Cloned from: Levy-Torts II

Bookmark and Share

Front Back
Overcast v. South Carolina electric and gas co. (public nuisance)
Plaintiff was injured at boating accident involving a dock obstruction in public waters. The court declined to recognize a cause of action under the doctrine of public nuisance for personal injuries.
Smith v. City of Boston (public nuisance)
Boston closed down a street to to make way for a new r.r. Line. The ct held that the damage was no different from that of the other members of the community.
532 madison avenue gourmet foods Inc v. Finladia center, Inc. (public nuisance)
Public Nuisance is actionable by a private person only if it shown that the person suffered special injury beyond that suffered by the community at large.
Burns Jackson (public nuisance)
Refused to permit public nuisance action from a labor strike because the strike was widespread and everyone suffered the same damage.
Leo v. General Electric (public nuisance)
The plaintiffs did have a special injury because the other fishermen did not suffer the same loss of livelihood like they did.
Union oil v. Oppen (public nuisance)
Court said just suffered economic loss and not lost property because the fishermen did not own the fish. No recovery under public nuisance.
Purist v. Allied chemical Corp (public nuisance)
Allowed suits for commercial fisherman but not the actions of the various seafood wholesaler, retailers and distributors who purchased and marketed them because it was insufficiently direct.
Camden county board of chosen freebooters v. Beretta, USA Corp (public nuisance)
Camden county alleged that the handgun manufacturers are liable under a public nuisance theory for governmental costs associated with the criminal use of handguns. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. For interference to be actionable the defendant must exert a certain degree of control over it's source.
Port Auth v. Arcadian (public nuisance)
Defendant has no duty to control misconduct of 3rd parties.
City of Philadelphia v. Beretta USA Corp. (public nuisance)
Plaintiff tried to shorten causal chain but it still did not reduce the links that separate a manufacturers sale of gun with the guns arrival at illegal markets.
(Another case D.C. v. Beretta relied on this decision)
Johnson v. Bryco Arms (public nuisance)
The court allowed a shooting victim to sue a gun manufacturer wholesaler distributor and retailer on a public nuisance theory.
Winterbottom v. Wright (products liability, 1st stage)
Old rule: If a contracting party has not undertaken a public duty, he is liable only for negligence only to parties stipulated in the contract, not 3rd persons. You can limit your remedies as well as warranties.
Huset v. J.I. (products liability)
Threshing machine remanded case when the plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the condition. Ct found that it was improbable for him to know.- general rule is a contractor, manufacturer, or vendor is not liable to third parties who have no contractual relations with him for negligence in construction, manufacture or sale of the articles he handles.
Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Manufacturing Co. (products liability)
Defect was concealed deliberately and because of the third exception def was liable.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co (products liability, 2nd stage: No need for privity)
The plaintiff was thrown out and injured when the car suddenly collapsed because one of the wheels was made of defective wood w/c crumbled into fragments. There must be knowledge of a danger, not merely possible, but probable and that in the usual course of events the danger will be shared by others than the buyer-INFERRED FROM NATURE OF TRANSACTION. If you negligently manufacture something, you are liable. Has to be both: imminently dangerous and negligently manufactured.
Thomas v. Winchester (products liability)
Poison was falsely labeled which was sold to a druggist, who in turn sold to a customer. Customer recovered damages from the seller who affixed the label. Principle of distinction- injury unlikely to any one except the purchase.
Loop v. Litchfield (products liability)
The court said that the manufacturer was not answerable to the lessee.
Losee v. Clute (products liability)
Explosion of a steam boiler. Court said the risk of injury was too remote.
Devlin v. Smith (products liability)
The defendant, a contractor, built a scaffold for a painter. The painter's servants were injured. The contractor was held liable. He knew that the scaffold, if improperly constructed, was a most dangerous trap and that it was to be used by the workmen therefore he owed them a duty, irrespective of his contract with their master, to build it with care.
Statler v. Ray Mfg. Co (products liability)
The defendant manufactured a large coffee urn installed in a restaurant. When heated, the urn exploded and injured the plaintiff. Court held that the manufacturer was liable because it was a source of great danger.
Smith v Peerless Glass Co. (products liability)
Court allowed direct action for negligence brought against a manufacturer of a component part, such as the wheel maker in MacPherson.
Chysky v. Drake Brothers Co. (products liability)
Waitress was given piece of defendants cake for lunch where she bit on a concealed nail and suffered injuries. Privity of K for implied warranty. But in Greenberg v. Lorenz the court overruled Chysky and eliminated privity.
Baxter v. Ford motors (products liability)
Small rock shattered windshield. Ford was liable for its representations distributed by the dealer.
Caveat emptor
Buyer beware!
Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno (products liability, 3rd stage)
Strict liability. Waitress was stocking cokes in the fridge and after putting 4th bottle, it exploded in her hand causing injuries. A manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury to human beings. A manufacturer can anticipate hazards and guard against the recurrence of others, as the public cannot.
Richenbacher v. CA Packing Corp. (products liability)
For goods sold in sealed container, law exempted the retailer from liability but allowed a direct suit against manufacturer.
Products liability as opposed to Rylands
the defendant is never in possession of the dangerous product when it causes injury so that the older privity limitation becomes a sensible way for liability to track possession.
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc. (products liability)
Wife drove car purchased by husband and car went out of control. UCC 2-313 (in contracts class, remember!)
Castro v. QVC Network (products liability)
Liable for injuries when a turkey fell and burnt legs and ankles.
§ 402(a) (products liability, 4th and present stage)
Special liability or seller of product for physical harm to user or consumer. Destroyed warranties exclusivity of just remedies.

