Forget your password? Don't worry.
×532 Madison Avenue Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Finlandia Center, Inc.
Court of Appeals of New York | 750 N.E.2d 1097 (N.Y. 2001)
A private individual may not recover damages for economic loss suffered from a public nuisance if the loss is commonly suffered by members of the community.
Alcorn v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Illinois | 63 Ill. 553 (1872)
A jury may award punitive damages where there are circumstances of malice, willfulness, wantonness, outrage and indignity accompanying the underlying tort.
American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court
California Supreme Court | 578 P.2d 899 (Cal. 1978)
Under the modified doctrine of equitable indemnity, a concurrent tortfeasor may obtain partial indemnity from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis.
Andrews v. United Airlines
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 24 F.3d 39 (9th Cir. 1994)
A common carrier owes a duty of utmost care and the vigilance of a very cautious person towards its passengers, and is required to do all that human care, vigilance, and foresight reasonably can do under all the circumstances.
Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 67 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 1996)
To bring a claim for product disparagement, a plaintiff must successfully prove the falsity of a statement made by the defendant about the product.
Baltimore and Ohio R.R. v. Goodman
United States Supreme Court | 275 U.S. 66 (1927)
A plaintiff driver approaching a railroad track may be liable for contributory negligence and thus completely barred from recovery if he fails to take reasonable precautions, such as getting out of his car and looking for oncoming trains, to guard against a risk of which he is aware.
Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.
Supreme Court of California | 573 P.2d 443 (Cal. 1978)
A product is defective in design if it fails to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner, or if, in light of all relevant factors, the benefits of the challenged design do not outweigh the risk of danger inherent in such design.
Beems v. Chicago, Rock Island & Peoria R.R.
Iowa Supreme Court | 12 N.W. 222 (Iowa 1882)
Even if a plaintiff engages in unsafe activities, if his injuries are ultimately caused by a defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff has an action against the defendant for negligence.
Berkovitz v. United States
United States Supreme Court | 486 U.S. 531 (1988)
The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act bars suit against the United States government only for claims based on its employees’ permissible exercise of policy judgment.
Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
Pennsylvania Supreme Court | 43 A. 240 (Pa. 1899)
A plaintiff’s contributory negligence that is not a proximate cause of his injury will not bar him from recovering for an injury occurring purely by chance.
Bird v. Holbrook
Court of Common Pleas | 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (C.P. 1825)
Although some force may be used to defend a property interest, the force must not be intended solely to inflict bodily harm upon trespassers.
Bird v. Jones
King’s Bench | 115 Eng. Rep. 688 (K.B. 1845)
False imprisonment is the intentional restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent.
Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works
Court of Exchequer | 156 Eng. Rep. 1047 (Ex. 1856)
Liability for negligence may arise from the failure to do something that a reasonable person exercising ordinary care would do, or doing something that a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.
Bolton v. Stone
House of Lords | [1951] A.C. 850
No legal duty to prevent harm exists when the risk of damage to a person is so small that a reasonable man in the same position, considering the matter from the point of view of safety, would have thought it right to refrain from corrective action.
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
Court of Appeals of New York | 257 N.E.2d 870 (N.Y. 1970)
Due to public policy concerns, permanent damages may sometimes be a more appropriate remedy than a permanent injunction when a party shows it has suffered substantial damages because of a nuisance.
Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.
Wisconsin Supreme Court | 173 N.W.2d 619 (Wis. 1970)
Insanity may be a defense to liability for negligence if an individual is suddenly overcome without forewarning by a mental disability or disorder which makes him incapable of conforming his conduct to the standards of a reasonable man under like circumstances.
Brower v. New York Central & H.R.R.
New Jersey Supreme Court | 103 A. 166 (N.J. 1918)
When a defendant’s negligence causes injury to a plaintiff, but the plaintiff’s injuries are made worse by the foreseeable, concurrent action of a third party which is not the proximate cause of the injuries, the defendant is also liable for the extent of damage caused by the third party.
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Jacobson
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 713 F.2d 262 (7th Cir. 1983)
A summary or paraphrase of information that, when taken together, produces an overall defamatory “message” may give rise to a claim for libel per se.
Brown v. Collins
Superior Judicial Court of New Hampshire | 53 N.H. 442 (1873)
Negligence is required for liability for damage caused by the escape of something one lawfully brings onto his own property.
Brown v. Kendall
Supreme Court of Massachusetts | 60 Mass. 292 (1850)
A person will be liable for injuries caused by a trespass only if his intent is unlawful, or he is at fault.
