Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
25 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
New York Central R.R. v. Grimstad |
N life buoy but deceased could N swim and went straight to bottom
*N CiF: if had life buoy accident still would have occurred (dist. Marsalis: flip Marsalis: If cat came back w/ rabies there would be no cause in fact b/c P would have had treatment anyway) (dist./flip Weirum: If Ps were listening to different station @ time of accident) *N D's negligence substantial factor in producing harm (an. Kathryn B. Guinan) |
No Liability no life buoy but deceased went straight to bottom
|
|
|
Kirincich v. Standard Dredging Co.
|
D lacked buoyant lifesaving rope and P's deceased drowned after several ineffectual attempts to save him
*CiF: Untaken precaution would have prevented accident (ex post) (deceased was able to stay up and w/in reach a little longer) (dist. New York Central R.R.) |
Liability defendant lacked buoyant lifesaving rope and platinff’s deceased drowned after several ineffectual attempts to save him
|
|
|
Radley v. Knepfly
|
D failed to keep fire escape in good repair and Ps' deceased who could not have reached it in any event died from fire
*N CiF: Untaken precaution would have prevented accident (ex post) (P's deceased would not have attempted to reach fire escape b/c he was already badly burned; even if he had he could not have reached it b/c there was a wall of flames blocking his path) *Flip Radly into Kirincich (Radly immediately tried fire escape but couldn't use it b/c it was broken) |
No Liability defendant failed to keep fire escape in good repair and plaintiffs’ deceased who could not have reached it in any event died from fire
|
|
|
Reynolds v. Texas & Pacific Ry
|
*CiF: Untaken precaution would have prevented accident (ex post) (P would prob. not have fallen if D had lighted its station steps) (an. Kirincich) (dist. Grimstad) (dist. Radley P would prob. have still died b/c wouldn't have been able to reach fire escape)
|
Liability plaintiff would probably not have fallen if defendant had lighted its station steps
|
|
|
Paine v. Gamble Stores Inc.
|
P's deceased body in position likely if he fell because of D's missing railing
*CiF: missing top railing P had heart disease found in jackknifed position no dust on stairs (an. Reynolds: prob. CiF) (dist. Hanton; Wolf: Only 50% prob. was negl. cause (train leaving w/ P partially aboard/steps unlighted w/ sun down; need more) *missing railing double signature: ring scratch BoD & CiF (an. Anjou: gritty banana) *Duty |
Liability plaintiff’s decedent’s body found in position likely if he had fallen because of defendant’s missing railing
|
|
|
Jackson v. Ray Kruse Construction Co.
|
P struck by bike in D's parking lot that lacked speed bump
*CiF: installing speed bump would have slowed down bicycle or changed its direction and it wouldn't have run into 4-yr-old P @ 16 mph (an. Paine: prob.) (dist. Radley Reynolds) (Wolf Hanton: here more prob. B would've done good) |
Liability plaintiff struck by bike in defendant’s parking lot that lacked speed bump
|
|
|
Stacy v. Knickerbocker Ice Co.
|
D failed to erect fence but P's horses would've crashed through it
*N CiF: Untaken precautions of failing to indicate loc. of ice w/ fence (horses would go right through thin fence) failing to notify horse driver of location of thin ice (driver wasn't near thin ice when horses bolted) and failing to have horse-saving ropes/appliances (horses fell into deep water and went under ice and were dead by time bystanders rescued driver) wouldn't've made diff. (an. Wolf: N prob. lt. would've prevented acc.) (an. Radley: P's dec N could've reached fire escape) (dist. Davis: blowing horn would've prevented P from having leg run over by train) (dist. Kirincich: life buoy would've saved P's dec) |
No Liability defendant failed to erect fence but plaintiff’s horses would have crashed through it
|
|
|
City of Piqua v. Morris
|
D failed to unclog drains but dam would've overflowed anyway
*N CiF (D failed to unclog 12 overflow openings/reinstall 4 but flood so big it wouldn't have made diff.) (flip into Reynolds: standard storm) (an. Stacy) (an. Wolf: N prob. untaken prec. would've done any good) (an. Radley: P's dec N could've reached fire escape) (an. Nichols v. Marsland) (dist. Davis: blowing horn would've prevented P from having leg run over by train) (dist. Kirincich: life buoy would've saved P's dec) |
No Liability defendant failed to clean out drains but dam would have overflowed anyway
|
|
|
Capps v. Brashear
|
none of the alleged untaken precautions would've prevented P's trampoline injury
*N CiF: Untaken precautions of fencing in tramp (P authorized user and unsupervised anyway) providing spotters (to prevent from falling off tramp but this acc. happened on tramp) and close supervision (N ev. P's method of jumping was improper) wouldn't've helped. |
No Liability none of the alleged untaken precautions would have prevented the plaintiff’s trampoline injury
|
|
|
East Texas Theatres Inc. v. Rutledge
|
D failed to eject rowdies from movie theater; one later threw bottle that struck P in head
*N CiF: untaken precaution (remove rowdies) unfeasible (rowdiness was everywhere/general); and even if rowdies had been removed no evidence that thrown bottle that hurt P came from rowdy (an. Stacy Capps) (dist. Davis v. Consolidated Rail Corp: blowing horn would've made diff. b/c P would've moved) (dist. Kirincich) |
No Liability defendant failed to eject rowdies from theater; someone later threw bottle that struck plaintiff
|
|
|
Johnson v. Harris
|
Ds' pool negl.y lacked self–closing latch/high enough fence which prob. allowed deceased to drown
*Alt. causes: negligent alt. (that P's deceased got into pool through open gate N climbing over fence D's or neighbor's fence) more prob. than non-negl. (b/c ev. can be read that gate left open; and deceased left sandwich by pool/humans will enter in easiest way poss.) (an. Paine: in both jury found mult. alt. causes (fell/pushed in) but found NL b/c ev. showed alt. cause more prob.) (dist. Wolf: neg. cause N more prob.) (dist. Capps Stacy: non-negl. cause more prob; no unt. prec. would've made diff) (dist. Hanton: negl. cause (train left while P partially on) N more prob. than non-negl.) |
Liability defendants’ pool negligently lacked self–closing latch and high enough fence which probably allowed deceased to drown
|
|
|
Padilla v. Rodas
|
There were several ways this accident could have happened and the most likely was not D's fault. Negligence by the mom in failing to watch broke causal chain.
