Ads
related to: changing scope of law torts cases pdf free
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather plc [1994] 1 All ER 53 is a case in English tort law that established the principle that claims under nuisance and Rylands v Fletcher must include a requirement that the damage be foreseeable; it also suggested that Rylands was a sub-set of nuisance rather than an independent tort, a debate eventually laid to rest in Transco plc v Stockport ...
La Chusa, 48 Cal. 3d 644 (1989), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of California that limited the scope of the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. The majority opinion was authored by Associate Justice David Eagleson , and it is regarded as his single most famous opinion and representative of his conservative judicial ...
In Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd (1921) [1] is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence.. The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negligent conduct regardless of how unforeseeable such consequences are.
Landmark Cases in the Law of Tort (2010) is a book edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, which outlines the key cases in English tort law. Content [ edit ]
Frolic and detour in the law of torts occur when an employee (or agent) makes a physical departure from the service of his employer (or principal).A detour occurs when an employee or agent makes a minor departure from his employer's charge whereas a frolic is a major departure when the employee is acting on his own and for his own benefit, rather than a minor sidetrack in the course of obeying ...
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 ...
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (E & MH) Pty Ltd (commonly known as March v Stramare) [1] was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law.The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation.