Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep.490 (C.P. 1837): An important case in the definition of a reasonable person standard in which a man negligently stacks hay that catches fire. 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 ...
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 ...
Carslogie Steamship Co Ltd v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] is a House of Lords judgment on English tort law. The case examines whether a negligent act that causes loss is also to be considered as the proximate cause of further subsequent loss.
In establishing the basis of the case, Baron Alderson, made what has become a famous definition of negligence: Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Definition of qualified privilege: Donoghue v Stevenson: 1932 A.C. 532 Lord Atkin's famous statement about duty of care in the tort of negligence. Bell v Lever Brothers: 1932 A.C. 161 Mutual mistake at common law Hillas v Arcos: 1932 All E.R. 494 The court may imply terms into a contract based on the previous business dealings of the parties.
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
Case history; Prior: Judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs upheld, Reynolds v.United States, 192 F.2d 987 (3d Cir. 1951); cert. granted, 343 U.S. 918 (1952).: Holding; In this case, there was a valid claim of privilege under Rule 34; and a judgment based under Rule 37 on refusal to produce the documents subjected the United States to liability to which Congress did not consent by the ...
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. [1]