Torts – Flashcard
Unlock all answers in this set
Unlock answersquestion
Cecarelli v. Maher
answer
Classic battery case: guy gets beat up; gets money for medical expenses, lost employment and pain and suffering
question
Paul v. Holbrook
answer
2 occasions of unwanted shoulder massages. whether touching is offensive, should go to jury- Battery's goal: protect integrity of person, the element of dignity has a lot of weight - Test: whether offensive to "ordinary person not unduly sensitive to personal dignity" o Offensiveness is for jury to decide - here, reasonable jury could
question
Beach v. Hancock
answer
Pointing an unloaded gun counts as assault - intended to create the 'imminent apprehension' of harm.
question
Brooker v. Silverthorne
answer
- man cusses out woman telephone operator, says, "why if I were there I would cause you phys harm" - "words never constitute an assault" o Threat to injury, but at indefinite time, able to avoid o Unless special relationship, e.g. common carrier - Need reasonable grounds for apprehension, person of ordinary reason and firmness - C: Here, ordinary person would not apprehend imminent harm - "despicable, but not civilly actionable"
question
Vetter v. Morgan
answer
3 guys shouted and made obscene gestures to woman in van at night; words together with circumstances caused reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful/offensive contact
question
Vosburg v. Putney
answer
kick at school, intent to unlawful touching (not intent to harm); eggshell skull; verdict for P
question
Cole v. Hibberd
answer
D playfully kicked P in rear; battery because only intention to make contact matters, not whether D acted with intention to cause harm
question
Wagner v. State
answer
mental patient attacks P; intent to cause contact is enough, D does not need to appreciate that act is harmful or offensive, unfortunately government immunity from intentional torts
question
In re White (White vs. Davis)
answer
bankrupt shooter accidentally shoots neighbor instead of arguer. Under doctrine of transferred intent: liable for battery (in bankruptcy court. debt will discharge unless it's a battery). RULE: "injury is not required to be directed against the victim," just "wrongful act intentionally done"...w injuries resulting from that act
question
Nelson v. Carroll
answer
unintentional nightclub shooting (D intended to pistol whip but accidentally shot). ACCOUNTABLE FOR UNINTENTIONAL RESULTS of battery. RULE: If you're in the process of doing some kind of battery, you're not exculpated from unintentional result same tort, different victim (transferred intent)
question
Herr v. Booten
answer
No Battery. Proximate cause - e.g. alcohol poisoning (case), P's own acts as superseding cause o Intent requirement not satisfied - no evidence that defs intended for P to be killed, no evidence that they could have been substantially certain that their actions would kill him
question
Koffman v. Garnett
answer
13-year old boy tackled by football coach; sustained claim for battery because jury could disagree on whether P gave implied consent, P consented to being tackled by players of like size and experience, not to tackling by adult coaches......must allege no consent as a matter of law
question
Mullins v. Parkview
answer
medical student performed an intubation that lacerated P's esophagus, requiring additional surgery and recovery time. P had not consented to student involvement in her surgery. She sued for battery and lost. Synopsis of Rule of Law. Battery requires a harmful or offensive touching, without consent, with the intent to cause the resulting harm or offense. Did not act intending to commit harm
question
Haeussler v. De Loretto
answer
P went to neighbor's house to look for dog and got angry, D asked P to leave and then struck him once; D acted in self-defense and used reasonable force...Retreat: courts split on duty to retreat, but second restatement says non-deadly force is ok, but deadly force not, in lieu of retreating
question
Katko v. Briney
answer
abandoned farmhouse with springloaded shotgun. NO DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY
question
Burns Philp Food, Inc. v. Cavalea Cont'l Freight, Inc.
answer
Notice is not an element of trespass, and D can recover damages on its counter-claim in trespass without having notified P as long as it suffered monetary loss.
question
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.
answer
Docking ship in storm (and causing damage to dock) was reasonable under circumstances, but still produces liability because deliberate action caused damage.
question
Thyroff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
answer
Conversion lies for electronic records, needn't be tangible a insurance agent gets computers from company, who retain data when he gets fired
question
Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc.
answer
Consent to enter home for vet to treat cat did not extend to videotaping for news broadcast....student secretly videotaped vet's practice methods on P's property; became trespasser by exceeding scope of P's permission
question
Sturges v. Bridgman
answer
Injunction against confectioner for nuisance to a doctor. even though confectioner was there first, nuisance is a product of circumstances.