|
No Liability plaintiff’s son drowned in defendants’ swimming pool that possessed a defective self–latching gate through which deceased might have entered pool area
|
|
|
Knottnerus v. North Park St. Ry.
|
P injured by roller coaster derailment that could've been caused by wood chip that blew from D's construction site
*Alt. causes: N negligent alt. more prob. (50%/50%: non-negl. defect in non-D's rollercoaster/lg. wood chip wind blew from D's constr. site) (an. Stacy Capps: non-negl. cause more prob: N untaken precaut would've made diff) (dist. Paine Johnson v. Harris: negl. cause (falling in b/c of D's defective railing/open gate) more prob.) |
No Liability plaintiff injured by roller coaster derailment that could have been caused by wood chip that blew from defendant’s construction site
|
|
|
Gardner v. National Bulk Carriers Inc.
|
D captain failed to return to search for P's deceased after he'd fallen off ship
*D can strategize against CiF rule (so cheap to turn boat around that if odds were only 10% (b/c seamen who fall overboard can survive for many hours in water) often it might have been worth it to do it. If NL N incentive for future Ds to turn around. So suspend CiF req. that has to be more likely than N/only have to satisfy BoD) (an. Haft) (an. Kirincich: cheap to have buoyant device onboard if NL D's would have N incentive to have it) (dist. Grimstad: D can't strategize in Grimstad (they didn’t know who would be saved by precaut. so couldn’t strategize – so ok to use CiF standard); flip Grimstad into Gardner: they knew he always went right to bottom and he was the only one ever on the barge (then they would never put life buoy on b/c they would never be liable) but in the real case b/c they didn't know if he would be more or less buoyant they should have put buoy on ship) |
Liability defendant’s captain failed to return to search for plaintiff’s deceased after he had fallen off ship
|
|
|
Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel
|
D's pool lacked lifeguard that could've saved decedents
*Y CiF: But for hotel's failure to provide any major safety measures req. by law for public pools (no lifeguard no no lifeguard signs no markings on edge of pool stating water depths or deep ende tc.) Ds would prob not have drowned *D Can strategize against P: if N lifeguard it will be obvious so sign won't be necessary so having no lifeguard sign wouldn't've made diff.; so P won't be able to prove CiF. Ct held if D doesn't take less burdensome precaut. (sign) that makes available to P more burdensome (lifeguard); if a lifeguard was there it would have allowed P to establish CiF (an. Summers v. Tice) (dist. Stacy Capps: none of poss. precaut.s would've worked) (dist. Grimstad: In Grimstad they didn’t know who would be saved by precaution so they couldn’t strategize – so there regular CiF standard would be enough) *N negligent P (both could swim reasonably well; father was supervising minor son) |
Liability defendant’s pool lacked lifeguard who could have saved decedents
|
|
|
Smith v. Americania Motor Lodge
|
Ps sued for the death of their children in D's substandard motel pool
*N D can strategize against P (absence of safety rope N made more diff. for Ps to prove their case) (an. Gardner) (dist. Haft: absence of lifeguard made it more diff. for Ps to prove prox. causation) *Negl. Ps (tresp.s) (an. Elliman Mattef: bare licensees/tresps) (Limits Haft: Ps invitees in Haft; children trespassers and CN (N hotel guests on way to laundromat)) *N untaken precaut. H productive (buoyant line N wouldn't have prevented many accids.) (dist. Ray Kruse: precaut. more product. under jury's interpret. of ev. than here (it's clear speed bumps should have been there @ least somewhere here); also Ps tresp.s here N there) *N negl. cause (lack of safety rope) prob. CiF (dist. Jjohnson v. Harris: open gate more prob.) (limits Haft: In Haft clear that any of precautions would have saved the day and they didn't use any precautions; here they were only missing one precaution (had no lifeguard sign but not buoyant line)) |
No Liability plaintiffs sued for the death of their children in defendant’s substandard motel pool
|
|
|
Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry.
