Torts: Cases and Materials

Prosser, Wade, Schwartz
11th Edition
ISBN: 1587788748

View Casebook Case Listing
View Casebook Summary Table

Page	Case Name	Citation	Court	Audio
5	Weaver v. Ward	80 Eng. Rep. 284	King's Bench, England, 1616	Download
6	Brown v. Kendall	60 Mass. 292	Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex, 1850	Download
10	Cohen v. Petty	62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820	Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 1933	Download
13	Spano v. Perini Corp.	250 N.E.2d 31	Court of Appeals of New York, 1969	Download
17	Garratt v. Dailey	46 Wash.2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091	Supreme Court of Washington, 1995	Download
20	Spivey v. Battaglia	258 So.2d 815	Supreme Court of Florida, 1972	Download
24	Ranson v. Kitner	31 Ill.App. 241	Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889	Download
25	McGuire v. Almy	8 N.E.2d 760	Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1937	Download
28	Talmage v. Smith	101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656	Supreme Court of Michigan, 1894	Download
29	Cole v. Turner	6 Modern Rep. 149, 90 Eng.Rep. 958	Nisi Prius, 1704
30	Wallace v. Rosen	765 N.E.2d 192	Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2002	Download
35	Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc	424 S.W.2d 627	Supreme Court of Texas, 1967	Download
37	I. de S. and Wife v. W. de S.	Assisarum, folio 99, placitum 60	At the Assizes, 1348 or 1349	Download
37	Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill	25 Ala.App. 540, 150 So. 709	Court of Appeals of Alabama, 1933	Download
40	Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman	461 S.W.2d 195	Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1970	Download
42	Parvi v. City of Kingston	41 N.Y.2d 553, 362 N.E.2d 960, 394 N.Y.S.2d 161	Court of Appeals of New York, 1977	Download
44	Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co.	203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35	Supreme Court of Montana, 1983	Download
46	Enright v. Groves	39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851	Colorado Court of Appeals, 1977	Download
48	Whittaker v. Sandford	110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399	Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1912	Download
50	State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff	38 Cal.2d 330, 240 P.2d 282	Supreme Court of California, 1952	Download
54	Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida	100 So.2d 396	Supreme Court of Florida, 1958	Download
57	Harris v. Jones	281 Md. 560, 380 A.2d 611	Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1977	Download
64	Taylor v. Vallelunga	171 Cal. App.2d 107, 339 P.2d 910	District Court of Appeal of California, 1959	Download
66	Dougherty v. Stepp	18 N.C. 371	Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1835	Download
68	Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.	104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782	Supreme Court of Washington, 1985	Download
70	Herrin v. Sutherland	74 Mont. 587, 241 P. 328	Supreme Court of Montana, 1925	Download
72	Rogers v. Board of Road Com'rs for Kent County	319 Mich. 661, 30 N.W.2d 358	Supreme Court of Michigan, 1947	Download
75	Glidden v. Szybiak	95 N.H. 318, 63 A.2d 233	Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1949	Download
92	Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.	601 F.2d 516, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 931, 100 S.Ct. 275, 62 L.Ed.2d 188 (1979)	United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1979	Download
94	Mohr v. Williams	104 N.W. 12	Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905	Download
99	De May v. Roberts	46 Mich. 160, 9 N.W. 146	Supreme Court of Michigan, 1881	Download
107	Katko v. Briney	183 N.W.2d 657	Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971	Download
113	Hodgeden v. Hubbard	18 Vt. 504, 46 Am.Dec. 167	Supreme Court of Vermont, 1846	Download
115	Bonkowski v. Arlan's Department Store	12 Mich.App. 88, 162 N.W.2d 347	Court of Appeals of Michigan, 1968	Download
118	Surocco v. Geary	3 Cal. 69, 58 Am.Dec. 385	Supreme Court of California, 1853	Download
121	Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.	124 N.W. 221	Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910	Download
128	Sindle v. New York Transit Authority	33 N.Y.2d 293, 307 N.E.2d 245, 352 N.Y.S.2d 183	New York Court of Appeals, 1973
133	Lubitz v. Wells	19 Conn.Sup. 322, 113 A.2d 147	Superior Court of Connecticut, 1955	Download
134	Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works	156 Eng. Rep. 1047	Court of Exchequer, 1856	Download
135	Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams	183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234	Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1938	Download
138	Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl	65 Neb. 889, 91 N.W. 880	Supreme Court of Nebraska, 1902
139	Davison v. Snohomish County	149 Wash. 109, 270 P. 422	Supreme Court of Washington, 1928
141	United States v. Carroll Towing Co.	159 F.2d 169	United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1947	Download
145	Vaughan v. Menlove	132 Eng. Rep. 490	Court of Common Pleas, 1837	Download
148	Delair v. McAdoo	324 Pa. 392, 188 A. 181	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936
150	Trimarco v. Klein	56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52	Court of Appeals of New York, 1982
154	Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co.	27 N.Y.S.2d 198	City Court of New York, New York County, 1941
157	Roberts v. State of Louisiana	396 So.2d 566	Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1981
161	Robinson v. Lindsay	92 Wash.2d 410, 598 P.2d 392	Supreme Court of Washington, 1979
165	Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co.	173 N.W.2d 619	Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1970	Download
168	Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc.	40 N.C.App. 158, 252 S.E.2d 526	Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979
173	Hodges v. Carter	239 N.C. 517, 80 S.E.2d 144	Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954
177	Boyce v. Brown	51 Ariz. 416, 77 P.2d 455	Supreme Court of Arizona, 1938
181	Morrison v. MacNamara	407 A.2d 555	District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979	Download
185	Scott v. Bradford	606 P.2d 554	Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1979
200	Pokora v. Wabash Ry.	292 U.S. 98	U.S. Supreme Court, 1934	Download
204	Osborne v. McMasters	41 N.W. 543	Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889	Download
206	Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp.	259 Or. 583, 488 P.2d 436	Supreme Court of Oregon, 1971	Download
210	Ney v. Yellow Cab Co.	2 Ill.2d 74, 117 N.E.2d 74	Illinois Supreme Court, 1954
215	Perry v. S.N. and S.N.	973 S.W.2d 301.	Texas Supreme Court, 1998
222	Martin v. Herzog	126 N.E. 814	New York Court of Appeals, 1920	Download
224	Zeni v. Anderson	397 Mich. 117, 243 N.W.2d 270.	Supreme Court of Michigan, 1976
229	Goddard v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co.	179 Mass. 52, 60 N.E. 486	Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1901
230	Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.	208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386	Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1911	Download
231	Ortega v. Kmart Corp.	114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 26 Cal.4th 1200, 36 P.3d 11	Supreme Court of California, 2001