question
Walter v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
answer
pharmacist ruled negligent as a matter of law
question
Heaven v. Pender
answer
Duty element: articulated duty as "ordinary care and skill" standard...The plaintiff, a painter, was injured owing to defective staging while painting the hull of a ship. Held, that the defendant who erected the staging had invited the plaintiff to use the staging, and as the plaintiff's injury had resulted from the negligence of the defendant, the defendant was liable Duty to use ordinary care even without contract in situations that demand it, with reasonably foreseeable harm
question
Mussivand v. David
answer
STD from affair to husband, husband sues, court allows negligence claim to proceed b/c reasonably foreseeable.....Dixie's husband is a foreseeable victim; D had duty to abstain or duty to warn
question
Osterlind v. Hill
answer
D leased canoe to drunk people and ignored calls for help. NO DUTY so no liability found.
question
Baker v. Fenneman & Brown Properties
answer
Taco Bell employee didn't help P who fainted and got injured in store; special relationship gives rise to duty to aid and protect; policy: possessor of land who opens it to public has duty to warn, protect, or rescue
question
Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of California
answer
Parents of girl killed sue psychiatrist, psychologist, police, and employer for negligence (on special relationship between patient and doctors). Relationship between patient and doctors is enough for victim to establish a duty and to go to court on breach of duty.
question
Edwards v. Honeywell
answer
In case, Posner looks at who is the cheapest cost provider? - Economics take on the legal issue Fireman's widow sues D, maker of a fire alarm in the house where her husband was killed. Dispatcher has wrong information about fire department jurisdiction, adding 3:15 to time needed to reach appropriate department. Duty runs from the injurer to the victim when there is a failure to exercise due care - was the fireman an unforeseeable victim A person is not liable for such improbable consequences of negligent activity as could hardly figure in his deciding how careful he should be. That's what insurance is for.
question
Myers v. Heritage Enters., Inc.
answer
Ordinary Care: Woman dropped in nursing home, dies unrelatedly soon after, her estate sues home. Instruction should have been for ordinary negligence, not professional negligence.
question
Martin v. Evans
answer
D backed up truck into P at rest stop, took 2 minutes to record logbook but did check mirrors, release brakes, turn on flashers, and back up slowly; jury verdict that D exercised ordinary care
question
Pingaro v. Rossi
answer
dog-bitten meter reader can keep jury verdict, needn't prove that D knew of dog's dangerous propensities (strict liability for dog owners under NJ statute)
question
Jones v. Port Authority of Allegheny County
answer
Man fell on moving bus. Common carriers have highest duty of care, jury instruction must reflect that and not ordinary standard. reversal, new trial because trial judge didn't give instruction reflecting higher care for common carriers
question
Campbell v. Kovich
answer
Woman hurt by boy lawn mowing with reasonable care. No issue of material fact. (summary judgment was appropriate)
question
Adams v. Bullock
answer
Trolley with overhead wire hurt boy swinging wire. Jury verdict for boy affirmed on appeal. No negligence because duty not ignored (injury due to extraordinary circumstances).
question
Beausoleil v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
answer
- Person ran across Amtrak traintracks Drive of train admitted to knowing that persons routinely crossed trains The question of whether the railroad was reckless should be presented to a jury, To prove recklessness, the representative must prove that there was a high probability that a person would be seriously injured or killed crossing the tracks at the station, and that the railroad intentionally or unreasonably disregarded the risk. Breach of Duty
question
Vaughan v. Menlove
answer
OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF CARE for guy whose hay burned down neighbor's house, despite having acted to 'the best of his abilities'.....haystack caught fire; standard is the ordinarily prudent man, "congenital defects will be allowed for in the courts of Heaven"
question
Appelhans v. McFall
answer
kid crashes bike into old guy, breaks hip. no negligence to child as a matter of law because of tender years doctrine
question
(The TJ Hooper)
answer
custom is not determinative of reasonable care (but still relevant as evidence)....2 boats lost in storm. tugs unseaworthy b.c did not have radios, even though industry standard was not to have radios.
question
Johnson v. Riverdale Anesthesia Associates
answer
medical expert witness cannot testify as to how he would have treated P (who died b/c not preoxygenated by anaesthesiologist) b/c not relevant to/indicative of general standard of care.
question
Carroll Towing Co. v. United States
answer
Breach of Duty: sinking of the boat, no bargee on board; Hand says low burden of having the bargee on board so D is at fault also, if B<PL then must take the precaution
question
Rhode Island Hosp. Trust Nat'l Bank v. Zapata Corp.
