Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Punitive Damages And Corporate Liability Analysis In Sports Litigation, Gil B. Fried
Punitive Damages And Corporate Liability Analysis In Sports Litigation, Gil B. Fried
Marquette Sports Law Review
No abstract provided.
Economic Coercion As Plaintiff's Defense To Volenti Non Fit Injuria In Strict Liability Actions., Charles T. Locke
Economic Coercion As Plaintiff's Defense To Volenti Non Fit Injuria In Strict Liability Actions., Charles T. Locke
St. Mary's Law Journal
Although Texas courts have commented on the harshness of “assumed risk” principles for quite some time, they have been reluctant to alter the situation. However, the Fifth Circuit decision in Messick v. General Motors Corporation may effectively serve to soften this well-established doctrine. Volenti non fit injuria, or “assumed risk,” will preclude recovery where the plaintiff voluntarily assumes a risk of injury arising from another’s negligence. One exception to the rule is the “hard choice” doctrine, which considers whether the defendant’s negligence left the plaintiff with a reasonable choice to avoid the danger. Interestingly, Texas courts refuse to extend the …
Comment, Wex S. Malone
Comment, Wex S. Malone
Vanderbilt Law Review
There is no discernible reluctance by courts to direct verdicts on the issue of the plaintiff's carelessness in suits by invitees against proprietors of business premises. The writer has had occasion to examine a representative group of about two hundred cases in this area where contributory negligence was seriously in issue. In more than a third of these disputes the appellate courts had either approved the trial judge's action in directing a defendant verdict, or had reversed a judgment for plaintiff because the trial court had allowed the controversy to reach the jury on the contributory negligence issue. I have …
"Lightning Cases" Under Workmen's Compensation Acts
"Lightning Cases" Under Workmen's Compensation Acts
Michigan Law Review
A farm hand, sent by his employer to work for a day at a neighbor's farm, was killed by lightning while returning home. At the time of the accident he was driving a team of horses, without a wagon, and was crossing a "high, rocky hill near a wire fence." An award under the Colorado Compensation Act was affirmed by the district court. On appeal from this affirmance, held, by a majority of the court, that "since Oakley's employment required him to be in a position where the lightning struck him, there was a causal relation between employment and …