Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio; Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas: Full case name: Gerardo Castillo, et. al. v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc., et. al. Decided: December 1, 1999: Docket nos. 97-cv-89: Citation: 96 F. Supp. 2d 578: Holding; Labor Agency is an agent for farm. Farm is liable for wrongful actions of ...
Kasturilal Ralia Ram V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375 : is a Landmark case on Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortious acts of its servants. Owen Diaz vs. Tesla, 137 million dollars in damages to a Tesla, Inc. employee who faced racial harassment. [1] [2]
Text of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio) First Amendment Library entry on Gertz at the Wayback Machine (archived January 3, 2011) Summary of case from OYEZ at the Wayback Machine (archived October 20, 2005)
An example of this is a pedestrian crossing a road carelessly and was hit by a driver driving carelessly. Last clear chance – Doctrine under which a plaintiff can recover against comparative and contributory negligence defenses if they can demonstrate that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident.
The case is also influential in negligence in the English law of tort (even though English law does not recognise "allurement" per se). The case's main significance is that, after the shift within the common law of negligence from strict liability [ 1 ] to a reasonable standard of care, [ 2 ] this case advocated a middle way, namely:
Most Americans are under the impression that most people can sue for any type of negligence, but it is untrue in most US jurisdictions (partly because negligence is one of the few torts for which ordinary people can and do obtain liability insurance.) [citation needed] It is a form of extracontractual liability that is based upon a failure to ...
An intentional tort is a category of torts that describes a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act on the part of the tortfeasor (alleged wrongdoer). The term negligence, on the other hand, pertains to a tort that simply results from the failure of the tortfeasor to take sufficient care in fulfilling a duty owed, while strict liability torts refers to situations where a party is liable ...
Negligence per se involves the concept of strict liability. Within the law of negligence there has been a move away from strict liability (as typified by Re Polemis) to a standard of reasonable care (as seen in Donoghue v Stevenson, The Wagon Mound (No. 1), and Hughes v Lord Advocate). This is true not just for breach of the common law, but ...