answer
D employee forged checks, didn't promptly examine bank statements; bank's widely used system for detecting forged checks not "lack of ordinary care", saves $125k annually and no increase in undetected forgeries so precaution not worth taking..................- Case is straight-forward because it's a money issue. And the contractual relationship between bank and customer will allow all the bank's costs to be passed straight on to the customers. A seemingly clean application of Hand formula. Harder questions are personal injury cases when you are valuing human life. Harder when we are dealing with strangers. Person who is run over gets no sharing of benefits and burdens like bank customers.
question
Calabresi's Rule
answer
• • Cost minimization implies taking prevention until the marginal benefit of prevention equals the marginal harm from accidents Take all the possibilities for accidents that might occur as given • Efficiency calls for minimizing the cost of accidents, or Min (CP + CI + CA) where • CP is the cost of preventing accidents • CI is the cost of injuries, i.e. the accidents themselves • CA is the cost of administering the system
question
Byrne v. Boadle
answer
flour falls on guy's head in the street, fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of negligence, so court invents res ipsa loquitur and burden shifts to D to disprove negligence
question
Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp.
answer
Malpractice suit after 18" x 18" pad was left in patient's abdomen after hysterectomy. "where the actual or specific cause of an accident is unknown, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur a jury may in certain circumstances infer negligence merely from the happening of an event and the defendant's relation to it." standard for P (besides 3 conditions to invoke) is that its more likely than not that injury was caused by D's negligence (doesn't have to disprove all other possible causes)
question
Dalal v. City of New York
answer
D in accident not wearing glasses against law is negligence per se. statute sets up standard of care, the unexcused violation of which is negligence per se (339)
question
Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Corp.
answer
P unloading goods and falls because D has no guardrail as required by regulation; regulation applies to D and P is member of protected class. Negligence per se.
question
Victor v. Hedges
answer
Hedges parked his car on the sidewalk and P was injured while looking at a cd player in the truck when another driver smashed into it. Statute violated: not supposed to park on the sidewalk. For an ordinary negligence action this would not be reasonably foreseeable. This was not the reason for the statute—so the Ds get summary judgment. The basic thing, this is not what the legislature had in mind in enacting the statute.
question
Martin v. Herzog
answer
Driver didn't turn on lights after sunset but claimed contributory negligence because other drive on wrong side of road; negligence per se----The unexcused violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se and a jury may not relax the duty that one traveler owes under a statute to another. Negligent conduct is not actionable by itself unless there is a showing that such conduct was the cause of the injuries incurred.
question
De Haen v. Rockwood Sprinkler
answer
guardrail to prevent workmen from falling, but Cardozo deemed also to not place objects there - allowed Neg. Per Se When the chief object of statue is designed to protect certain class of people, and then someone doesn't follow it causing someone else injury, then neg. per se.
question
United States v. Reliable Transfer Co.
answer
Facts Reliable Transfer Co. (P) had a tanker stranded on sandbank and blamed the Untied States (D) Coast Guard for failing to provide a notification light or system to help avoid stranding. Rule of Law When two or more parties have contributed by their fault to cause property damage in a maritime collision or stranding, liability for such damages is to be allocated among the parties proportionately to the comparative degree of their fault, and the liability for such damages is to be allocated equally only when the parties are equally at fault or when it is not possible to fairly measure the comparative degree of fault. (This rule went against divided damages rule/equal)
question
Hunt v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction
answer
P stuck her hand in snowblower; P 40% at fault for not using common sense and D 60% for giving inadequate training...Comparative Fault
question
Jones v. Dressel
answer
Express Assumption of Risk: Teen skydiver in airplane crash, P tried to argue waiver void as K of adhesion and contrary to public policy; waiver valid, not a commercial carrier, also P could have paid more to make D liable for negligence
question
Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd.
answer
Facts (P) who had signed a liability release form, was injured at (D), a ski resort, after colliding with a metal pole that formed part of a control maze for a ski lift line.(Question of Assumption of Risk) Rule of Law A standard signed liability waiver form may be held unenforceableif it violates public policy.
question
Smollet v. Skayting
answer
Facts (P), an experienced skater, fell at (D's) rink and suffered a fractured wrist. (D) argued (P) assumed the risk. Rule of Law Assumption of risk is a complete bar to recovery for non-negligent conduct.
question
Murphy v. Steeplechase Am
answer
Vigorous young man falls on the Flopper; assumed the known risk of being injured by that sort of negligence Cardozo ruled this was to be expected and remanded for new trial after P had received verdict in his favor
question
Skinner v. Square D Co.