231	Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.	405 F.2d 464	United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1968	Download
233	Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co.	177 Colo. 418, 494 P.2d 839	Supreme Court of Colorado, 1972
234	H.E. Butt Groc. Co. v. Resendez	988 S.W.2d 218	Supreme Court of Texas, 1999	Download
237	Byrne v. Boadle	159 Eng. Rep. 299	Court of Exchequer, 1863	Download
240	McDougald v. Perry	716 So. 2d 783	Supreme Court of Florida, 1998
246	Larson v. St. Francis Hotel	83 Cal.App.2d 210, 188 P.2d 513	District Court of Appeal of California, 1948	Download
250	Ybarra v. Spangard	154 P.2d 687	Supreme Court of California, 1944	Download
254	Sullivan v. Crabtree	36 Tenn.App. 469, 258 S.W.2d 782	Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1953
259	Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Ry. Co.	243 La. 829, 147 So.2d 646	Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1962
262	Reynolds v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co.	37 La.Ann. 694	Court of Appeals of Louisiana, 1885
263	Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch, Inc.	290 Mont. 126, 962 P.2d 1205	Supreme Court of Montana, 1998	Download
267	Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins	184 Miss. 483, 186 So. 625	Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1939
270	Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative	664 P.2d 474	Supreme Court of Washington, 1983	Download
282	Hill v. Edmonds	26 A.D.2d 554, 270 N.Y.S.2d 1020	Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, 1966	Download
283	Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. R.R. Co.	146 Minn. 430, 179 N.W. 45	Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1920
285	Summers v. Tice	199 P.2d 1	Supreme Court of California, 1948	Download
287	Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories	26 Cal.3d 588, 607 P.2d 934, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 285, 66 L.Ed.2d 140 (1980)	Supreme Court of California, 1980
293	Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daniels	8 Ga.App. 775, 70 S.E. 203	Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1911
294	Ryan v. New York Central R.R.	35 N.Y. 210	Court of Appeals of New York, 1866	Download
297	Bartolone v. Jeckovich	103 A.D.2d 632, 481 N.Y.S.2d 545	Surpeme Court of New York, 1984	Download
300	In re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co.	3 K.B. 560	Court of Appeal, 1921	Download
302	Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co., Ltd.	A.C. 388	Privy Council, 1961	Download
308	Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.	162 N.E. 99	Court of Appeals of New York, 1928	Download
319	Yun v. Ford Motor Co.	276 N.J. Super. 142, 647 A.2d 841	Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, 1994
325	Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.	51 N.Y.2d 308, 414 N.E.2d 666, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166	New York Court of Appeals, 1980
329	Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & R.R. Co.	137 Ky. 619, 126 S.W. 146	Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1910
335	Fuller v. Preis	35 N.Y.2d 425, 322 N.E.2d 263, 363 N.Y.S.2d 568	New York Court of Appeals, 1974
338	McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.	136 Wash.2d 350, 961 P.2d 952	Supreme Court Washington, 1998
344	Kelly v. Gwinnell	96 N.J. 538, 476 A.2d 1219	Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984
349	Enright v. Eli Lilly & Co.	77 N.Y.2d 377, 570 N.E.2d 198, 568 N.Y.S.2d 550	Court of Appeals of New York, 1991
361	Bierczynski v. Rogers	239 A.2d 218	Supreme Court of Delaware, 1968
364	Coney v. J.L.G. Industries, Inc.	97 Ill.2d 104, 454 N.E.2d 197, 73 Ill.Dec. 337	Supreme Court of Illinois, 1983
366	Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.	98 N.M. 152, 646 P.2d 579, cert. denied, 98 N.M. 336, 648 P.2d 794	Court of Appeals of New Mexico, 1982
371	Bundt v. Embro	48 Misc.2d 802, 265 N.Y.S.2d 872	Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, 1965
374	Cox v. Pearl Investment Co.	168 Colo. 67, 450 P.2d 60	Supreme Court of Colorado, 1969
378	Elbaor v. Smith	845 S.W.2d 240	Supreme Court of Texas, 1992
383	Knell v. Feltman	85 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 174 F.2d 662	United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1949
386	Yellow Cab Co. of D.C., Inc. v. Dreslin	86 U.S.App.D.C. 327, 181 F.2d 626	United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1950
388	Slocum v. Donahue	44 Mass.App.Ct. 937, 693 N.E.2d 179	Court of Appeals of Massachusetts, 1998
392	Bruckman v. Pena	29 Colo.App. 357, 487 P.2d 566	Colorado Court of Appeals, 1971
395	Michie v. Great Lakes Steel Division, Nat'l Steel Corp.	495 F.2d 213	United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 1974
400	Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.	85 N.H. 449, 163 A. 111	Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1932
409	MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.	111 N.E. 1050	New York Court of Appeals, 1916	Download
412	Moch Co. v. Rensselaer Water Co.	159 N.E. 896	Court of Appeals of New York, 1928	Download
414	Clagett v. Dacy	47 Md. App. 23, 420 A.2d 1285	Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1980
417	Hegel v. Langsam	29 Ohio Misc. 147, 55 Ohio Ops.2d 476, 273 N.E.2d 351	Court of Common Pleas of Ohio 1971	Download
420	L.S. Ayres & Co. v. Hicks	220 Ind. 86, 40 N.E.2d 334	Supreme Court of Indiana, 1942
426	J.S. and M.S. v. R.T.H.	155 N.J. 330, 714 A.2d 924	Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1998
432	Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California	551 P.2d 334	Supreme Court of California, 1976
439	State of Louisiana ex rel. Guste v. M/V Testbank	752 F.2d 1019, cert. denied, 477 U.S. 903 (1986)	United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (en banc), 1985
450	Daley v. LaCroix	384 Mich. 4, 179 N.W.2d 390	Supreme Court of Michigan, 1970
456	Thing v. La Chusa	48 Cal.3d 644, 771 P.2d 814, 257 Cal.Rptr. 865	Supreme Court of California, In Bank 1989
464	Endresz v. Friedberg	24 N.Y.2d 478, 248 N.E.2d 901, 301 N.Y.S.2d 65	New York Court of Appeals, 1969
469	Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo	97 N.J. 339, 478 A.2d 755	Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1984
480	Taylor v. Olsen	282 Or. 343, 578 P.2d 779	Supreme Court of Oregon, 1978
482	Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc.	45 Del. (6 Terry) 290, 72 A.2d 239	Superior Court of Delaware, 1950
485	Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth Ry. Co.	76 Fed. 201	United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 1896	Download
489	Barmore v. Elmore	83 Ill.App.3d 1056, 403 N.E.2d 1355, 38 Ill.Dec. 751	Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, 1980	Download
492	Campbell v. Weathers	153 Kan. 316, 111 P.2d 72	Supreme Court of Kansas, 1941	Download
495	Whelan v. Van Natta	382 S.W.2d 205	Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1964	Download
502	Rowland v. Christian	443 P.2d 561	Supreme Court of California, 1968	Download
507	Borders v. Roseberry	216 Kan. 486, 532 P.2d 1366	Supreme Court of Kansas, 1975	Download
511	Pagelsdorf v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America	91 Wis.2d 734, 284 N.W.2d 55	Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1979	Download
514	Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp.	439 F.2d 477	United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1970
