Sec 1A Torts Cases

Random Miscellaneous Quiz

Can you name the Case name?

Quiz not verified by Sporcle

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

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