|
D's negly started fire joined with another of unknown but human origin to burn down P's property
*Concurrent suffic. causation (an. NY Central R.R. if you take away either D's BoD harm would've happened anyway; dist: here 2 conc. suff. causes each attributable to human beings in NY Central there weren't) *2nd sufficient cause of human (N natural) origin (presumed even though 2nd fire of unknown origin) (if 2nd fire had been started by natural/nonhuman cause e.g. lightning NL)) *D's neglig. subst. factor in producing harm (if D's fire puny NL) (dist. NYCRR v. Grimstad: failure to have buoyant device N subst. factor in dec's drowning) *D can strategize against P (b/c if conc. suff. causes were NL 2 Ds could shoot 1 P @ same time and N be L) (an. Gardner) |
Liability defendant’s negligently started fire joined with another of unknown but human origin to burn down plaintiff’s property
|
|
|
American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court
|
P hurt in Ds' race and Ds cross–complained against parents
*Concurrent efficient causation (Construe facts in favor of P that they were each CiFs/BoD) *Either B would've prevented harm (AMA's B - fewer people; segregate by ability; give contestants adequate instructions; parents' B - N give permission to child to participate) (an. Weirum: radio broadcast/speeding teens conc. eff. causes of dec's death) (dist. Grimstad: N mult. causes: just 1 - lack of lifesaving device) |
Liability [Joint] plaintiff hurt in defendants’ race and defendants cross–complained against parents
|
|
|
Summers v. Tice
|
Ds both negl.y shot gun @ same time; 1 hit P in eye
*Negl. cause more prob. (both causes negl.: both Ds committed BoD by shooting @ P) (dist. Hanton: cause unknown (P who got onto moving st car/car started w/o P); dist: here both causes negl.) *N opp. for V precaut. (dist. Hanton: ct. decided there was CN) *D can strat. vs. P (if were conc. suff. causes and ct. held NL 2 Ds could shoot 1 P @ same time and N be L) (an. Haft) (dist. Grimstad) *Joint enterprise (dist. Leuer) *Note: More trad. rule - Leuer N fits (hard to find dist. b/w Summers/Leuer) |
Liability defendants both negligently shot gun at the same time; one hit plaintiff in eye
|
|
|
Leuer v. Johnson
|
P shot by one of two hunting companions
*Alt. causation *N (less) Joint enterprise (3 friends went in diff. directions) (dist. Summers: 2 beginning shooters org. by P to learn how to shoot together) *(Weak) More radical failure of ev. here: P had better chance to acquire needed CiF evidence (rifle bullets traceable to gun (but N makes diff. b/c bullet N found but might give P incentive to find bullet)) (dist. Summers: indistinguishable shotgun bullets) *Note: Dist. b/w this/Summers very slight - ct. thinks N distinction |
No Liability plaintiff shot by one of two hunting companions
|
|
|
Burton v. Waller
|
Ps shot by several of 38 defendants only 7 of whom fired negligently
*N negl. alt. cause more prob. (only 7/31 fired negligently shotgun pellets N traceable) (dist. Summers v. Tice: was def. negl. alt. cause b/c both alt. causes were negligent; flip Burton into Summers v. Tice: all 38 police officers fired negligently) |
No Liability plaintiffs shot by several of 38 defendants only 7 of whom fired negligently
|
|
|
Garcia v. Joseph Vince Co.
|
P poked through face mask by a saber that one of two Ds made
*N negl. cause more prob. (N both Ds committed BoD and P couldn't identify which saber manufacturer made skinny saber) (dist. Summers: there P showed both Ds acted negly by shooting in his direction thus both BoD'd) *Flip into AMS v. Superior Ct.: You need to create sit. of concurrent efficient causes - One D that made sabers 10% too thin cross-complained against the manufacturer fo the P's fencing mask that made mask holes 10% too large. |
No Liability plaintiff poked through face mask by a saber that one of two defendants made
|
|
|
Novak Heating & Air Conditioning v. Carrier Corp.
|
D1 manufacturer shipped air conditioner to P via D2 common carrier; it arrived damaged
*N negl. cause more prob. (N both Ds committed BoD (P failed to show conduct of either D was negl. Carrier Corp. wrapped/packed it or Yellow Frieght picked up/shipped AC unit) (an. Garcia: only 1 committed BoD N know who) (dist. Summers v. Tice: both committed BoD) (dist. Pouncey where negligent alt. cause more prob.) |
No Liability defendant manufacturer shipped air conditioner to plaintiff via defendant common carrier and it arrived damaged
|
|
|
Maddux v. Donaldson
|
insolvent driver struck Ps' car then D struck it
*Success. tortfeasors/P can't prove injuries are divisible (can't point w/ reas. cert. to who caused which injury): Result: Both Ds jointly liable |
Liability insolvent driver struck plaintiffs’ car and then defendant struck it
|
|
|
Frye v. City of Detroit
|
P struck first by auto then by D's streetcar |
No Liability plaintiff struck first by auto then by defendant’s streetcar
|
