Forget your password? Don't worry.
×Avila v. Citrus Community College District
Supreme Court of California | 131 P.3d 383 (2006)
A plaintiff participating in a sporting event assumes the risk of harm caused by dangers inherent in the sport, while the host of a sporting event has a duty not to increase these inherent risks.
Bamford v. Turnley
England Court of Exchequer Chamber | 122 Eng. Rep. 27 (1862)
A defendant who causes a nuisance to a plaintiff through the use of his or her property may lawfully continue his actions if they are for public benefit, but must compensate the plaintiff for any intrusion into the plaintiff’s use of his or her land.
Bennett v. Stanley
Supreme Court of Ohio | 748 N.E.2d 41 (2001)
A possessor of land is liable for harm to a child trespasser caused by an artificial condition if the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass near the condition, the possessor knows or has reason to know that the condition causes an unreasonable risk of serious injury to child trespassers, the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or recognize the risk involved, the utility of the condition to the possessor and the cost of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk to child trespassers, and the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care in eliminating the danger or in protecting the child trespassers.
Bernier v. Boston Edison Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court | 403 N.E.2d 391 (1980)
To avoid negligence, a manufacturer must consider the reasonably foreseeable risks of injury created by a product’s use in its normal environment and design the product to prevent an unreasonable risk of such injuries.
Bjorndal v. Weitman
Oregon Supreme Court | 184 P.3d 1115 (2008)
The usual standard of care in a negligence action remains unchanged in an emergency situation, and a person is negligent if he or she fails to use the care that a reasonable person would use under similar circumstances.
Board of County Comn’rs of Teton County v. Bassett
Wyoming Supreme Court | 8 P.3d 1079 (2000)
Under Wyoming law, the jury must evaluate the responsibility of all actors whose fault contributed to the plaintiff’s injury.
Bowling v. Heil Co.
Supreme Court of Ohio | 511 N.E.2d 373 (1987)
Contributory negligence and comparative fault do not apply in products liability cases; the only affirmative defenses based on a plaintiff’s misconduct are if the plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk created by the product defect or if the plaintiff misused the product in an unforeseeable manner.
Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma | 725 P.2d 300 (1986)
One who sells intoxicating beverages for on premises consumption has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person.
Cartel Capital Corporation. v. Fireco of New Jersey
New Jersey Supreme Court | 410 A.2d 674 (1980)
When one joint tortfeasor settles with the plaintiff, the remaining codefendants are chargeable with the total verdict minus the settling defendant’s percentage share, regardless of the amount of settlement.
Chaffee v. Seslar
Indiana Court of Appeals | 751 N.E.2d 773 (2001)
In a medical malpractice action against a physician for failing to prevent conception of children, a plaintiff may recover the costs of child rearing offset by the benefits incurred by the plaintiff of having the child, if the plaintiff can prove that these costs are a natural and probable consequence of the physician’s negligence.
Chaffin v. Brame
North Carolina Supreme Court | 64 S.E.2d 276 (1951)
The general test for negligence is whether a person acted as a reasonable, prudent person under like circumstances.
Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160
Washington Supreme Court | 124 P.3d 283 (2005)
Public policy concerns dictate that minor children do not have a legal duty to protect themselves from sexual abuse by their school teachers.
Cohen v. Smith
Illinois Appellate Court | 648 N.E.2d 329 (1995)
An offensive touching can occur if a tortfeasor has knowledge of a person’s unusual susceptibility and the tortfeasor then violates that susceptibility, even if a reasonable person would not be offended by the touching.
Creasy v. Rusk
Indiana Supreme Court | 730 N.E.2d 659 (2000)
A mentally disabled person is held to the standard of care of a reasonable person under like circumstances, regardless of the person’s ability to understand or control his or her actions.
Crumpton v. Humana, Inc.
New Mexico Supreme Court | 661 P.2d 54 (1983)
The statute of limitations for a tort claim runs from the date of injury and is not tolled during settlement negotiations.
Cullison v. Medley
Indiana Supreme Court | 570 N.E.2d 27 (1991)
Assault requires that a person acts while intending a harmful or offensive contact with another or acts while intending to produce a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery, causing mental or emotional damages.
D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co.
Florida Supreme Court | 806 So.2d 424 (2001)
Under the minority view, the fault of a plaintiff or third party in causing an initial accident is irrelevant in a products liability claim against a manufacturer for enhanced or secondary injuries caused after the initial accident.
Delaney v. Reynolds
Massachusetts Appeals Court | 825 N.E.2d 554 (2005)
When an independent event supersedes a defendant’s negligence and causes the plaintiff injury, the defendant’s original negligence is a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm if the superseding cause was foreseeable by the defendant.
District of Columbia v. Hampton
District of Columbia Court of Appeals | 666 A.2d 30 (1995)
In determining whether a master-servant relationship exists, a court evaluates the selection and engagement of the servant, the payment of wages, the power to discharge, whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer, and most important, the power to control the servant’s conduct.
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke
Minnesota Supreme Court | 277 N.W.2d 11 (1979)
Factors determining whether an employee’s negligent act occurs within the scope of employment include whether the employee’s conduct is in furtherance of the employer’s interests, whether the conduct is of the type the employee is authorized to perform, and whether the conduct occurs substantially within authorized time and space restrictions.
