GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTS STUDENTS

Transcription

1 TORTS I Spring 2012 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTS STUDENTS Welcome to Torts I. You should consider these instructions to be the rules of the road for the course. Please follow them closely. Read each week s entire assignment, which contains material for two class sessions, before the first meeting of that week. You may be called on to discuss a case in class at any time, making thorough preparation essential. Do not assume that cases will be discussed in the order in which they are assigned. Indeed, cases may be discussed out of order. Read the assignments in the Glannon hornbook (GL) and the Understanding Torts (UT) treatise before attempting to read the assigned cases in Prosser s casebook. The hornbook and treatise give useful summaries of the applicable legal rules, which will help you to understand the cases themselves. A series of case notes and comments often follow the cases in the casebook. Make sure you read all the notes that appear on the assigned pages. A case brief is a summary of a legal case that law students write in preparation for class. You will be taught how to brief a case during law school orientation. For this course, please brief each case on a separate sheet of paper. BOOK BRIEFING IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. Wherever possible, use your own words rather than the court s words. Review your briefs and notes before each class, no matter how long ago you briefed the cases. If you do not remember the cases well enough to discuss them, you are not prepared for class! Laptops are allowed during class for the purpose of taking notes. Internet use and computer games are not permitted during class. This is distracting to everyone. Please turn off your Wi-Fi access when you come to class. Correspondence Guidelines: An important component of the legal profession is correspondence, including that with clients, cocounsel, opposing counsel, the courts, vendors, colleagues, your boss, and many other people. Today, much of that correspondence occurs via , text messaging, and the like, rather than printed copy. While most of you are familiar with such technologies, you may not be familiar with using them in the business world, where your professionalism is often gauged by the substance and form of your correspondence. At law school, you will doubtless find occasion to correspond with your professors, administrators, classmates, and people working in the law outside the school. Take each such occasion as an opportunity to practice your writing: proofread for factual errors, spelling errors, and grammatical mistakes. Take the time to ensure that you ve used complete sentences, and that you ve punctuated each sentence properly. Begin your correspondence with an appropriate salutation, such as Dear, or even Hello, and end with a valediction, such as Sincerely, or Best regards,. Following these guidelines will enhance not only your writing, but also your professional reputation, in a world where both are critical to your success. All correspondence sent to me must follow the above guidelines or I may not respond. I find the vast majority of students already do this. But on occasion I ll get an from an address unknown to me (e.g. voodoodog666) expecting a response. I don t respond to s from unknown sources, whether voodoo is involved or not. 1

2 1 INTENTIONAL TORTS: Concept of Intent Garratt v. Dailey Ranson v. Kitner McGuire v. Almy PERSONAL INVASIONS: Battery Cole v. Turner 30-31, 34 Wallace v. Rosen Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc Assault I de S et ux. v.w de S 37 Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill False Imprisonment Big Town Nursing v. Newman Parvi v. City of Kingston Hardy v. LaBelle s Distributing Co Enright v. Groves Whittaker v. Sandford Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 22-24, State Rubbish Collectors Ass n v. Siliznoff Taylor v. Vallelunga Slocum v. Food Fair Stores Harris v. Jones

3 TORTS I FALL DEFENSES TO PERSONAL INVASIONS: Concept of Privilege, Consent O Brien v. Cunard S.S. Co Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc Mohr v. Williams De May v. Roberts Self-Defense Defense of Others Defense of Property Katko v. Briney Recapture of Chattel Hodgeden v. Hubbard PROPERTY INVASIONS: Trespass to Land Dougherty v. Stepp Herrin v. Sutherland Rogers v. Board of Road Com rs Trespass to Chattel Glidden v. Szybiak CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc Conversion Pearson v. Dodd Transferred Intent Talmage v. Smith

4 TORTS I FALL DEFENSES TO PROPERTY INVASIONS: Necessity Surocco v. Geary Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp CATCH UP 7 NEGLIGENCE General Concepts I. DUTY Foreseeable Risk Lubitz v. Wells Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Foreseeable Plaintiff Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R McCoy v. American Suzuki Thing v. LaChusa MIDTERM EXAMINATION (covering Intentional Torts and Defenses): Date & Time TBA 8 Failure To Act Hegel v. Langsam Riss v. New York see movie Crazy Love De Long v. Erie County

5 TORTS I FALL Special Relationships J.S. & M.S. v. R.T.H Tarasoff v. Regents of U.oCA II. BREACH Landholders Salevan v. Wilmington Sheehan v. St. Paul Barmore v. Elmore Campbell v. Weathers Whelan v. Van Naha Rowland v. Christian Child Trespassers Standard of Care Vaughn v. Menlove Delair v. McAdoo Reasonable Care Formula Chicago v. Krayenbuhl U.S. v. Carroll Towing ) Emergency Cordas v. Peerless ) Custom Trimarco v. Klein ) Children Robinson v. Lindsay ) Professional Negligence Health v. Swift Wings Boyce v. Brown Violation of Statute Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp Osborne v. McMasters Ney v. Yellow Cab Perry v. S.N Martin v. Herzog Zeni v. Anderson

6 TORTS I - FALL Res Ipsa Loquitur Byrne v. Boadle McDougald v. Perry Larson v. St. Francis Ybarra v. Spangard III. CAUSATION: Cause-in-Fact Perkins v. Texas& New Orleans Concurrent Causes Hill v. Edmonds Anderson v. Minneapolis ) Proof of Concurrent Causes Summers v. Tice Sindell v. Abbot Labs Legal (Proximate) Cause Atlantic Coast Line v. Daniels In re Polemis Wagon Mound Yun v. Ford Motor Bartolone v. Jeckovich Intervening Causes Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge

7 TORTS I - SPRING IV. DAMAGES: Joint Tortfeasors Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Personal Injury Read notes( not Richardson) Montgomery Ward v. Anderson Zimmerman v. Ausland Property Damage DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE: 15 REVIEW Plaintiff s Negligence Butterfield v. Forrester McIntyre v. Balentine Assumption of the Risk Seigneur v. National Fitness Rush v. Commercial Realty Read notes Analyzing Torts Issues on an Essay Exam 16 FINAL EXAMINATION REQUIRED READING: 1) Schwartz, Kelly and Partlett, PROSSER, WADE AND SCHWARTZ S TORTS, 12th Edition, Foundation Press (PR) 2) Glannon, THE LAW OF TORTS: EXAMPLES AND EXPLANATIONS, Fourth Edition, Aspen, (2010). (GL) 3) Diamond, Levine, and Madden, UNDERSTANDING TORTS, Fourth Edition, LexisNexis (2010) (UT) 7