answer
Facts Skinner was killed after suffering an electric shock while using a homemade tumbling machine that employed an electric on/off switch manufactured by Square D Co. (D). Rule of Law On the issue of but for causation, a plaintiff must present substantial evidence from which a jury may conclude that it was more likely than not that but for the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred.
question
Kaminski v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co.
answer
P hit by trailer which was hit by train; no other possible scenario, established actual cause
question
Schedlbauer v. Chris-Craft Corp.
answer
Actual Cause: pleasure boat exploded, circumstantial evidence of defective fuel pump; more likely than not caused the explosion.....Boat explosion - Allegedly fuel pump negligently made and based on expert testimony, a jury could find that more probably than not the fuel pump made the boat explosion.
question
Howe v. Michigan C. R. Co.
answer
Fall from bridge
question
Falcon v. Memorial Hospital
answer
Facts After giving birth to a healthy baby, P suffered a complete respiratory and cardiac collapse resulting in her death. The expert of (P) testified at a deposition prior to trial that had the defendant physician, (D), followed standard procedure, P would have had a 37.5 chance of survival. Rule of Law A plaintiff may recover in a malpractice suit for the loss of the opportunity of avoiding physical harm if that lost opportunity was a substantial factor, albeit less than 50 percent, in causing the harm. So P got 37.5% times the damages recovered.
question
McDonald v. Robinson
answer
Facts (D) vehicle collided with another vehicle driven by (D) at an intersection. The cars became entangled and struck (P), who was walking on the sidewalk near where the accident occurred. Rule of Law If the acts of two or more persons contribute to and cause an accident, a person injured by the accident may sue both actors jointly or severally, and recover against one or all of them.
question
Aldridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
answer
Toxic Torts Chemicals supplied by D constituted only a small fraction of total chemicals in toxic soup; P failed to show D chemicals were of themselves sufficient to cause actual harm, substantial factor test denied.
question
Anderson v. Minneapolis
answer
Two Fires. P claimed D's fire burned his property down. D said it was other separate fire. Court said both fires combined to burn down property. Court said if D's fire was deemed a "material factor" then it should be treated as a cause of P's damage. These are multiple sufficient causes. But-for test doesn't work here. (Duplicative causation)
question
Summers v. Tice
answer
(P) sued two defendants for personal injury caused when both defendants shot in his direction. Rule of Law When two or more persons by their acts are possibly the sole cause of a harm, and the plaintiff has introduced evidence that one of the two persons is culpable (responsible), then the defendant has the burden of proving that the other person was the sole cause of that harm.
question
Sindell v. Abbott Labs
answer
P developed cancer because mother took DES, D's knew or should have known dangers but continued to advertise and market it, appeal involves only 5 D's; alternative causation doesn't work because D's not in better position to prove causation (passage of time) and any 1 of 200 companies which manufactured DES could have made the drug that harmed P, concert of action doesn't work because insufficient evidence to show tacit understanding between companies, enterprise liability (blasting caps case) doesn't work because too many companies and drug regulation issues; MARKET SHARE LIABILITY - each D held liable for proportion of judgment corresponding to its share of the market unless individual D can prove its way out (didn't manufacture at time of P's injury)
question
Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.
answer
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department (New York) denied summary judgment to Defendants, drug manufacturers in products liability action arising from injuries plaintiffs suffered as result of plaintiffs' mothers' use of diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy. The manufacturer appealed. Rule of Law Where identification of the manufacturer of a drug that injures a plaintiff is impossible, New York courts will apply a market share theory, using a national market, to determine liability and apportionment of damages.
question
Ravo v. Rogatnick
answer
P suffers brain damage at birth, obstetrician negligent and pediatrician misdiagnosed and improperly treated; obstetrician 80% and pediatrician 20%, injury is indivisible so D's held jointly and severally liable Two or more tortfeasors may be held jointly and severally liable when acting concurrently or in concert to produce a single injury.
question
Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton
answer
Facts (P) sued (D) for damages for injuries sustained as a result of (D) alleged negligence in manufacturing a defective pump which caught fire, proximately causing (P) injuries. Rule of Law Legal cause is not established if the defendant's conduct or product only provides the condition that makes the plaintiff's injury possible.
