Torts I
Fall 2007
Susan Keller
Reading Assignments
The required text for the course is Henderson, Pearson and Siliciano, The Torts
Process (7th ed. 2003). All page references labeled H are to this text. Assignments
labeled “handout” will be distributed ahead of time in class. After the reading
assignment, you will see a description of any relevant exercises or homework
assignments (“ex.”). Finally, you will see references to Schwartz, Expert Learning for
Law Students (2005), labeled ELLS, which will provide a helpful review for the learning
goals of the week. Principle cases with starting page numbers in parentheses are noted
for your reference. You should, however, read all pages listed in the assignment.
Assume any Problems that fall within the assigned pages are to be studied for
discussion purposes, unless instructed otherwise.
WEEK
TOPICS
Introduction:
1
Holdings, Battery and
Intentional Torts.
ASSIGNMENT
CASES
Handout 1 (follows
syllabus), H 1-28.
Vosburg v. Putney (13)
Garratt v. Dailey (19)
Ex.: forming holdings
ELLS 109-111
2
Battery;
H 29-32, Handout 2,
H 32-37.
Using Broad and Narrow
Holdings to Apply and
Ex.: Crafting Broad
Distinguish Cases
and Narrow Holdings
3
Introduction to Rules
and the Restatement;
Other Intentional Torts:
 Assault
 False Imprisonment
 Intentional Infliction
of Emotional Distress
4
The Privilege of
Consent
H 10-11, 683 (top),
685 (Restatement
sections only),
688-691, 695-697,
700-711, 716-719.
Ex.: Drafting Hypos
from Rules
Forming your own
Restatement
ELLS 149-156
H 38-65
Omit problem 2
Ex.:
Applying and
Distinguishing,
Practice Midterm
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel (30)
McCracken v. Sloan (handout)
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor (32)
Coblyn v. Kennedy’s, Inc. (688)
State Rubbish Collectors v. Siliznoff
(695)
Samms v. Eccles (700)
Taylor v. Metzger (702)
Brandon v. Cty. of Richardson (708)
Jones v. Clinton (716)
O’Brien v. Cunard Steamship (38)
Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. (42)
Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital (48)
Kennedy v. Parrott (50)
Hackbert v. Cincinnati Bengals (58)
WEEK
5
TOPIC
The Privilege of SelfDefense;
The Privilege of
Necessity
ASSIGNMENT
H 71-76,
Handout 3,
H 93-103
CASES
State v. Kelly (handout)
State v. Stewart (handout)
Ploof v. Putnam (93)
Vincent v. Lake Erie (95)
Ex.: The Patterns
of Rationales
ELLS 111-116
6
Introduction to
Causation;
H 106-120
Hoyt v. Jeffers (107)
Smith v. Rapid Transit Inc. (109)
Summers v. Tice (119)
H 120-138
Ybarra v. Spangard (121)
Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric (134)
Kingston v. Chicago and N.W. Ry. (135)
H 149-164
Brown v. Kendall (150)
U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co. (159)
Midterm Review
7
Causation
Midterm (Oct. 3)
8
Introduction to
Negligence
Ex.: Using
examples and
counterexamples
ELLS 182-184,
9
Negligence:
Duty and Breach
H 166-187
Ex.: Drafting Hypos
from Cases
Negligence Per Se
Washington v. La. Power and Light (166)
Weirum v. RKO (168)
Martin v. Herzog (177)
Tedla v. Ellman (179)
Brown v. Shyne (182)
ELLS 236-238
10
Negligence:
H 189-193, 217236, 242-257
Custom
Special Relationship
Ex.: Creating
Graphic Organizers
Duty to Rescue
ELLS 158-167
Trimarco v. Klein (189)
The T.J. Hooper (190)
Rowland v. Christian (223)
Erie R. Co. v. Stewart (230)
Tubbs v. Argus (233)
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Calif.(242)
WEEK
TOPIC
ASSIGNMENT
CASES
12
Introduction to
Proximate Cause
H 259-263,
291-294, 266-271
Lyons v. Midnight Sun Transportation
(261)
Gorris v. Scott (291)
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. (266)
13
Proximate Cause
H 275-287,
263-265
Marshall v. Nugent (275)
Herrera v. Quality Pontiac (279)
Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co. (283)
Cahoon v. Cummings (263)
Alternate approaches
Ex.: Using case
law in exam
answers
14
Proximate Cause
Alternate approaches
H 294-300
Ex.: Exam Practice
Petition of Kinsman Transit Co.
(295-297 in notes)
Torts I
Fall 2007
Susan Keller
HANDOUT #1
Introductory Exercise:
Techniques for Developing Holdings
Please read the following scene. The exercises that follow are designed to review the technique
of writing holdings for legal cases. Please reread pages 109-111 in the ELLS text.
