Aug 24 Torts: SL v Neg

更多类似内容

ingles medio ambiente

由francisco javier diaz chaves

IMPACT of COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY on the ENVIRONMENT

由Noor Hindash

Earth's Environmental Issues

由Kumar Bonita

Australia is a common law system

由Мария Чахир

common law: no one wrote rules down; they just start deciding cases

inference is never perfect b/c results can trump rule statem

tort law is common law

statute law

exercise 2

Siegler v Kuhlman

Restatement (2nd) of Torts

abnormally dangerous activity = L, even w/.utmost care

unusual risk

not common usage

extraordinary danger

Bolton v Stone

Rogers v. Elliott

church bell

right to use prop vs peculiar temperament

Victim precaution

P sued for neg and nuisance, use Rylands principle

Blackburn in Rylands

mischief, at his peril, prima facie, escape

Losee v Buchanan

Kent v Gulf State Utilities

rake held by P's deceased touched D's pwr wires

Kent

P caused accident in Kent

Sullivan

P did not cause accident

Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert

dynamite set by P's deceased killed him

Coxhill v Forward

D's LPG auto tank exploded and burned P's premises

Coxhill extends Musgrove

Musgrove v Pandelis

D's newfangled car leaked gas and ignited; fire spread to P's adjacent premises

Musgrove v Pandelis

Walker Shoe Store v Howard's Hobby Shop

D's furnace tank leaked and caught fire, which spread to P's adjacent premises

Rainham Chemical Works, Ltd v Belvedere Fish

West v Bristol Tramways Co

West v Bristol Tramways Co

Vaughan

nature of authorization (authorized to use rr)

here, no authority to use creosote

West extends Rylands

don't read case broadly

creosote fumes de D's newly laid tracks damaged P's plants

Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert

Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert

limits Sullivan

Delano

P contributed to accident in this case

Central Trust less clear b/c dynamite set off by co-worker, not P

assume risk?

P's deceased set dynamite that killed him

Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert

Delano v Mother's Super Market

P slipped on D's ice

under neg, precaution = NL

under sl, precaution still = L

Davis v Niagara Falls Tower

congealed ice de D's twr fell onto and broke P's adjacent skylight

Davis v Niagara Falls Tower Co

Lubin v Iowa City

D's water main broke and flooded P's basem

~ b/c predictable

Guille v Swan

trespass

emerging tech (unusual to have twr so high)

Vaughan

Diff b/c contributory neg

how to change facts in Davis to have ~ ruling: small piece of snow fell

how to change facts in Vaughan to have ~ ruling: coals bounce off of rr cars

Sullivan v Dunham

Sullivan v Dunham

Guille v Swan

D's balloon and following crowd invaded P's farm

analogy: not a classic escape, tresspass in both cases

Ds dynamited tree that struck P's deceased

read broadly

Aug 24 Torts: SL v Neg

The discussion explores various landmark cases in tort law, particularly focusing on negligence and nuisance within the framework of common law. It examines the principles established in cases like Bolton v.

ingles medio ambiente

IMPACT of COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY on the ENVIRONMENT

Earth's Environmental Issues

Australia is a common law system