MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
1.
Lubitz v. Wells
Without more a party is not liable for negligence merely for leaving an object that is not
inherently dangerous lying on the ground available for others to use.
2.
Blyth v Birmingham Water- A defendant may not be liable for negligence
works
if the defendant does what a person taking
reasonable precautions would do under the
circumstances.
3.
Pipher v. Parsell
A driver owes a duty of care to his passengers
because it is foreseeable that passengers may
be injured if through inattention or otherwise,
the driver involves the car in a collision.
4.
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v.
Krayenbuhl
A party is negligent if it fails to take the precautions that an ordinary man would take under
the circumstances.
5.
Davison v. Snohomish
County
Although roads must be built and maintained
by municipalities, a municipality is not liable
for negligence for failing to provide the same
degree of protection on bridges as is afforded
on roads.
6.
United States v. Carroll
Towing Co.
Liability for negligence due to failure to take
safety precautions exists if the burden of taking
such precautions is less than the probability of
injury multiplied by the gravity of any resulting
injury, symbolized by B < PL = negligence liability.
7.
Vaughan v. Menlove
A person has a legal duty to use his or her
property with the same level of ordinary care
that would be exercised by a reasonable person.
8.
Delair v. McAdoo
Drivers and owners of motor vehicles are reDrivers and owners of mo- quired to know the condition of parts of their
tor vehicles are required... vehicles likely to become dangerous, where
1 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
the dangerous condition would be discovered
during a reasonable inspection.
9.
Trimarco v. Klein
A party is liable for negligence when a cusImpact of violating custom tom or accepted practice is coupled with proof
that such custom or accepted practice was
ignored and that this departure was the proximate cause of one's injuries.
10. Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.
Emergency Doctrine
An act by a reasonable person that is considered negligent when done under normal
circumstances is not per se negligent if performed by a reasonable person during an
emergency in which he is suddenly faced with
certain danger.
11. Roberts v. State of
Louisiana
A handicapped individual
is not liable for negligence
if...
A handicapped individual is not liable for negligence if he takes the same precautions an
ordinary reasonable man would take under the
circumstances if he was inflicted with the same
handicap
12. Robinson v. Lindsay
An _________standard of
care should be applied to
a minor engaging in an inherently dangerous activity, such as the operation of
a powerful motorized vehicle.
An adult standard of care should be applied to
a minor engaging in an inherently dangerous
activity, such as the operation of a powerful
motorized vehicle.
13. Breunig v. American Family
Ins. Co.
Insanity may be a defense
to liability for negligence
if...
Insanity may be a defense to liability for negligence if an individual is suddenly overcome
without forewarning by a mental disability or
disorder that makes him incapable of conforming his conduct to the standards of a reasonable man under like circumstances.
14. Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc.
The reasonable person standard within a particular profession is an objective standard and
2 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
does not vary based on an individual's personal training and experience within that profession.
15. Hodges v. Carter
Individuals within a particular profession are
under a duty to act with the same standard of
care as would an ordinary, rational member of
that profession.
16. Boyce v. Brown
Before a doctor can be held liable for malpractice, he must have done something in his
treatment of the patient that the recognized
standard of good medical practice in the community in which he is practicing forbids in such
cases, or he must have neglected to do something that such a standard requires.
17. Morrison v. MacNamara
The standard of care applied to those in the
medical profession is a national standard, not
a local standard.
18. Scott v. Bradford
In a medical malpractice
suit for lack of informed
consent, the plaintiff must
prove that the doctor failed
to...
In a medical malpractice suit for lack of informed consent, the plaintiff must prove that
the doctor failed to inform her of a material risk,
that if she had been informed she would not
have consented, and that the consequences
that were not made known did occur and she
was injured as a result.
19. Moore v. Regents of the
University of California
(1) A physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all material personal interests that may
influence her professional judgment before securing a patient's informed consent to medical
treatment.
(2) Once cells leave a patient's body, they are
no longer that patient's property.
20. Osborne v. McMasters
Impact of violating ordinance or statute
If a statute or municipal ordinance imposes
upon an individual a duty to protect or benefit
others, and he neglects to perform that duty,
3 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
the individual is liable for negligence per se
and must pay damages for injuries that are
proximately caused by his actions if they are of
the type the statute was designed to prevent.
21. Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam
Corp.
A violation of a statute constitutes negligence
as a matter of law when the violation results
in injury to a member of the class of persons
intended to be protected by the legislation and
when the harm is of the kind which the statute
was enacted to prevent.
