Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Torts Quiz  (Read 34846 times)

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #180 on: January 12, 2005, 12:32:57 PM »
Uhm.

When P witnesses serious or fatal injury to another?


In TN, when can a plaintiff recover for Negligent Infliction of ED?
Distinguish from other jurisdictions (if possible....)
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #181 on: January 12, 2005, 01:00:21 PM »
I had to look it up.

Exceptions to no duty to aid:

When there is a special relationship
  Common Carrier
  Innkeepers and guests
  Employers and Employees
  Social host and guests
  Schools and students
  Parents and children
  Business and customers
 
When potential rescuer is responsible for the injury or peril

When duty is assumed

When duty is required by statute.  In Tennessee, drivers must render reasonable assistance when involved in an accident.


What are the exceptions to "no duty to aid"

d**mn.  brain freeze.   

when the duty is assumed.


Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #182 on: January 12, 2005, 01:55:58 PM »
And I had to look up this one.


In bystander cases, P must
1) show was close enough to witness event (sensory observation)
2) show the injury to the third party was serious or fatal
3) suffer serious or severe emotional harm, proven through expert evidence

In Ramsey v. Beavers, court said P must be closely related to victim.
In Lourcey v. Scarlett, court said relationship was a factor to consider in calculating damages.


Uhm.

When P witnesses serious or fatal injury to another?


In TN, when can a plaintiff recover for Negligent Infliction of ED?
Distinguish from other jurisdictions (if possible....)
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #183 on: January 12, 2005, 01:57:24 PM »
On a related topic, what about the zone of danger rule?
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

Slyone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
  • Holmesboy
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #184 on: January 12, 2005, 02:16:14 PM »
it doesn't matter in TN. Does it matter elsewhere?
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #185 on: January 12, 2005, 02:20:56 PM »
If my notes are right, the court abolished it.  Yes, I think it is still used in some jurisdictions, but I dunno.

it doesn't matter in TN. Does it matter elsewhere?
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #186 on: January 12, 2005, 02:23:10 PM »
What makes a intervening cause an superseding intervening cause?
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

Slyone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
  • Holmesboy
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #187 on: January 12, 2005, 03:03:15 PM »
forseeability. if it is "unforseeable" it intervenes and destroys liability.
I believe an intentional tort is sonsidered forseeable and so is medical malpractice.
It is an issue for the jury---the keys left in the ignition case.
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
Oliver Wendell Holmes

jeffjoe

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1029
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #188 on: January 12, 2005, 03:10:55 PM »
Yup. 

In torts as a general rule, to whom is a duty owed?


forseeability. if it is "unforseeable" it intervenes and destroys liability.
I believe an intentional tort is sonsidered forseeable and so is medical malpractice.
It is an issue for the jury---the keys left in the ignition case.
Praying for peace in Iraq  +
Praying for the tsunami victims   +

Slyone

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
  • Holmesboy
    • View Profile
Re: Torts Quiz
« Reply #189 on: January 12, 2005, 03:13:25 PM »
ME  ;)

Nobody.......
If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.
Oliver Wendell Holmes