Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In Judge Hand's formulation, liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P (viz., whether B < P*L). U.S. Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit. 159 F.2d 169. Vaughan v. 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.
In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely ...
Vosburg v. Putney, 80 Wis. 523, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891), was an American torts case that helped establish the scope of liability in a battery. The case involved an incident that occurred on February 20, 1889 in Waukesha, Wisconsin. A 14-year-old boy, Andrew Vosburg, was kicked in his upper shin by an 11-year-old boy, George Putney, while the ...
The case had almost identical facts to Rylands, but strict liability was never even considered. The case is instead thought of as one of the best attempts of early 19th century English judges to build up the law of negligence. [33] The outcome of Rylands meant that judges would again impose strict liability on defendants who accumulated ...
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 ...
To address the question of whether strict liability is appropriate in this case, Posner turns to several foundational 19th century cases, including Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) and Guille v. Swan (1822), and then consults the Restatement (Second) of Torts .
Justice Roger Traynor concurred in the judgment but argued that instead of deciding the case on grounds of negligence, a rule of strict liability should be imposed on manufacturers whose products cause injury to consumers. Basing his reasoning heavily on earlier cases (especially MacPherson v.
Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 24 Cal.2d 453, 150 P.2d 436 (1944) Important case in the development of the common law of product liability in the United States based on the concurring opinion of California Supreme Court justice Roger Traynor who stated "that a manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market ...