One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property if: the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without change in the condition in which it is sold.
4th stage:
1. There must be something wrong
2. It has to hurt you.
§2 Defective designs
1. When it departs from intended design
2. Forseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of a reasonable alternative design
3. Inadequate instructions or warnings.
Casa Clara Condominium Associate v. Charley Toppino and sons (products liability)
Toppino supplied defective cement. Even if the defendant used utmost care, he is still liable for the defective product.
Adams-Arapahoe school district v. Gaf Corp (products liability)
Refused to allow plaintiff recovery for the cost of removal of asbestos that posed no immediate risk of harm.
Bland v. Richard B. Smith (products liability)
Economic loss rule prevented recovery for the settling of the house built on bad foundation.
Saratoga fishing (products liability)
Loss of equipment added by the initial user after the sale are considered other property for which tort was appropriate.
2-j corporation v. Rice (products liability)
Relied on Saratoga fishing for recovery of goods damaged when def warehouse collapsed.
Gauged v. Zogarts (products liability)
Practicing golfer using golfing gizmo struck a boy even if the literature stated it was safe and will not his player. Rejected defense of puffery and that it was safe only for experienced golfers even though it was made for beginners. Were able to sue under express warranty, UCC 2-313.
Cafazzo v. Central Medical Health Services (product liability)
Plaintiff had surgery sometime after the prosthetis device used was discovered defective. Defendants are subject to liability only if quality or quantity of services rendered are called into question. Attacked Escola.
Podrat v. Codman-Shurtleff, Inc. (product liability)
Appelles could not be liable under a theory of strict liability because they were not in the business of selling the implant, its use was only incidental to appellees' primary function of providing medical services, and the medical services could not have been rendered without the use of this product.
Vandermark v. Ford Motor Co. (product liability)
Products liability applies to all ordinary products retailers and distributors within the initial chain of distribution.The automobile dealer is strictly liable for defects.
Schipper v. Levitt & Sons, Inc. (product liability)
Products liability extended to wholesalers and distribuotrs.
Suklijian v. Ross & Son Co. (product liability)
3rd party defendant's sale of a surplus 11-yr-old mill on "as-is" basis that was a casual or occassional sale was not subject to a claim of strict products liability.
Tillman v. Vance Equipment Co. (product liability)
Plaintiff was injured from a 24-yr-old used crane sold as-is. Court also refused to apply strict liability § 402A to the defendant.
Crandell v. Larkin & Jones Appliance Co. (product liability)
Imposed strict liability on sellers who rebuilt or reconditioned the original designs of used products.
Ray v. Alad Corp. (product liability)
Successor liability. A corporation that acquires the assets or shares of aseperate product seller can be sued for its predecessor's torts after liquidation of original corporation.
Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc. (product liability)
No successor liability. because the management of the selling corporation had nothing to do with the operation of the new business after the sale.
Speller v Sears Roebuck and Co. (product defects)
Plaintiff was killed in a fire that started in her kitchen and family sued Sears claiming negligence, strict liability, strict products liability, and breach of warranty in that the fire was caused by defective refrigerator. If Plaintiffs can prove circumstantially that product was cause of the fire and exclude other sources then D is liable.
Defective if it departs from it's intended design.
x of y cards Next > >> >|