Miscellaneous / Sec 1A Torts Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Case name?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

Forced Order
Also try: Click a Car Logo
Challenge
Share
Tweet
Embed
Score 0/77 Timer 15:00
HoldingCase
mental suffering: doesn't require physical impact, but does require physical manifestation
cannot recover for loss of enjoyment of life w/o cog. awareness
firefighter rule doesn't apply beyond premises liability
mental distress: dillon standard
when statute: private action must be consistent w/ legislative scheme
constructive notice of danger --> negligence
financial harm: no knowledge of particular use, therefore no duty
bring something onto land -->mischief-->you're responsible
knowingly encountering a risk created by D --> secondary assumption of risk
road surface, lack of signs: discretionary act -->liablity
No liability when result would be crushing liability
Common carriers required to exercise reasonable care NOT extraordinary care
Med Mal: national standard > similar localities test
res ipsa to smoke out which doc was negligent
spare tire flew off truck = res ipsa
'shocks the conscious' --> overrule compensatory damages
foreseeability: probable consequences standard
false information --> liable for resulting harm
complex product: use risk/utility
failure to follow industry standard doesn't establish negligence
Chem spill: use negligence, not SL
motorcycle w/ no leg guards --> design defect
no proof of elapsed time --> no constructive notice
established: lawful act + ordinary care = no liability
mental distress: lack of physical manifestation OK; standard: ordinary sensitive person
Dillon standard doesn't apply to mother + kidnapped baby in hospital
HoldingCase
bible study group: licensee not invitee
no relationship if far away --> no duty
qualified immunity for govt
fungible product: liability by market share
Applies Birkner test for scope of employment --> vicarious liability
GM design defect, but P was responsible too
legal, but inherently dangerous activity: liable
safety statute = negligence per se; rule of the road doesn't
Jury decides reasonable precautions for crossing train tracks
econ harm: if foreseeable, can recover
No special relationship --> no aff duty
Negligent entrustment = not ok
Baller scientist gets disfigured: high non-pecuniary damages upheld
conscious disregard for others --> punitive damages
extreme event: only reasonable for damages that were foreseeable
state of the art: ex ante approach
No lights on buggy: negligence per se
Falling barrel = res ipsa
B < PL
Therapist has duty to protect threatened victim
FDA requires waning--> exception to learned intermediary doctrine
expert med testimony --> causation
Adequate precautions against foreseeable risks = no liability
police: no duty re: specific threats
products: rejects privity; duty of care to end users
no licensee/invitee distinction: both reasonable care
HoldingCase
shift burden for causation to Ds in special cases
punitive: single-digit multiplier
Docs: no comparative negligence for Ps
SL for products
negligent sterilization: limited-recovery rule; but if birth defects, special expenses
Independent contractor: Apparent Auhority --> vicarious liability
Standard of care: get out of car, look/listen for trains
Med experts can testify --> educate jury about med mal res ipsa
Eggshell P rule
econ harm: surrounding businesses can't recover lost profits
causation: must show reasonable certainty for cause
release form for ski resort unenforceable
rape behind untrimmed hedges: not foreseeable
govt employee: ministerial/discretionary distinction
Non-commercial social host has no duty towards 3rd parties injured by drunk minors
drinking buddies --> special relationship; start helping --> special relationship
defective design for autos: compare to other similar models
Suing your parents is OK
warnings: enough to say 'serious injury' don't need to be specific
Duty to protect patrons on commercial prop? Balancing test
Asbestos: physical contact =/= physical impact
danger is obvious and necessary--> assumption of risk
careless + some foreseeable harm = responsible for all resulting harm
Jury should decide if airline is negligent for falling luggage
duty to fetus which will result in a child

You're not logged in!

Compare scores with friends on all Sporcle quizzes.
Sign Up with Email
OR
Log In

You Might Also Like...

Show Comments

Extras


Your Account Isn't Verified!

In order to create a playlist on Sporcle, you need to verify the email address you used during registration. Go to your Sporcle Settings to finish the process.