22. Perry v. S.N. and S.N.
A violation of a statute constitutes negligence per se
when...
A violation of a statute constitutes negligence
per se when the violation results in injury to a
member of the class of persons intended to be
protected by the legislation and when the harm
is of the kind which the statute was enacted to
prevent, but only if the court determines that it
is appropriate to impose such civil liability.
23. Martin v. Herzog
An omission, or failure to perform an act required by statute, constitutes negligence per
se.
24. Zeni v. Anderson
The presumption that a violation of a statute
constitutes a prima facie case of negligence
may be rebutted by offering an adequate excuse under the circumstances of the case.
25. Goddard v. Boston & Maine To maintain a claim of negligence for breach of
R.R. Co.
a duty of care, the plaintiff must prove that the
defendant was actually negligent.
26. Anjou v. Boston Elevated
Railway Co.
A railroad company negligently breaches its
duty of care by not keeping its platforms free
of debris.
27. Joye v. Great Atlantic and A store owner owes its customers a duty of
Pacific Tea Co.
care in keeping the store reasonably safe and
4 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
the burden is on the customer to show that that
duty is breached.
28. Ortega v. Kmart Corp.
In a slip and fall case, the plaintiff may demonstrate that the storekeeper had constructive
notice of the dangerous condition in question
if he can show that the area had not been
inspected within a reasonable period of time
such that an employee exercising due care
would have discovered and corrected the condition.
29. Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co. A storeowner's notice of a dangerous condition causing a slip and fall injury need not be
proved if the dangerous condition is inherent
in the storeowner's business.
30. H.E. Butt Groc. Co. v. Resendez
A display of produce for customer sampling,
without more, does not constitute an unreasonable risk of harm to customers.
31. Byrne v. Boadle
If injury of a type that does not typically occur
without negligence does occur, negligence is
presumed from the mere fact of the occurrence. Res Ipsa Loquitur
32. Larson v. St. Francis Hotel For a defendant to be liable under res ipsa
loquitur, the plaintiff must prove that the instrument that caused the accident was under
exclusive control of the defendant and that if
the defendant was using ordinary care, the
accident would not have occurred.
33. Cruz v. DaimlerChrysler
Motors Corp.
An inference of negligence
is permitted only when...
An inference of negligence is permitted only
when
(1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does
not occur in the absence of negligence,
(2) other responsible causes are sufficiently
eliminated by the evidence, and
5 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
(3) the inferred negligence is within the scope
of the defendant's duty to the plaintiff.
34. James v. Wormuth
In the context of a medical malpractice lawsuit
based upon a foreign object being left inside
the body, res ipsa loquitur is applicable only
if the object is unintentionally left in a patient
following an operative procedure.
35. Sullivan v. Crabtree
Although the mere fact of an occurrence of
an accident is an inference of negligence, it
is not conclusive and a jury still must make a
determination on the most probable evidence.
36. Perkins v. Texas and New
Orleans R. Co.
A negligence claim cannot be maintained if the
negligence is not a cause in fact of the harm.
37. Reynolds v. Texas & Pac.
Ry. Co.
Where the negligence of the defendant greatly
increases the chance of an accident, the mere
possibility that the accident might have happened absent the negligence is not sufficient
to break the chain of cause and effect between
the negligence and the injury.
38. Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Where cause in fact of an accident cannot be
Ranch, Inc.
proven, speculation is not sufficient to defeat a
motion for summary judgment.
39. Kramer Service, Inc. v.
Wilkins
In a negligence claim, the mere possibility that
one event may have caused another event is
not sufficient to maintain a verdict.
40. Smith v. Providence Health A medical-malpractice claimant may recover
& Services
for losing a less-than-50 percent chance of
a better medical outcome, but damages are
reduced proportionally.
41. Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals
In a negligence action, causation can be
proven even if it is not known exactly how
the harm occurred if there is sufficiently com6 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
pelling proof that the defendant must have
caused the harm somehow.
42. Hill v. Edmonds
If separate acts of negligence combine to directly produce a single harm, each negligent
actor is liable for the entire harm, even though
each act alone may not have caused it.
43. Anderson v. Minneapolis,
St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. Co.
Someone who negligently starts a fire may be
liable if the fire damages a property in combination with a fire of unknown origin, and either
fire would have damaged the property independently of the other, if the negligently started
fire was a material factor in the destruction.
44. Summers v. Tice
Under the doctrine of alternative liability, two
independent tortfeasors may be held jointly
liable if it is impossible to tell which one caused
the plaintiff's injuries, and the burden of proof
will shift to the defendants to either absolve
themselves of liability or apportion the damages between them.
