Sec 1A Torts Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Case name?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

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

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