We never read the hairy hand one. I feel cheated.
There are law students in this world who have not done Hawkins v. McGee? Srsly?Did you guys at least do Palsgraf? Acme Mills? McDonald's Coffee?
Quote from: BearlyLegal on December 19, 2008, 02:19:22 PMThere are law students in this world who have not done Hawkins v. McGee? Srsly?Did you guys at least do Palsgraf? Acme Mills? McDonald's Coffee?Let me think of our "famous" torts cases for first quarter:Vosburg v. Putney? Damage doesn't have to be foreseeable, eggshell skull rule.Grabowski? Invalid consent for ghost surgery. Only consented for one doctor, not the other.Desnick? No liability for trespass. There was implied consent, even though they filmed the clinic in ways they didn't like.Figueiredo-Torres? Outrageous conduct to have sex with wife while couple is in marriage counseling. This is made especially worse because of the psychologist's duty (not duty in the negligence sense of the word, because this is an intentional tort).Katko? Can't use spring gun to defend property. You can use force as a privilege, or defense, only when you use it to protect person from attack, not property. Wild disproportion here.. . . unified owner principle with a few cases. Shows you the emphasis in Torts.Ploof v. Putnam? Private necessity is justified. There are high transaction costs, reciprocity.Menlove v. Vaughn? This case is a personal favorite. It eludicates the objective standard for a reasonable person and the attendant duty.Carroll Towing? This is it: B > PLRodi Yachts? Custom can be a sword or shield. I think it's a shield here and in TJ.Byrne v. Boadle? Res ipsa loquitor. The BLL is that such a thing doesn't ordinarily occur but for negligence, in exclusive possession, and no contributory negligence from defendant.Ryland v. Fletcher? Strict liability.. . . and a few others. I hope this helps.Good luck with Torts. If all else fails, remember the four elements of negligence; make sure to cite a ton of cases; understand the pockets of strict liability in opposition to negligence (and the policy implications for SL, such as decreased activity levels and higher insurance premiums); and be sure to look out for intentional torts and intent as an element.
Why would you put strict liability under duty? That makes no sense because strict liability is by definition "strict." It is a completely separate cause of action from negligence. I would say Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages, Intentional Torts, Products Liability (strict liability) and Defenses.