45. Sindell v. Abbott Laborato- If multiple manufacturers of fungible goods are
ries
named as defendants in a negligence action
and it cannot be determined which manufacturer caused the precise harm complained of,
the manufacturers will be held proportionately
liable in accordance with their market share in
the market of the good that caused the injury.
46. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Courts may use arbitrary limits to establish
Daniels
cause and effect and thus limit the scope of
causation.
47. Ryan v. New York Central
Railroad Co.
A negligent person is liable in damages for the
proximate results of his own acts, but not for
remote damages.
48. Bartolone v. Jeckovich
7 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
A defendant takes the plaintiff as he finds him,
including the weakness and susceptibility to
injury that he already had.
49. In re Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd.
A negligent actor can be held liable for all
damages his negligent act caused, even if not
reasonably foreseeable.
50. Overseas Tankship (UK)
Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon
Mound No 1)
A defendant is only liable for the consequences flowing from his negligent act that are
foreseeable to a reasonable person at the time
of the negligent act.
51. Overseas Tankship (UK)
Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon
Mound No 2
A party may be held liable in negligence for disregarding even a small risk that is reasonably
foreseeable if there is no justification for doing
so, such as a high cost to eliminate the risk.
52. Palsgraf v. Long Island
Railroad
A defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff
only if the plaintiff is in the zone of reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from the defendant's actions.
53. Yun v. Ford Motor Co.
To be a proximate cause of an injury, the injury must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the alleged conduct and not highly
extraordinary.
54. Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
An intervening act between the defendant's
negligence and the plaintiff's injuries will not
break the causal connection and cut off liability
if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable.
55. Watson v. Kentucky & Indi- A criminal act of a third party that causes harm
ana Bridge & R.R. Co.
in concurrence with a negligent act is generally
not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of
the negligent act.
56. Fuller v. Preis
8 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
To be a proximate cause of an injury, the injury must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the alleged conduct and not highly
extraordinary.
57. McCoy v. American Suzuki Under the rescue doctrine, the rescuer still
Motor Corp.
must prove that the tortfeasor's action was the
proximate cause of his injury.
58. Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Harm to a mother which results in harm to
a later-conceived child does not establish a
cause of action in favor of the child against the
original tortfeasor.
59. Bierczynski v. Rogers
Participation in a car race on a public highway
is an act of concurrent negligence and both
racers may be held liable for any injury to a
non-racer resulting therefrom.
60. MacPherson v. Buick Motor A manufacturer of articles that are not inherCo.
ently dangerous but that may become dangerous when improperly constructed owes a duty
of care to anyone beyond the purchaser who
might foreseeably use the articles, when it is
reasonable to expect no further tests will be
performed.
61. H.R. Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.
(1) To prove that an individual is an intended
third party beneficiary of a contract, he must
show that the parties to the contract clearly
and definitely intended to give him the benefit
of the promised performance.
(2) An individual may be liable for negligence
based on an omission if the failure to act itself constitutes commission of a wrong or advances harm, and is motivated by malicious
intent or other aggravating factors.
62. Clagett v. Dacy
9 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
An attorney will not be held liable for damage to
a third party caused by his negligence unless
it is absolutely clear from the facts that an
employment relationship between the parties
should be inferred.
63. Commonwealth v. Peterson Certain special relationships, such as that of a
common carrier/passenger, innkeeper/guest,
and employer/employee, impose a duty to
warn only of a known or reasonably foreseeable danger of third-party criminal acts.
64. Hegel v. Langsam
Universities do not have a duty to regulate the
private lives of their students.
65. L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks
A party may be under a legal duty to rescue a
person who is helpless or in a situation of peril
when the party is an invitor of the person, or
when an injury results from use of an instrumentality under the control of the party.
66. J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H.
If a spouse has actual knowledge or a special
reason to know of the likelihood of his or her
spouse engaging in sexual abuse against a
particular person, the spouse has a duty to
prevent or warn of the abuse.
67. Tarasoff v. Regents of the
University of California
When a therapist learns from his patient about
intent to do harm to a third party, the therapist has a duty to take reasonable precautions
given the circumstances to warn the potential
victim of danger.
68. Southern California Gas
Leak Cases
In general, purely economic losses are not
recoverable in tort.
69. Daley v. LaCroix
Where a physical injury results from negligently induced emotional distress, the plaintiff may
recover damages even if no physical impact
occurred at the time of the negligence.
