Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928), is a leading case in American tort law on the question of liability to an unforeseeable plaintiff.The case was heard by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest state court in New York; its opinion was written by Chief Judge Benjamin Cardozo, a leading figure in the development of American common law and later a United ...
Whether a duty of care is owed for psychiatric, as opposed to physical, harm was discussed in the Australian case of Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002). [11] [12] Determining a duty for mental harm has now been subsumed into the Civil Liability Act 2002 in New South Wales. [13]
Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975), commonly referred to simply as Li, is a California Supreme Court case that judicially embraced comparative negligence in California tort law and rejected strict contributory negligence.
Chapman v Hearse is a significant case in common law related to duty of care, reasonable foreseeability and novus actus interveniens within the tort of negligence.The case concerned three parties; Chapman who drove negligently, Dr Cherry who assisted him on the side of the road, and Hearse who, in driving negligently, killed Dr Cherry while he was assisting Chapman.
The "near privity" approach was established in Credit Alliance Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Company. [11] This approach states that the auditor has liability under ordinary negligence if the third party is known to be using the financial statements and there has been some sort of direct communication between the two parties. [12]
[131] [z] An individual is exempt from civil liability in cases of force majeure (article 1470), [133] harm caused in the process of assisting or rescuing another (article 1471), [134] and in certain other cases prescribed by law. In general, there are four conditions necessary for a finding of civil liability under the CCQ: [135]
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]