520	Anderson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.	377 F.Supp. 136	United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, 1974	Download
524	Richardson v. Chapman	175 Ill. 2d 98, 676 N.E.2d 621	Supreme Court of Illinois, 1987	Download
540	Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson	334 Ark. 561, 976 S.W.2d 382	Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1998	Download
545	Zimmerman v. Ausland	266 Or. 427, 513 P.2d 1167	Supreme Court of Oregon, 1973	Download
551	Cheatham v. Pohle	789 N.E.2d 467	Supreme Court of Indiana, 2003	Download
556	State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell	538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513, (Torts Edit)	Supreme Court of the United States, 2003
565	Moragne v. States Marine Lines, Inc.	398 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 1772, 26 L.Ed.2d 339	Supreme Court of the United States, 1970	Download
573	Selders v. Armentrout	190 Neb. 275, 207 N.W.2d 686	Supreme Court of Nebraska, 1973	Download
578	Murphy v. Martin Oil Co.	56 Ill.2d 423, 308 N.E.2d 583	Supreme Court of Illinois, 1974	Download
592	McIntyre v. Balentine	833 S.W.2d 52	Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1992	Download
601	Seigneur v. National Fitness Institute, Inc.	132 Md. App. 271, 752 A.2d 631	Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2000	Download
607	Rush v. Commercial Realty Co.	7 N.J.Misc. 337, 145 A. 476	Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1929
610	Blackburn v. Dorta	348 So.2d 287	Supreme Court of Florida, 1977	Download
614	Teeters v. Currey	518 S.W.2d 512.	Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1974	Download
622	Freehe v. Freehe	81 Wash.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771	Supreme Court of Washington, 1972	Download
625	Renko v. McLean	346 Md. 464, 697 A.2d 468	Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1997	Download
633	Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's	446 S.W.2d 599	Supreme Court of Missouri, 1969
637	Ayala v. Philadelphia Board of Public Education	453 Pa. 584, 305 A.2d 877	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1973	Download
642	Riss v. New York	22 N.Y.2d 579, 240 N.E.2d 860, 293 N.Y.S.2d 897.	New York Court of Appeals, 1968	Download
644	DeLong v. Erie County	89 A.D.2d 376, 455 N.Y.S.2d 887	New York Supreme Court, 1982	Download
648	Deuser v. Vecera	139 F.3d 1190	United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 1998
661	Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.	129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675, 105 Cal.App.4th 798	California Court of Appeal, 2003
663	O'Shea v. Welch	350 F.3d 1101	United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 2003
667	Murrell v. Goertz	597 P.2d 1223	Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, 1979
669	Maloney v. Rath	69 Cal.2d 442, 445 P.2d 513, 71 Cal.Rptr. 897	Supreme Court of California, 1968
673	Popejoy v. Steinle	820 P.2d 545	Supreme Court of Wyoming, 1991
678	Shuck v. Means	302 Minn. 93, 226 N.W.2d 285	Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1974
681	Smalich v. Westfall	440 Pa. 409, 269 A.2d 476	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1970
692	Rylands v. Fletcher	L.R. 3 H.L. 330	House of Lords, 1868	Download
699	Miller v. Civil Constructors, Inc.	272 Ill.App.3d 263, 651 N.E.2d 239	Illinois Court of Appeal, 1995
702	Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co.	916 F.2d 1174	United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1990	Download
710	Foster v. Preston Mill Co.	44 Wash.2d 440, 268 P.2d 645	Supreme Court of Washington, 1954
712	Golden v. Amory	329 Mass. 484, 109 N.E.2d 131	Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1952	Download
714	Sandy v. Bushey	124 Me. 320, 128 A. 513	Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1925
722	Baxter v. Ford Motor Co.	168 Wash. 456, 12 P.2d 409	Supreme Court of Washington, 1932
732	Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.	59 Cal.2d 57, 377 P.2d 897, 27 Cal.Rptr. 697	Supreme Court of California, 1963
740	Rix v. General Motors Corp.	222 Mont. 318, 723 P.2d 195	Supreme Court of Montana, 1986
743	Prentis v. Yale Mfg. Co.	421 Mich. 670, 365 N.W.2d 176	Supreme Court of Michigan, 1984
750	O'Brien v. Muskin Corp.	94 N.J. 169, 463 A.2d 298	Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1983
757	Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.	53 Cal.3d 987, 810 P.2d 549, 281 Cal.Rptr. 528	Supreme Court of California, 1991
765	Friedman v. General Motors Corp.	43 Ohio St.2d 209, 72 Ohio Ops.2d 119, 331 N.E.2d 702	Supreme Court of Ohio, 1975
769	Daly v. General Motors Corp.	575 P.2d 1162	Supreme Court of California, 1978	Download
774	Ford Motor Co. v. Matthews	291 So.2d 169	Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1974	Download
777	Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr	518 U.S. 470, 116 S. Ct. 2240, 135 L. Ed. 2d 700	Supreme Court of the United States, 1996
783	Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co.	61 Ill.2d 17, 329 N.E.2d, 785	Supreme Court of Illinois, 1975
787	Hector v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr.	180 Cal.App.3d 493, 225 Cal.Rptr. 595	Court of Appeals of California, 1986
800	Philadelphia Electric Company v. Hercules, Inc.	762 F.2d 303	United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1985
808	Carpenter v. The Double R Cattle Company, Inc.	108 Idaho 602, 701 P.2d 222	Supreme Court of Idaho, 1985
812	Winget v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.	242 S.C. 152, 130 S.E.2d 363	Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1963
816	Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.	257 N.E.2d 870	Court of Appeals of New York, 1970	Download
830	Belli v. Orlando Daily Newspapers, Inc.	389 F.2d 579, cert. denied 393 U.S. 825, 89 S.Ct. 88, 21 L.Ed.2d 96 (1968)	United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 1967
834	Grant v. Reader's Digest Ass'n	151 F.2d 733	United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1945
837	Kilian v. Doubleday & Co., Inc.	367 Pa. 117, A.2d 657	Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1951
841	Neiman-Marcus v. Lait	13 F.R.D. 311	United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 1952
846	Bindrim v. Mitchell	92 Cal.App.3d 61, 155 Cal.Rptr. 29, hearing denied by California Supreme Court, 1979; cert. denied 444 U.S. 984, 100 S.Ct. 490, 62 L.Ed.2d 412 (1979), reh. denied 444 U.S. 1040, 100 S.Ct. 713, 62 L.Ed.2d 675 (1980)	Court of Appeal of California, Second District, 1979
852	Shor v. Billingsley	4 Misc.2d 857, 158 N.Y.S.2d 476	Supreme Court, New York County, Special Term, 1956
853	Terwilliger v. Wands	17 N.Y. 54	Court of Appeals of New York, 1858	Download
871	New York Times Co. v. Sullivan	376 U.S. 254	Supreme Court of the United States, 1964
892	Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.	418 U.S. 323	Supreme Court of the United States, 1974	Download
907	Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps	475 U.S. 767	Supreme Court of the United States, 1986	Download
1024	Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank	42 N.E.2d 808	Supreme Court of Massachusetts, 1942	Download

Case Information	Fact Summary	Rule of Law
Weaver v. Ward King's Bench, England, 1616 80 Eng. Rep. 284 Pg. 5	Defendant accidently shot the plaintiff while fighting in front of the king.	". . .[B]ecause felony must be done animo felonico [with a felonious mind]; yet in trespass, which tends only to give damages according to hurt or loss, it is not so. . ."
