Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Torts

University of Michigan Law School

Oklahoma

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Charities - Torts - Liability Of Charitable Corporations For Their Torts, Raymond H. Rapaport Nov 1940

Charities - Torts - Liability Of Charitable Corporations For Their Torts, Raymond H. Rapaport

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff was employed by defendant to assist in the work of redecorating defendant's building, and was injured because of defendant's alleged failure to provide a suitable place to work. To plaintiff's plea for damages defendant answered that since it was a charitable corporation it was, therefore, immune from such action. Held, charitable corporations are not immune from liability for torts by reason of any exemption accorded them on the basis of the purposes for which they were incorporated. Gable v. Salvation Army, 186 Okla. 687, 100 P. (2d) 244 (1940).


Torts -Attractive Nuisance Jan 1933

Torts -Attractive Nuisance

Michigan Law Review

Dynamite caps were left on the banks of a slush pit near defendant's gas well. Cultivated fields immediately around the pit were under lease to a Mr. Bradshaw whose small boy, trespassing upon defendant's pit, found the dynamite caps and showed them to his father who permitted the boy to play with them, thinking that the caps had been exploded. Later the Bradshaw boy gave them to plaintiff, aged five, who drove a nail into a cap which exploded and injured him. Evidence showed that there was a path near the slush pit, and that children frequently crossed the field …


Negligence-"Last Clear Chance" Doctrine Jan 1931

Negligence-"Last Clear Chance" Doctrine

Michigan Law Review

ln an action for damages by a negligent driver oi a motorcycle against a negligent driver of an automobile for injuries sustained in a collision between them, the instructions to the jury were that the plaintiff could recover, "if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the plaintiff's negligence." Held, the instructions are erroneous in omitting the essential element of the last clear chance doctrine, that the plaintiff's peril must have been known to the defendant in time to have avoided the accident. Graybill v. Clancy …