10 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
70. Thing v. La Chusa
A plaintiff may not recover damages for emotional distress caused by observing the negligently inflicted injury of a third person if she
was not an eyewitness to the act that caused
the injury.
71. Salevan v. Wilmington Park, An owner of a ballpark must take reasonable
Inc.
precautions for the protection of the public outside the park.
72. Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth Ry. Co.
A railroad company owes a duty to a trespasser on its tracks only after the company has
actual notice of the trespasser's presence on
the tracks.
73. Barmore v. Elmore
A licensee is a social guest who is invited to the
landowner's property, but for the guest's own
purposes as opposed to the business of the
landowner.
74. Campbell v. Weathers
An invitee is an individual who is invited onto
the premises as a member of the general public in furtherance of the premises owner's business.
75. Whelan v. Van Natta
A landowner is subject to liability to another as
an invitee only for injury the invitee sustained
while on the land in the scope of the invitation.
76. Rowland v. Christian
The proper test to be applied for determining
the liability of a landowner is whether in the
management of his property he has acted as a
reasonable man given the probability of injury
to others, and, although the plaintiff's status
as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee may have
some bearing on the question of the landowner's liability, this status alone is not determinative.
11 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
77. Borders v. Roseberry
A landlord is under no obligation to repair or
remedy a defective condition on the leased
premises known to both the landlord and the
tenant.
78. Butterfield v. Forrester
When a plaintiff fails to use ordinary care in
avoiding an obstruction caused by a defendant, the plaintiff may not recover damages
from the defendant.
79. Davies v. Mann
The contributory negligence of a plaintiff will
not defeat his negligence claim if the defendant, by the exercise of reasonable care, could
have avoided the consequence of the plaintiff's
negligence.
80. McIntyre v. Balentine
Even if contributorily negligent, a plaintiff may
recover, but only if the plaintiff's negligence is
less than the defendant's negligence.
81. Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.
An exculpatory clause is unenforceable as
against public policy when the bargaining powers of the parties are substantially unequal or
where the contract involves an essential public
service.
82. Rush v. Commercial Realty Assumption of risk will not be implied and will
Co.
not bar recovery where the plaintiff did not
voluntarily assume the risk.
83. Teeters v. Currey
In a medical malpractice claim, the cause of
action accrues and statute of limitations begins
to run when the patient discovers or should
have discovered the injury.
84. Freehe v. Freehe
An individual may maintain a tort claim against
his or her spouse.
85. Zellmer v. Zellmer
12 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
Parents and those in loco parentis are immune
from being sued for negligent parental supervision.
86. Abernathy v. Sisters of St. A nongovernmental charitable institution is liMary's
able for its own negligence and for the negligence of its agents and employees acting
within the scope of their employment.
87. Clarke v. Oregon Health
Sciences University
A state statute limiting claims for torts committed by state employees to claims against
the state, combined with a cap on damages
against the state violates a plaintiff's constitutional right to remedy.
88. Riss v. New York
Absent legislation creating liability, a municipality is not liable in tort for a government service's failure to protect the public from criminal
activity.
89. Rylands v Fletcher
A landowner who puts his land to non-natural
use is strictly liable for harm caused by that use
90. Miller v. Civil Constructors, Operating a firing range for target practice and
Inc.
the use of firearms at a firing range are not
ultrahazardous activities.
91. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R.
Shipping hazardous chemicals by rail through
Co. v. American Cyanamid metropolitan areas is not an abnormally danCo.
gerous activity.
Shipping hazardous chemicals by rail through metropolitan areas is not an abnormally dangerous activity.
Under the Second Restatement, there are six
factors for determining whether an activity is
abnormally dangerous: (1) there is a high probability of harm, (2) the harm could be great if
it materialized, (3) the risk is unavoidable even
with due care, (4) the activity is not common
What is an abnormally dan- and thus not presumed to be highly valuable,
gerous activity?
(5) the activity is inappropriate for the area,
and (6) the activity is not sufficiently valuable to
13 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
the public to offset the risk. Some activities are
so inherently risky that they cannot be made
less dangerous. In such circumstances, the
traditional negligence regime is inadequate.
92. Foster v. Preston Mill Co.
Imposition of strict liability due to an ultrahazardous activity is limited to consequences from
the activity that result from the risk that makes
the activity ultrahazardous.
93. Golden v. Amory
Strict liability will not be imposed where the
harm results from an act of God that the defendant had no reason to anticipate.