Brown v. Kendall Supreme Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex, 1850 60 Mass. 292 Pg. 6	Two dogs are fighting in the presence of their masters. The defendant tries to separate the dogs with a stick beating, and accidentally strikes plaintiff in the eye.	In order to recover for unintentional harm, the plaintiff has the burden to prove that defendant failed to meet at least an ordinary level of care.
Cohen v. Petty Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, 1933 62 App.D.C. 187, 65 F.2d 820 Pg. 10	Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that crashed when the defendant driver fainted. Plaintiff appeals from the lower court's directed verdict for the defendant.	Negligence cannot be predicated upon defendant's recklessness in driving an automobile when he did not know, and had no reason to know, of the possibility of an accident due to such an event as a sudden illness.
Spano v. Perini Corp. Court of Appeals of New York, 1969 250 N.E.2d 31 Pg. 13	Plaintiff suffered damage when defendant blasted.	Because of the dangerousness of the activity, one who blasts is strictly liable for the activity.
Garratt v. Dailey Supreme Court of Washington, 1995 46 Wash.2d 197, 279 P.2d 1091 Pg. 17	A five-year-old boy moved a lawn chair from under Plaintiff while she was in the process of sitting down. Plaintiff suffered a broken hip and brings a battery charge against the child.	A court need only find that the defendant behaved with "substantial certainty" that contact would result in order to hold defendant liable for battery. No further finding of intent is necessary.
Spivey v. Battaglia Supreme Court of Florida, 1972 258 So.2d 815 Pg. 20	Petitioner suffered a sharp pain, followed by paralysis on the left side of her face, after Respondent put his arm around her in a "friendly, unsolicited hug." Petitioner brought suit against the respondent for negligence and assault and battery.	"...[A]n assault and battery is not negligence, for such action is unintentional, while negligence connotes an unintentional act." Additionally, "negligence is a relative term and its existence must depend in each a case upon the particular circumstances which surround the parties at the time and place of the events upon which the controversy is based."
Ranson v. Kitner Appellate Court of Illinois, 1889 31 Ill.App. 241 Pg. 24	Appellants, while wolf hunting, accidentally killed appellee's dog when they mistook it for a wolf. Appellee brought action to recover for the value of the dog.	Appellants are liable for any damage caused, regardless of whether they were acting in good faith.
McGuire v. Almy Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1937 8 N.E.2d 760 Pg. 25	Live-in nurse (plaintiff) hears her mental patient (defendant) thrashing about and offers to enter room and help. Patient replies, "If you come in, I will kill you." Nurse enters, and patient beats her with the leg of broken furniture.	If an insane person intends to do the HARM, then she is liable for the intentional tort. (Note the difference from the competent individual, who is liable so long as she merely intends the OFFENSIVE ACT)
Talmage v. Smith Supreme Court of Michigan, 1894 101 Mich. 370, 59 N.W. 656 Pg. 28	Plaintiff was injured when Defendant threw a stick at a nearby boy and missed, hitting Plaintiff above the eye and causing total loss of that eye's sight.	If one throws a stick, intending to hit person A but misses and hits person B, one will be liable for the injury to person B if (1) there was intent to hit person A, and (2)the force was unreasonable under all the circumstances.
Cole v. Turner Nisi Prius, 1704 6 Modern Rep. 149, 90 Eng.Rep. 958 Pg. 29	Cole harmfully and/or offensively touched Turner.	A person is liable for battery if he/she causes harmful or offensive contact. Intent was not required at this time (1704). This rule protects dignity interest with compensation, and grants money for injury.
Wallace v. Rosen Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2002 765 N.E.2d 192 Pg. 30	During a fire drill, a high school teacher touched a student's mother on the back to get her attention. The mother contends she was pushed down the stairs, and the teacher asserts that she only touched the mother on the back. The jury found in favor of the teacher and the mother appealed.	In order to find battery, the evidence must support the inference that not only was the touching intentional, but that it was done in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, for example, that the batterer intended to invade the interests of another in a way that the law forbids.
Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc Supreme Court of Texas, 1967 424 S.W.2d 627 Pg. 35	Plaintiff was standing in a buffet line when defendant approached him and snatched the plate from his hands, saying a "Negro could not be served in the club." Plaintiff sued under a theory of battery for the humiliation he felt.	Battery can be found where there was an “unpermitted and intentional invasion of the plaintiff’s person and no... actual harm [was] done to the plaintiff’s body”.
I. de S. and Wife v. W. de S. At the Assizes, 1348 or 1349 Assisarum, folio 99, placitum 60 Pg. 37	Defendant struck at plaintiff with a hatchet, but did not touch her.	Assault does not require a touching; There is harm for an assault, and damages are recoverable, even though there is no touching.
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill Court of Appeals of Alabama, 1933 25 Ala.App. 540, 150 So. 709 Pg. 37	Sapp, an agent for the defendant, put his hand on Plaintiff's wife and propositioned her. Plaintiff brought an action for damages for assault against the defendant.	To constitute an assault, "there must be an intentional, unlawful, offer to touch the person of another," that the other person must have "a well-founded fear of an imminent battery," and the perpetrator must possess "the apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt."