question
In re Polemis
answer
Leaking benzene and falling plank lead to ship burning down; even though not foreseeable that a falling plank would lead to the ship burning down, proximate cause because carelessness directly caused the explosion
question
Wagon Mound #1
answer
Proximate Cause - Foreseeability -- D released oil into harbor, P was dock owner and did consult with D to determine risks; not foreseeable that spilled oil would burn down the whole dock
question
Wagon Mound #2
answer
Brief Fact Summary. The defendants negligently caused oil to spill into the Port of Sydney. This spill did minimal damage to the plaintiff's ships. The oil subsequently caused a fire when molten metal dropped into the water and ignited cotton waste floating in the port. The fire destroyed the ships. Synopsis of Rule of Law. If a party did nothing to prevent the injury, he is liable for the foreseeable consequences of his actions, even if the consequences are remote.
question
Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council
answer
D left abandoned boat where children played, P got squashed trying to repair it; all 3 court levels used foreseeability test, trial judge says reasonably foreseeable, appeals says accident was of different type/kind that any D could have foreseen, lords says test is not as to particulars but as to genus, general meddling and injury to children is reasonably foreseeable To satisfy the element of proximate cause, the precise manner in which the complained of injury came about and its extent need not have been foreseeable.
question
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
answer
Rule: A defendant is only liable to plaintiff's whose injuries are within the circle of reasonable foreseeability. If the chance of any harm is unforeseeable, it is beyond a defendant's duty and power to prevent it.
question
Petitions of the Kinsman Transit Co.
answer
So in this case, in January 1959, heavy ice flowed through the Buffalo River causing two large ships to break free from their docked positions. The ships then crashed into a closed drawbridge operated by the City of Buffalo. The two ships and the downed bridge created a dam in the narrow river, flooding homes and properties upstream from the accident. Rule of law: Where damages from an accident were of the same general sort that were foreseeable, unforeseeability of the exact manner in which the accident occurred and the extent of the loss will not limit liability.
question
Pollard v. OKC RR
answer
P is injured by explosives another kid stole from RR barrel • Result: actions are a superseding cause • No liability for defendant train company; potential liability for Justes
question
Clark v. E.I. Du Pont
answer
Boy found solidified glycerine and buried it, undisturbed for 2 years before P's boys found it and exploded, D NOT exonerated from liability and boy's actions NOT superseding cause
question
Rylands v. Fletcher
answer
(D) built a reservoir on his land, but the water escaped through an abandoned mine shaft and flooded an adjoining mine owned by (P). Rule:A person using his land for a dangerous, non-natural use is strictly liable for damage to another's property resulting from such non-natural use. The landmark English held that one who brings something onto his land which is non-natural and is likely to cause injury if it escapes, is strictly liable for all damages resulting from the escape.
question
Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp.
answer
Fireworks discharged by defendant pyrotechnic company exploded near a crowd and injured plaintiff onlookers. The discharge of fireworks was an abnormally dangerous activity justifying imposition of strict liability: that is, it was an activity that is not of common usage and that presents an ineliminably high risk of serious bodily injury or property damage. Fairness weighed in favor of requiring the pyrotechnicians who present the displays to bear the loss, rather than the unfortunate spectators who suffer the injuries. The problem of proof the case presented for the plaintiffs also supported imposing strict liability on defendant.
question
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
answer
a person who bought a car which had a defective wheel could sue the manufacturer for negligence even though they bought it from the local dealership and not the manufacturer; If a manufacturer negligently puts a product on the market in a defective condition knowing it is going to be used without inspection and reaches the consumer in the same condition it left the manufacturer, then manufacturer is responsible. A manufacturer will be strictly liable for injury caused by his product where, if negligently made, it will be dangerous to the life of any potential user. No privity required.
question
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno
answer
Where waitress was putting coke bottles into fridge and one exploded, causing severe injuries. P argued: D was negligent in selling bottles which "on account of excessive pressure of gas or by reason of some defect in the bottle" were dangerous and likely to explode. P plead on theory of negligence, and court allowed it to go forward on res ispa loquitur. Procedure: Jury found for P, affirmed on appeal. Gibson says: "Res ipsa loquitur". Concurrence by Traynor argues for strict liability in tort for manufacturers of defective products; it is to the public interest to discourage the marketing of products having defects that are a menace to the public; it is to the public interest to place responsibility for injuries resulting from defective products on the manufacturer, since he is responsible for the products reaching the market
question
Greenman v. Yuba Power Prods., Inc
answer
(P), is injured when a piece of wood flew out of power tool he was using and struck his forehead, sued the manufacturer and retailer of the product. (The particular screws were not strong enough). Rule: When an article is placed on the market by a manufactuerer who knows that the product will be used without inspection for defects, the manufacturer will be strictly liable in tort for any injury caused by a defect in the product. A landmark supreme court case that California adopted the Doctrine of strict liability in tort from as a basis for product liability actions.
