caused by unnatural or dangerous activities on their land.
Quick Facts: Defendant’s reservoir burst, flooding the plaintiff’s land.
 Rylands v. Fletcher:
Rule: Strict liability applies when a person brings something onto their land that poses a risk of harm if it escapes.
Quick Facts: Defendant’s water reservoir caused flooding when it collapsed.
 Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co.:
Rule: Strict liability applies to activities that pose an inherent risk of harm, regardless of precautions taken.
Quick Facts: Saltwater from oil wells contaminated the plaintiff’s land.
 Siegler v. Kuhlman:
Rule: Transporting hazardous materials creates strict liability for any resulting harm.
Quick Facts: A gasoline tanker overturned, causing an explosion that killed the plaintiff.