Big Town Nursing Home, Inc. v. Newman Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 1970 461 S.W.2d 195 Pg. 40	Plaintiff was admitted into a nursing home by his nephew. His nephew signed all necessary papers, which provided that patients "will not be forced to remain in the nursing home against his will for any length of time." Later, when plaintiff attempted to leave he was forcibly brought back to the home and locked into the wing of the home for the mentally disturbed.	"False imprisonment is the direct restraint of one person of the physical liberty of another without adequate legal justification."
Parvi v. City of Kingston Court of Appeals of New York, 1977 41 N.Y.2d 553, 362 N.E.2d 960, 394 N.Y.S.2d 161 Pg. 42	Plaintiff, along with two friends, were found by police officers to be drunk and rowdy. The officers drove the plaintiff to a golf course out of town so he could "dry out." Plaintiff then wandered onto a thruway and was struck by a car. Plaintiff has no memory of the night's events but brought an action against the city for false imprisonment.	False imprisonment is not suffered unless its victim knows of the invasion/imprisonment or is harmed by it.
Hardy v. LaBelle's Distributing Co. Supreme Court of Montana, 1983 203 Mont. 263, 661 P.2d 35 Pg. 44	Plaintiff was an employee in the jewelry department of LaBelle's. Plaintiff was accused of stealing a watch and was brought into a back to be questioned by the managers and to take a lie detector test. Plaintiff brought an action for false imprisonment claiming she was held against her will.	The elements of false imprisonment are the 1) unlawful restraint of another, and 2) restraint that is against that person%u2019s will.
Enright v. Groves Colorado Court of Appeals, 1977 39 Colo.App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 Pg. 46	Defendant, a police officer, demanded plaintiff's driver's license when he observed her dog without a leash. When plaintiff failed to provide the license defendant grabbed her arm and placed her under arrest.	"False arrest arises when one is taken into custody by a person who claims but does not have proper legal authority. Accordingly, a claim for false arrest will not lie if an officer has a valid warrant or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person who was arrested committed it."
Whittaker v. Sandford Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1912 110 Me. 77, 85 A. 399 Pg. 48	Plaintiff was in Jaffa, Syria living in a sect colony, and she wished to sail to America and separate from the sect. Defendant was aboard the ship that took them to America and would not allow her to leave the boat until agreed to rejoin the sect.	"False imprisonment must be by way of actual physical restraint, not mere moral influence."
State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff Supreme Court of California, 1952 38 Cal.2d 330, 240 P.2d 282 Pg. 50	Plaintiff brought an action to recover for a debt that he claims defendant owes him as a result of a trash removal contract. Defendant counterclaims that the written agreement between him and the plaintiff was a result of coercion and duress, and that he should receive punitive damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.	"One who, without a privilege to do so, intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another is liable (a) for such emotional distress, and (b) for bodily harm resulting from it."
Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida Supreme Court of Florida, 1958 100 So.2d 396 Pg. 54	Plaintiff brought a tort action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant, whose employee used language in a "malicious or grossly reckless manner" to the plaintiff when she inquired as to the price of an item in defendant's store.	To constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress, "[t]he unwarranted intrusion must be calculated to cause %u201Csevere emotional distress%u201D to a person of ordinary sensibilities, in the absence of special knowledge or notice."
Harris v. Jones Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1977 281 Md. 560, 380 A.2d 611 Pg. 57	Plaintiff suffered a severe speech impediment and brought an action against General Motors Company and one of its supervisory employees, who oversaw plaintiff. During plaintiff's eight year employment defendant mimicked and ridiculed plaintiff for his speech problems, and as a result plaintiff was prescribed pills for nerves and his impediment worsened. He brought an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.	An action for intentional infliction of mental distress must contain (1) intentional or reckless conduct, (2) extreme and outrageous conduct, (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the distress, and (4) severe distress that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
Taylor v. Vallelunga District Court of Appeal of California, 1959 171 Cal. App.2d 107, 339 P.2d 910 Pg. 64	Plaintiff alleged that she was present for a beating inflicted on her father, and that she suffered severe fright and emotional distress as a result. She brought an action against those who assaulted her father.	In order to intentionally cause severe emotional distress one must have the "intention to cause severe emotional distress when the act is done for the purpose of causing the distress or with knowledge on the part of the actor that severe emotional distress is substantially certain to be produced."
Dougherty v. Stepp Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1835 18 N.C. 371 Pg. 66	Defendant enters plaintiff's land with a surveyor and declares the land his own without marking trees or cutting bushes.	"[E]very unauthorized, and therefore unlawful, entry into the close of another is a trespass."
Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. Supreme Court of Washington, 1985 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782 Pg. 68	Plaintiffs are landowners who live near defendant's copper smelter. They brought an action for trespass to land and for nuisance for the airborne particles of heavy metals and gases that traveled from defendant's smelter to plaintiff's land.	A trespass can be found in instances of the slightest harm, such as "the vibration of the soil or by the concussion of the air."
Herrin v. Sutherland Supreme Court of Montana, 1925 74 Mont. 587, 241 P. 328 Pg. 70	Plaintiff brought an action of trespass to land when he discovered defendant, though standing on the land of another, fired his shotgun over the plaintiff's land to hunt ducks.	To be liable for trespass to land, there need not be a physical trespass. Only an interference with the "quiet, undisturbed, peaceful of enjoyment of the plaintiff" is required.
Rogers v. Board of Road Com'rs for Kent County Supreme Court of Michigan, 1947 319 Mich. 661, 30 N.W.2d 358 Pg. 72	Plaintiff brought suit on behalf of her husband who died after defendant failed to remove anchor posts, pursuant to a contract between the decedent and the defendant, and the decedent was thrown from his mowing machine when the machine stuck an anchor post.	A trespass occurs if defendant fails to remove an item "placed on the land pursuant to a license or other privilege."
Glidden v. Szybiak Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1949 95 N.H. 318, 63 A.2d 233 Pg. 75	A four year old girl was bitten by a dog after climbing on the dog's back and pulling its ears. Defendant, the dog's owner, argues the girl committed trespass to chattels at the time of injury, and therefore should be barred from recovery.	Conduct will not constitute a trespass to chattels unless there is evidence of injury.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1979 601 F.2d 516, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 931, 100 S.Ct. 275, 62 L.Ed.2d 188 (1979) Pg. 92	During a professional football game, defendant was intentionally struck by a member of the plaintiff's team, who was acting out of "anger and frustration."	Plaintiff is "entitled to have [a] case tried on an assessment of his rights and whether they had been violated."