question
Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co.
answer
Extends strict liability to retailer because they are integral part of producing and marketing enterprise brakes locked 1. Manufacturer cannot delegate final inspection 2. You can sue anyone in the chain for products liability 3. Strict liability is judge decided, not jury
question
Elmore v. American Motors Corp.
answer
(Disconnected drive shaft) Injury to bystander is often a foreseeable risk of the maker's enterprise can still adjust costs accordingly, bystander has even less chance to inspect product for defects driveshaft cause car to wreck into oncoming traffic/car 1. Bystanders with physical injury can sue either party
question
Gower v. Savage Arms, Inc.
answer
(P) alleged that he was injured when his hunting rifle, manufactured by D, accidentally went off and shot him in his foot as a result of several defects. They sought to hold D and the company that bought D strictly liable under a theory of successor liability. Rule: 1) An insufficient warnings claim will be dismissed on summary where there is no showing that a failure to warn caused the plaintiff's injuries. 2) A defective design claim will be dismissed on summary where there is no showing that the alleged defect caused the plaintiff's injuries. 3) A defective design claim will not be dismissed on summary judgment where there is insufficient factual information available to the court to determine whether the product's design rendered the product unreasonably dangerous. A manufacturing defect claim will not be dismissed on summary judgment where there is evidence that the allegedly defective product was not manufactured according to specifications.
question
Chow v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.
answer
(P) contended that (D), the manufacturer of Lewis Red Devil Lye, a substance commonly known as lye, was not entitled to summary judgment as to (P) defective design claim because defendants had failed to present evidence that its product's utility outweighed its inherent danger, and , therefore, had not met its burden of proof. (he got burns to his face and lost an eye) Rule of Law To be entitled to summary judgment in a defective design case, a defendant must do more than state, in categorical language in an attorney's affirmation, that its product is inherently dangerous and that its dangers are well known, by affirmatively demonstrating that its product is reasonably safe it its intended use, i.e., that the utility of the product outweighs its inherent danger.
question
Jackson v. General Motors Corp
answer
(P) lost control of his car, which was manufactured by (D), and the car hit a tree. Although he was wearing his seatbelt, and was traveling less than 25 miles per hour, and his seat was positioned as far back as possible, his face hit the steering wheel and he suffered multiple fractures to the face was a result of the crash and consequently developed tempandibular joint dysfunction (TMJ). He brought a products liability suit in federal district court against D, claiming the seatbelt was unreasonably dangerous. The district court granted summary judgment to D, and the court of appeals certified a question to the state's highest court, which accepted the question. Rule In a products liability action, the plaintiff may use the "consumer expectation test" to prove that the product at issue was unreasonably dangerous because it failed to conform to the safety standards expected by an ordinary consumer under the circumstances.
question
Anderson v. Ownes-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
answer
Plaintiff worked as an electrician at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for 35 years. During this work, Plaintiff allegedly was exposed to asbestos while working near others who were removing and installing insulation products aboard ships. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant alleging that Plaintiff's exposure to Defendant's asbestos products resulted in his asbestosis and other lung ailments. Rule: Knowledge or knowability of the risk according to the state of the art evidence at the time of distribution is a component of strict liability for failure to warn. ....... failure to warn case about asbestos lung ailments, P focused on failure to warn but problem was manufacturer can introduce state of the art evidence showing lack of knowledge about asbestos dangers
question
Motus v. Pfizer Inc
answer
patient committed suicide after Zoloft drug manufacturer does not owe duty to warn to patient, learned intermediary doctrine P failed to prove that Dr. Trostler would have acted differently if he had adquate warnings, and does not baseits decision on his awreness of Zoloft's risks, so no need to consider overpromotion.
question
Products Liability Test
answer
1. Injury 2. Product 3. Seller 4. Defect a. Manufacturing Defect b. Design Defect i. Consumer Expectations Test ii. Risk Utility Test c. Warning Defect 5. Causation
question
Risk Utility Test
answer
should be used for any case in which the question of how to design the product involves technical issues beyond jurors' common knowledge.
question
Consumer Expectations Test
answer
Cases involving deigns issue that are a matter of everyday experience, and hence do not call for jurors to defer to engineers and other experts
