Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Consequently, this case serves as a significant example in American law education, illustrating the importance of intent within tort cases. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin heard the case on three separate occasions, with its opinions, especially the second one, becoming prominent in legal education materials on Damages and Torts. These opinions ...
The average change in tort filings was a 15% decrease. [98] The Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), found that the number of civil trials dropped by 47% between 1992 and 2001. [99] The DOJ also found that the median inflation-adjusted award in all tort cases dropped 56.3% between 1992 and 2001 to $28,000.
Hawkins v. McGee, 84 N.H. 114, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929), [1] is a leading case on damages in contracts handed down by the New Hampshire Supreme Court.It has come to be known as the "Hairy Hand" case from the circumstances, because a subsequent decision uses the phrase.
Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5 is a landmark New Zealand tort law case, concerning liability of major fossil fuel polluters for climate damage.The NZ Supreme Court held that polluting companies could be liable in tort to pay damages from global warming and rising sea levels to people whose coastal property is damaged, overturning courts below.
Robinson is considered to be a significant decision on the question of the scope of the common law duty of care owed by the police when their activities lead to injuries in English tort law. [7] [26] [27] Before the case was decided, Guy Jubb and Mark Solomon in the Financial Times called for Caparo to be reassessed in light of the Carillion ...
The presumptive choice of law rule for tort is that the proper law applies. [citation needed] This refers to the law that has the greatest relevance to the issues involved. In public policy terms, this is usually the law of the place where the key elements of the "wrong" were performed or occurred (the lex loci delicti). So if A is a pedestrian ...
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 ...