Mohr v. Williams Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905 104 N.W. 12 Pg. 94	Patient (plaintiff) agrees to surgery on her RIGHT ear. During the procedure, surgeon (defendant) discovers problem in LEFT ear and operates (skillfully and successfully) on LEFT ear while plaintiff is unconscious.	If contact is made without plaintiff's consent, then the contact is wrongful, and in turn, unlawful.
De May v. Roberts Supreme Court of Michigan, 1881 46 Mich. 160, 9 N.W. 146 Pg. 99	Plaintiff brought along a friend to witness a childbirth without disclosing the fact that his friend was not employed in a professional capacity.	The law affords remedy for deceit that causes injury.
Katko v. Briney Supreme Court of Iowa, 1971 183 N.W.2d 657 Pg. 107	Plaintiff was shot by a spring powered shotgun trap set up inside defendant's unoccupied farm house. There was no warning about the gun trap and it could not be seen from the outside.	Landowners do not have the right to use lethal force to protect property from intrusion unless the intruder "threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers [...] of the premises."
Hodgeden v. Hubbard Supreme Court of Vermont, 1846 18 Vt. 504, 46 Am.Dec. 167 Pg. 113	Plaintiff stole a stove from defendants. Defendants took back the stove by force. County court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, claiming that even though the defendants had the legal right to the stove, they were not justified in using force.	While recovering property, force can be used as long as the recovering party does not use unjustifiable force.
Bonkowski v. Arlan's Department Store Court of Appeals of Michigan, 1968 12 Mich.App. 88, 162 N.W.2d 347 Pg. 115	Plaintiff was accused of stealing by an agent of the defendant. While exiting the defendant's store, defendant's agent called the plaintiff back. The defendant's agent then asked the plaintiff to show him the contents of her purse. Plaintiff won action against the defendant for false arrest and slander.	If there is reasonable belief that someone is shoplifting, then the shopkeeper or agent of the shopkeeper can investigate, as long as the investigation is reasonable as well.
Surocco v. Geary Supreme Court of California, 1853 3 Cal. 69, 58 Am.Dec. 385 Pg. 118	Defendant, administrator of the city of San Francisco, destroyed the plaintiff's building in order to try to stop the spread of a fire. Plaintiff's claim is that the defendant is liable for property he destroyed.	The common law principle of necessity applies to administration of a fire. In order to save the property of neighbors, property might need to be sacrificed. If the administrator can show necessity, he or she can not be held liable for damage due to the destruction.
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1910 124 N.W. 221 Pg. 121	Defendant moors his boat to plaintiff's dock, pursuant to contract to unload cargo. A storm develops, however, and defendant keeps boat moored to dock, adhering to custom. Boat buffets the dock and causes $500 damage to the dock.	Even when necessity provides a valid defense to trespass, the would-be trespasser must pay compensatory relief for damage caused to property.
Sindle v. New York Transit Authority New York Court of Appeals, 1973 33 N.Y.2d 293, 307 N.E.2d 245, 352 N.Y.S.2d 183 Pg. 128	Students riding on the bus of the defendant were in a very boisterous mood and a few vandalized the bus. The driver of the bus, an agent of the defendant, drove all of the students on the bus to the police station, bypassing several of the normal stops. Plaintiff was riding on the bus, and there is no evidence that he took part in the vandalism. Plaintiff seeks recovery for false imprisonment.	A school bus driver is charged with the "care of his student-passengers and the custody of public property" and "has the duty to take reasonable measures for the safety and protection of both." Therefore, in the case of false imprisonment, the driver has the right to show justification.
Lubitz v. Wells Superior Court of Connecticut, 1955 19 Conn.Sup. 322, 113 A.2d 147 Pg. 133	Defendant left a golf club lying on the ground of his backyard. Defendant's son, while swinging the club, struck the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims the defendant was negligent in leaving the club in the backyard, where he knew his son would play with it and cause injury.	An object such as a golf club, while capable of causing harm, is not so "obviously and intrinsically dangerous" that it is negligent to leave it lying around.
Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Court of Exchequer, 1856 156 Eng. Rep. 1047 Pg. 134	Plaintiff's house is flooded when a water main bursts during a severe frost. The accident was caused due to encrusted ice around a fire plug connected to the water main.	"A reasonable man would act with reference to the average circumstances of the temperature in ordinary years. The defendants had provided against such frosts as experience would have led men, acting prudently, to provide against; and they are not guilty of negligence, because their precautions proved insufcient against the effects of the extreme severity of the frost of 1856, which penetrated to a greater depth than any which ordinarily occurs south of the polar regions."
Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams Supreme Court of Mississippi, 1938 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234 Pg. 135	Appellants delivered a drum of gasoline to the appellee. While removing the cap from the drum, a spark was produced by the ill condition of the threads in the cap. The spark caused a fire which injured the appellee. Appellants argue that they are not liable, due to the event being a "freak accident."	"The test as respects foreseeability is not the balance of probabilities but the existence, in the situation in hand, of some real likelihood of some damage and the likelihood is of such appreciable weight and moment as to induce, or which reasonably should induce, action to avoid it on the part of a person of a reasonably prudent mind."
Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl Supreme Court of Nebraska, 1902 65 Neb. 889, 91 N.W. 880 Pg. 138	Defendant was injured while playing on the railroad's property and recovered from the plaintiff. Plaintiff argues that the defendant does not have the right to recover because it had exercised enough care in maintaining the safety of the premises.	"[I]n all cases of this kind in the determination of the question of negligence, regard must be had to the character and location of the premises, the purpose for which they are used, the probability of injury therefrom, the precautions necessary to prevent such injury, and the relations such precautions bear to the beneficial use of the premises.
Davison v. Snohomish County Supreme Court of Washington, 1928 149 Wash. 109, 270 P. 422 Pg. 139	Plaintiffs, while driving on a bridge owned by the defendants, crashed through the guard rail. Plaintiffs claim the defendant was negligent in building the bridge because the guard rail was insufficient to keep a car from crashing through it.	Counties only need to construct barriers to a degree of protection and where they see fit. They are not required to construct guard rails strong enough to hold a car for long stretches of roadway.
United States v. Carroll Towing Co. United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1947 159 F.2d 169 Pg. 141	Carroll Towing (defendant) is towing a line of barges, including the "Anna C" (owned by Connors, plaintiff). Connors does not place an employee on board its barge. The "Anna C" breaks away from the line of barges and crashes into a tanker.	The "Hand Formula": if B < P*L, and the actor does not take the adequate precaution (B), then the actor has breached a legal duty. B = "the burden of adequate precautions." P = "the probability" that injury will result. L = "the gravity of the resulting injury"
Vaughan v. Menlove Court of Common Pleas, 1837 132 Eng. Rep. 490 Pg. 145	Defendant consructed a hayrick, or a stack of hay, near the border of the property he rented from the plaintiff. Defendant was repeatedly warned that the hayrick was in danger of catching fire over the course of five weeks. Desipite the warnings, defendant said that "he would chance it." The hay eventually caught fire, burning down both defendant's buildings and the cottages of the plaintiff on a neighboring parcel of land.	The reasonable man standard is objective, not subjective; "...you must so enjoy your own property as not to injure that of another."