The day had arrived for the annual “Law Review vs. Faculty” softball game. Louise did not
enjoy playing organized sports—she had always been picked last in gym class—but as a
relatively new, untenured professor, she thought it was a good idea to show the proper spirit. So,
she put on her sneakers and the LexisNexis baseball cap she had gotten as a freebie at a Civil
Procedure conference and showed up to play. There were just about enough professors to field a
team, but the law review had shown up with a large number of very athletic young men and
women, all wearing matching t-shirts, who gathered in a large circle and chanted rhythmically.
Warren was a Torts Professor, and because he had brought the bats and gloves, it made sense to
appoint him captain of the faculty team. “They look hungry,” he said, “but we’ve got to keep
our winning streak alive!” Warren began assigning positions. Louise had played in enough
friendly softball games to know that she would be assigned to one of the two positions reserved
for people who were embarrassingly bad players: either short center, where the shortstop or
centerfielder could run over and shove her out of the way to make the catch when she wasn’t
paying attention as frequently happened, or catcher. There hardly seemed a point to having a
catcher for slow-pitch softball; it seemed to her to be just a (slightly) glorified ball boy needed to
chase down the pitches. As it happened, old Professor Morris who had long passed retirement
age was seen as a more proficient player than Louise and so she was assigned to be catcher.
It was a long, hot afternoon and Louise chased down ball after ball, enduring the sighs and
groans of exasperation as she repeatedly failed to deliver the balls crisply to the mound. Gamely,
she whiffed her bat, wiped the sweat from her brow and cheered her team when her colleagues
got on base. Finally, it was a 1-1 tie going into the bottom of the ninth inning. The law review
was up, and Veronica, the editor-in-chief who had also been Louise’s research assistant, got a
single. Louise had just written Veronica a glowing letter of recommendation for a judicial
clerkship and she could not help feeling a flash of pride when Veronica pumped her fist in the air
at first base. The next batter hit the ball sharply. It flew past the pitcher, past the shortstop and
bounced oddly when it landed in front of the left fielder. As the outfielders scrambled for the
ball, Veronica was chugging hard around the bases. Louise heard someone yell, “Play at the
plate! Play at the plate!” Louise looked around to see if the pitcher or the firstbaseman were
coming over to cover the plate as they had on an earlier play. Then she heard, “Hey, catcher,
play at the plate!” The ball was scooting toward her. Louise put down her glove, and,
miraculously, the ball bounced into it. She stood up and ran to home plate as Veronica was
rounding third. Louise held up the ball, but Veronica, red-faced and pumping her arms, did not
slow down. “Hold your ground, Louise,” someone yelled.
Louise turned her head in the direction of the voice. She did not want to disappoint her team. In
that instant, the collision occurred. As Veronica catapulted into her, Louise fell hard to the
ground, her feet flying into the air, the hot, dry dust flying up around them. She heard feet
running toward her and was conscious of the sound of anxious voices. She saw faces above her,
leaning in. She wondered if she looked badly hurt.
“Does she have the ball?” she heard Warren say. Louise turned her head and saw the ball lying
in the dirt a foot from her hand. Warren angrily threw his hat to the ground and a large cheer
broke from the throats of the law review members. As Louise pulled herself to her feet, she
thought perhaps it might be a good idea next semester to create some cooperative learning
exercises that would reduce the competitive atmosphere of law school.
_______________________
Please complete the following questions as completely as possible. They will not be collected,
but we will rely on them in the first class session.
1. What are the most important details in the above scenario for understanding the story?
2. List those details (or describe them generally) that you would most likely omit in a very
brief summary.
3. Before moving on to question 4, write your own summary of the scene in 1-3 sentences.
4. We will be working with the formula for summarizing legal cases set out in the ELLS
text. For now, you will apply it to the scene about the Faculty and Law Review Softball
Game.
When A [character] does B [situation], C [outcome] happens.
a. Who is A? Who is the most significant character?
b. What is the situation (B), what A does or the circumstances in which A finds him
or herself? Try to be as succinct as possible.
c. What happens? What is the ultimate outcome (C) of the scene (or case)?
Now combine these three elements into a single sentence:
5. Next, read pages 1-15, including the case, Vosburg v. Putney. Look at the fourth
paragraph of the case on page 13, in which the facts of the case are presented in brackets.
Write a summary just of the facts of the case using the technique in #4 above:
6. Of course, legal cases go beyond the rendition of facts to offer a legal determination.
When the facts of a case are connected to the legal outcome, you have the holding. The
“C” part of the summary will be the legal outcome. In other words, what does the court
decide in a circumstance in which A does B? This is the hardest part of the holding for
Vosburg v. Putney, and we will spend time on it in class. For now, try to explain the
legal outcome of the case in a phrase (part C of your holding):
7. Now, add in Parts A and B to create a complete holding (When A [character] does B
[situation], C [legal outcome] happens).
8. Complete the rest of your brief for Vosburg v. Putney.