94. Sandy v. Bushey
An individual is strictly liable for keeping an
animal that he knows has vicious tendencies
unless the plaintiff voluntarily or unnecessarily
puts himself in the way of the animal.
95. Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.
A manufacturer is liable to a consumer for
breach of an express warranty, even if there
is no privity between the manufacturer and the
consumer.
96. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Disclaimers of implied warranties for the sale
Motors
of goods and consequent limitations on liability
are invalid if unfairly procured.
97. Greenman v. Yuba Power
Products, Inc.
By placing a product on the market, a manufacturer becomes strictly liable for a defect in
the product that causes injury to the ultimate
user of the product.
98. Rix v. General Motors Corp Someone who manufactures and sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably danSomeone who manufacgerous to the consumer is strictly liable for the
tures and sells a product harm caused by the product under a manufacin a defective condition un- turing-defect theory if (1) the seller is engaged
reasonably dangerous to in the business of selling that type of prodthe consumer is strictly li14 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
able for the harm caused by uct, and (2) the product reaches the consumer
the product under a manu- without substantial change in condition.
facturing-defect theory if...
99. Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co.
In a products-liability action against a manufacturer based on a defective-design theory, a
jury needs to be instructed only on a unified
theory of negligent design.
100. Anderson v. Owens-Corn- In a strict products-liability action based on the
ing Fiberglas Corp.
failure to warn of the risk of harm, actual or
constructive knowledge of the potential risk or
danger is a component of strict liability.
101. Friedman v. General Motors A plaintiff may maintain a claim for a defective
Corp
product even if he does not conclusively eliminate all other possible causes of his injury.
102. Daly v. General Motors
Corp.
The doctrine of comparative negligence applies in a strict products-liability case to reduce
the plaintiff's recovery only to the extent that
his own lack of reasonable care contributed to
his injury.
103. Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews A consumer who uses a product carelessly but
does not misuse it can win a strict product-liability claim against the product's manufacturer.
104. Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt
Chevrolet Co.
Strict products liability cannot be imposed on
a retailer who is outside the original producing
and marketing chain of the product.
105. Erie Insurance Co. v. Ama- Services that facilitate sales without holding
zon.com, Inc.
title cannot incur products liability as the seller.
106. T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceu- Brand-name drug manufacturers owe a continticals Corp.
uing duty of care to maintain adequate warning
labels used on generic versions made by other
manufacturers.
15 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
107. Hector v. Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center
A hospital is not subject to strict liability for a
product provided to a patient during the course
of her treatment.
108. Brown v. Kendall
A defendant cannot be held liable for an injured
plaintiff's damages if the defendant acted with
lawful intent and without fault.
109. Cohen v. Petty
A party is not liable for negligence for injuries
that result from an unforeseeable condition or
event that a party has no knowledge of or any
reason to anticipate.
110. Spano v. Perini Corp.
Even without a showing of negligence, strict
liability may be imposed for damage resulting
from the performance of ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous activities such as blasting.
111. Garratt v. Dailey
A minor may be held liable for the tort of battery
if she acted intentionally, with knowledge to
a substantial certainty that her actions would
cause a harmful or offensive contact to another
person.
112. Wagner v. State of Utah
Intent to make contact is all that is necessary
to meet the intent element in a battery claim.
113. Ranson v. Kitner
Even if acting in good faith, a party may nevertheless be held liable for damages resulting
from her mistake.
114. McGuire v. Almy
If a legally insane person causes intentional
damage to the person or property of another,
he is liable for that damage in the same circumstances in which a sane person would be
liable.
115. Talmage v. Smith
A party is liable for damages to another if he intends to use unreasonable force to inflict harm
upon another and accidentally harms another
16 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
party whom he did not intend to use force
against.
116. Wallace v. Rosen
In order for a touching to be sufficiently offensive so as to constitute a battery it must
be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly
sensitive as to personal dignity based on the
time place, and circumstances under which the
touching is done.
117. Fisher v. Carrousel Motor
Hotel, Inc.
A party is liable for damages for humiliation for
an intentional offensive touching of anything
connected with another individual and actual
physical contact with the actual body of another is not required.
118. Van Eaton v. Thon
A party is liable for damages for unwanted physical contact with an article (here a
horse/Ref'd as most applicable case to practice test) the Plaintiff is in contact with and if
disrupted may cause Plaintiff harm.
119. Western Union Telegraph
Co. v. Hill
To constitute an actionable assault, there must
be an intentional, unlawful offer to touch another person in a rude or angry manner under
circumstances that would create a well founded fear of imminent battery, coupled with the
apparent present ability of the offending party
to effectuate the attempt.
120. Big Town Nursing Home v. False imprisonment is the direct restraint of
Newman
the physical liberty of another without legal
justification.
121. Parvi v. City of Kingston
A victim cannot recover damages for false imprisonment unless the victim had a conscious
knowledge of the unlawful confinement at the
time the confinement took place.
122.
17 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
Hardy v. LaBelle's Distrib- In order to hold a party liable for false imprisuting Co.
onment, a party must prove he was unlawfully
restrained against his will.
123. Enright v. Groves
False imprisonment occurs when an individual
is taken into custody by another who claims but
does not have proper legal authority.
124. Whittaker v. Sandford
To be liable for false imprisonment, a party
must demonstrate that they have been subject
to some manner of restraint, but not necessarily through the use of actual physical force by
another.
125. State Rubbish Collectors
Ass'n v. Siliznoff
In the absence of privilege, a party is liable for
damages for intentionally subjecting another
to mental distress even without intending to
cause bodily harm if the harm that results was
foreseeable.
126. Slocum v. Food Fair Stores A party is not liable for intentional infliction
of Florida
of emotional distress for simple insults not intended to have real meaning or serious effect
that subsequently causes another emotional
distress.
127. Harris v. Jones
In order for a party to recover for intentional
infliction of emotional distress a party must
suffer a severely disabling emotional response
to another's conduct.
128. Taylor v. Vallelunga
A party is liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the act is done for the
purpose of causing emotional distress or with
knowledge to a substantial certainty that severe emotional distress will be produced by
their conduct.
129. Dougherty v. Stepp
Every unauthorized, and thus unlawful, entry
onto the land of another constitutes a tres18 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
pass regardless of whether actual damage is
caused to the land.
130. Herrin v. Sutherland
A party is liable for trespass for interfering with
the quiet, undisturbed, peaceful enjoyment of
another's land even without touching the actual
surface of another's land.
131. Rogers v. Board of Road
Com'rs for Kent County
A continuing trespass is committed by the continued presence on the land of another of a
structure, chattel or other thing, which the actor
has placed there pursuant to a license or other
privilege and has failed to remove after such
license or privilege has been terminated.
132. Glidden v. Szybiak
An individual is liable for
trespass to chattel when
they...
An individual is liable for trespass to chattel
when they, without consent or privilege, use or
otherwise intentionally intermeddle with chattel that is in the possession of another, and the
chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality,
or value.
133. CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber
Promotions, Inc.
One is subject to liability
for trespass to chattel if...
One is subject to liability for trespass to chattel
if, (1) he dispossesses another of the chattel,(2) the value of the chattel is impaired,(3)
the possessor is deprived of the use of the
chattel or (4) harm is caused to the possessor
of the chattel.
134. Pearson v. Dodd
A conversion is an intentional exercise of control over a chattel which so seriously interferes
with the right of another to control it that the
actor may justly be required to pay the other
the full value of the chattel.
135. O'Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co. A party is not liable for assault if the alleged
unlawful contact was justified or the accusing
party otherwise consented to such contact.
136.
19 / 20
MU LAW Myers' Torts Cases
Study online at https://quizlet.com/_ceeyj5
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Ben- A party is liable for damages for the intentional,
gals, Inc.
unauthorized striking of another even during
the course of an otherwise violent activity.
137. Mohr v. Williams
An absence of evil intent or negligence on the
part of a defendant does not operate as a
defense to the civil tort of assault and battery.
138. De May v. Roberts
If someone consents to a person's presence in
her home but later learns that the person's credentials had been misrepresented, she may
maintain an action and recover damages once
she discovers the person's true character.
139. Katko v. Briney
A person, in protecting his property, may not
use force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury, except where there is also a
threat to personal safety that justifies self defense.
140. Bonkowski v. Arlan's Department Store
Merchant Privilege
A merchant has the privilege to detain a person within the immediate vicinity of his premises for reasonable investigation if he believes
the person has unlawfully taken chattel.
141. Surocco v. Geary
Under the common law, a party who destroys
the property of another on the basis of a
good-faith, public necessity will not be held
liable for the damages.
142. Vincent v. Lake Erie Trans- A party who damages the property of another
portation Co.
while acting out of private necessity must com#Necessity
pensate the property owner for the resulting
damage.
143. Sindle v. New York City
Transit Authority
#defense, #justification
A person entrusted with the care or supervision of a child may use a reasonably necessary amount of force to maintain discipline or
promote the welfare of the child.
20 / 20