Delair v. McAdoo Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936 324 Pa. 392, 188 A. 181 Pg. 148	Defendant's tire blew out, causing him to collide with the plaintiff's car. Plaintiff brought suit against defendant, claiming that the defendant was negligent in driving with a defective tire.	"The law requires drivers and owners of motor vehicles to know the condition of those parts which are likely to become dangerous where the flaws or faults would be disclosed by a reasonable inspection."
Trimarco v. Klein Court of Appeals of New York, 1982 56 N.Y.2d 98, 436 N.E.2d 502, 451 N.Y.S.2d 52 Pg. 150	Plaintiff was injured while exiting the bathtub in his rented apartment. The bathtub had a screen of normal, untempered glass, which shattered unexpectedly and suddenly, severely injuring him. At the time, it was ordinary and recommended practice to use plastic or tempered safety glass, which had been treated with shatterproof material, in shower or bath enclosures. Plaintiff could not have known the glass was not safety glass.	By examining the common and reasonable practice of a business, the evidence of custom and usage can be proved. A common practice, however, is not "necessarily a conclusive or even compelling test of negligence."
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. City Court of New York, New York County, 1941 27 N.Y.S.2d 198 Pg. 154	Plaintiff's children and wife were struck by a taxi, whose driver abandoned it. The defendant is the driver's employer. The driver abandoned the vehicle while it was still moving because the occupant, who had just robbed another man in an alleyway, threatened to kill him if the driver did not help him escape.	"If under normal circumstances an act is done which might be considered negligent, it does not follow as a corollary that a similar act is negligent if performed by a person acting under an emergency, not of his own making, in which he suddenly is faced with patent danger with a moment left to adopt a means of extrication."
Roberts v. State of Louisiana Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 1981 396 So.2d 566 Pg. 157	A blind man was walking through his workplace without his cane, which he knew very well, and bumped into the plaintiff, an elderly man. The plaintiff fell down and injured his hip. The plaintiff is suing the state, claiming they were negligent in failing to properly supervise their employee, the blind man.	A man with a disability is only required to act as an ordinary reasonable man would if he were blind.
Robinson v. Lindsay Supreme Court of Washington, 1979 92 Wash.2d 410, 598 P.2d 392 Pg. 161	Defendant's snowmobile was driven by a 13 year old boy, who used it to tow plaintiff, an 11 year old girl, in an inner tube. Plaintiff's thumb was severed in the process. The issue of appeal is whether or not a minor can be held to the adult standard of care when operating a snowmobile.	When operating a "powerful motorized vehicle," minors can be held to the standard of care applied to an adult.
Breunig v. American Family Insurance Co. Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 1970 173 N.W.2d 619 Pg. 165	Insane woman (defendant) drives into oncoming lane of traffic, but claims that God was steering. Defendant's car strikes plaintiff's truck.	Insanity is a defense in a case of negligence ONLY IF (1) the person has no reasonable forewarning that an existing condition could cause such an incident AND (2) the condition acts suddenly and prevents the person from conforming conduct to the standard of the reasonable person.
Heath v. Swift Wings, Inc. Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979 40 N.C.App. 158, 252 S.E.2d 526 Pg. 168	Fred Heath crashed a plane with his wife, child, and friend inside, killing everyone. The estate of Heath's wife and child filed suit against his estate and the owners of the plane, Swift Wings, Inc., claiming he negligently piloted the plane.	The instruction to the jury included a segment claiming that Heath could only be held to the standard of a pilot with the same amount of training he had received. The standard of care for a professional is based on the standard of care applicable to all other professionals.
Hodges v. Carter Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954 239 N.C. 517, 80 S.E.2d 144 Pg. 173	Plaintiff was a drug store owner, and his building burned down. He was insured against fire damage by several companies, all of whom declined to pay any of the losses. Plaintiff then hired lawyers, the defendants, to issue summons and complaints against the insurance companies. They sent the summons to the Insurance Commissioner instead of having them personally delivered. The insurance companies claimed this was not proper delivery, and the court agreed on appeal. The plaintiff then sued the defendants, claiming they were negligent in failing to properly serve the summons.	An attorney, like any other professional, is liable for damages caused by his negligent mistakes, held to the standard of skill and knowledge of other professionals in his field. In the case where a custom among professionals was not previously challenged, the professional can not be held liable for negligence.
Boyce v. Brown Supreme Court of Arizona, 1938 51 Ariz. 416, 77 P.2d 455 Pg. 177	Plaintiff was treated by the defendant, a doctor, several years previous to the suit. The defendant treated a fracture in the plaintiff's ankle by joining the plaintiff's bones with a screw, standard practice in medicine. Years later, the plaintiff requested treatment for pain in her ankle, which the defendant treated by wrapping the ankle with adhesive tape and repairing an arch support he had previously given her. When the plaintiff continued to experience pain after treatment, she went to a new doctor. This doctor, noticing a strange mark near the ankle, took an X-ray, which revealed necrosis of the bone around the screw. This new doctor removed the screw and the ankle healed normally.	In order to establish malpractice, the plaintiff needs to prove by expert testimony that the doctor did not adhere to the standard of proper medical care required at the time.
Morrison v. MacNamara District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979 407 A.2d 555 Pg. 181	Appellant fainted and was injured due to a medical procedure he received while standing, rather than sitting or lying down. According to an expert witness, the national standard of care for this procedure was to administer it while the patient is sitting or lying down due to the risk of the patient feeling faint. Appellee, the medical laboratory which administered the procedure, claims it is only required to adhere to a local standard of care. The trial court agreed with the appellees, and refused to instruct the jury that a national standard applied.	"Even a cursory analysis of the policy behind the locality doctrine [, which states that doctors are only held to local standards of care,] reveals that whatever relevance it has to the practice of medicine in remote rural communities, it has no relevance to medical practice in the District of Columbia. Clearly the nation's capital is not a community isolated from recent advancements in the quality and treatment of patients . . . Moreover any purported disparity between the skills of practitioners in various urban centers has for the most part been eliminated."
Scott v. Bradford Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1979 606 P.2d 554 Pg. 185	Defendant performed a surgery on the plaintiff. The surgery resulted in a new problem arising. Plaintiff is suing for medical malpractice, claiming that the defendant did not explain the treatment, risks, and other possible options enough for her to make an informed consent.	[I]n a medical malpractice action a patient suing under the theory of informed consent must allege and prove: (1) defendant physician failed to inform him adequately of a material risk before securing his consent to the proposed treatment; (2)if he had been informed of the risks he would not have consented to the treatment; (3) the adverse consequences that were not made known did in fact occur and he was injured as a result of submitting to the treatment.
Pokora v. Wabash Ry. U.S. Supreme Court, 1934 292 U.S. 98 Pg. 200	Plaintiff approaches a railroad crossing in his automobile. He stops and tries to look, but proceeds without getting out of his car for a better vantage point. Train (defendant) strikes and injures plaintiff.	The standard of care in negligence cases is "for the judgment of a jury". In other words, the determination of duty and breach is a question of fact, not law.
Osborne v. McMasters Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1889 41 N.W. 543 Pg. 204	Defendant's drug store clerk failed to properly label a bottle of poison (per criminal statute) and sold bottle to the plaintiff, who perished.	Breach of a statutory duty "constitutes conclusive evidence of negligence, or in other words, NEGLIGENCE PER SE" when both the following are true: 1) defendant's breach of duty harms those people that the statute was designed to protect, AND 2) the harm is of the "character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent."
Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp. Supreme Court of Oregon, 1971 259 Or. 583, 488 P.2d 436 Pg. 206	Plaintiff was injured in a bar fight which occurred in defendant's bar. After a belligerent group approached the plaintiff's table, one of the plaintiff's friends complained to the bartender, who told him to avoid those belligerent individuals. The fight occurred not long after the warning. Plaintiff brought suit against the drinking establishment claiming the defendant was negligent in serving the belligerent individuals alcohol and allowing them in the establishment.	"A violation of a statute or regulation constitutes negligence as a matter of law when the violation results in injury to a member of the class of persons intended to be protected by the legislation and when the harm is of the kind which the statute or regulation was enacted to prevent. [. . .] However, in addition, it is proper for the court to examine preliminarily the appropriateness of the standard as a measure of care for civil litigation under the circumstances presented."
Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. Illinois Supreme Court, 1954 2 Ill.2d 74, 117 N.E.2d 74 Pg. 210	Defendant's servant left a taxi cab unattended without taking the key from the ignition, which was a violation of statute. A thief later stole the taxi while in flight and crashed into the plaintiff causing property damage.	An intervening agent, even an illegal one, does not necessarily break the cause and effect chain in a negligence case. The intention of a statute is equally as important as the act it prohibits when establishing actionable violation of statute in a negligence case.
Perry v. S.N. and S.N. Texas Supreme Court, 1998 973 S.W.2d 301. Pg. 215	Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants over abuse of their children at a day care. Plaintiffs claim the defendants witnessed the abuse but did not report it. A state statute requires "any person having cause to believe a child is being abused to report the abuse to state authorities." The question before the courts is "whether plaintiffs may maintain a cause of action for negligence per se" based on the statute.	"[A] decision to impose negligence per se could not be limited to cases charging serious misconduct like the one at bar, but rather would impose immense potential liability under an ill-defined standard on a broad class of individuals whose relationship to the abuse was extremely indirect."
Martin v. Herzog New York Court of Appeals, 1920 126 N.E. 814 Pg. 222	Plaintiff's buggy collides with defendant's automobile, and plaintiff dies. Plaintiff is driving without his headlights on, which violates a statute.	Breach of a statutory duty can also constitute CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE PER SE, subject to the same requirements: 1) plaintiff is a member of the class of persons that the statute is designed to protect, AND 2) harm is of the character that the statute is designed to prevent. Finally, Cardozo states that negligence per se, like all negligence, must be causally connected to the injury.
Zeni v. Anderson Supreme Court of Michigan, 1976 397 Mich. 117, 243 N.W.2d 270. Pg. 224	Plaintiff, in the winter, was walking to work on a "well-used pedestrian snowpath, with her back to oncoming traffic" which a security officer testified was safer than the sidewalk during the wintertime, and was struck by a car driven by the defendant. Plaintiff is suing to recover for injuries sustained in the accident. Defendant claimed that plaintiff's failure to use the sidewalk constituted contributory negligence because it violated a statute.	"[W]hen a court adopts a penal statute as the standard of care in a an action for negligence, violation of that statute establishes a prima facie case of negligence, with the determination to be made by the finder of fact whether the party accused of violating the statute has established a legally sufficient excuse. If the finder of fact determines such an excuse exists, the appropriate standard of care then becomes that established by the common law."
Goddard v. Boston & Maine R.R. Co. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1901 179 Mass. 52, 60 N.E. 486 Pg. 229	Plaintiff slipped on a banana peel on defendant's railway platform. The banana peel was most likely dropped by another passenger in the crowd just moments before the plaintiff slipped on it, and would have been difficult if not impossible for the defendant's employees to spot.	The plaintiff must prove that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain their premises.
Anjou v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1911 208 Mass. 273, 94 N.E. 386 Pg. 230	Plaintiff slipped on a banana peel on defendant's platform. The banana peel appeared as if it had been there for some time, long enough that an employee of the defendants should have seen it and cleaned it up.	"The obligation rested upon the defendant to keep its station reasonably safe for its passengers." Because the inference is drawn that it was there for some time, the defendants are negligent for leaving their platform in a dangerous condition.
Ortega v. Kmart Corp. Supreme Court of California, 2001 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 26 Cal.4th 1200, 36 P.3d 11 Pg. 231	Plaintiff slipped in a puddle of milk in defendant's store. Plaintiff did not offer any evidence as to how long the puddle was there, but there was also no record of when employees inspected the store.	"[I]f the plaintiffs can show an inspection was not made within a particular period of time prior to an accident, they may raise an inference the condition did exist long enough for the owner to have discovered it. It remains a question of fact for the jury whether, under all the circumstances, the defective condition existed long enough so that it would have been discovered and remedied by an owner in the exercise of reasonable care."
Joye v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 1968 405 F.2d 464 Pg. 231	Plaintiff slipped on a banana in defendant's supermarket. There was no evidence as to how long the banana had been there.	A plaintiff must establish evidence that the defendant either put the banana on the floor, or had "actual notice of its presence."
Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co. Supreme Court of Colorado, 1972 177 Colo. 418, 494 P.2d 839 Pg. 233	Plaintiff slipped on a slice of pizza at defendant's "pizza-hoagie counter." Plaintiff, instead of displaying constructive notice, claims that the defendant's method of selling pizza i