Law Commons^™

Perpetuating Injustice: Analyzing The Maryland Court Of Appeals’S Refusal To Change The Common Law Doctrine Of Contributory Negligence, Andrew White

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan

Ocean and Coastal Law Journal

In maritime personal injury cases, courts have traditionally seen prejudgment interest as part of the compensation due to a prevailing plaintiff. The goal of ensuring the fullest compensation possible has long been recognized as a basic principle of admiralty law. However, federal appellate courts are split over whether to award prejudgment interest on a mixed claim under general maritime law and the Jones Act. This Note explores this issue in Nevor v. Moneypenny Holdings, LLC, which was the first time the question had been raised in the First Circuit. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits have held that because prejudgment interest …

Judicial Application Of Ohio's Comparative Negligence Statute, Michael J. Olah, Paul F. Meyerhoefer

Akron Law Review

In the case of Wilfong v. Batdorf the Ohio Supreme Court reexamined the issue of the retroactive application of Ohio's comparative negligence statute. Ohio's statute abolishing the defense of contributory negligence in a tort action was passed with an effective date of June 20, 1980, and the court faced the task of deciding whether comparative fault measurements could be used in an action arising prior to the effective date of the statute, but not coming to trial until after the effective date of the act. Previously the court had the opportunity to examine this issue in the case of Viers …

Comparative Fault And Strict Products Liability: Are They Compatible?, C. R. Hickey

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler

Pepperdine Law Review

In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …

Through The Backdoor: Manipulating Assumption Of Risk And Contributory Negligence To Apply In Texas Nonsubscriber Causes Of Action., Lara Brock, Javier Espinoza

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Texas’s nonsubscriber law precedence and interpretation directly conflict with the plain language and legislative intent of Texas Labor Code § 406.033. The purpose of § 406.033 is to protect injured workers and to encourage employers to subscribe to the state’s workers’ compensation system. Texas, however, allows employers to opt-out. Employers who elect to opt out of the workers’ compensation system are called “nonsubscribers.” By making this decision, nonsubscribers save on the cost of paying premiums for worker’s compensation, but potentially expose themselves to total liability against injured employees who can prove his or her employer breached one of their defined …

Respondent Superior As An Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves From Direct Negligence Claims, J. J. Burns

Michigan Law Review

Most courts hold that where a defendant employer admits that it is vicariously liable for its employee's negligence, a plaintiff's additional claims of negligent entrustment, hiring, retention, supervision, and training must be dismissed. Generally, courts apply this rule based on the logic that allowing a plaintiff's additional claims adds no potential liability beyond that which has already been admitted. Furthermore, since the additional claims merely allege a redundant theory of recovery once a respondeat superior admission has been made, the prejudicial evidence of an employee's prior bad acts which often accompanies direct negligence claims against employers can be excluded without …

Rider Beware: Relying On The Courts And A Nationalized Rating System To Address The Duty Of Care Owed To Amusement Park Attraction Guests, Tobias Butler

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This note explores the history of amusement park attraction regulation, including both the legislative and judicial treatment, and highlights the deficiencies in court approaches in light of "common carrier" law. First, is a brief history of thrill attractions in America as well as regulation of these attractions by both the legislature and judiciary. Specifically it will discuss the major approaches courts have taken in applying or refusing to apply the "common carrier" definition to these attractions. Second, it will analyze why any standard less than "utmost care" does not provide sufficient power for the courts to create a consistent standard …

Wright V. Hanley: No Seatbelt Defense Under West Virginia Tort Law, D. Kevin Coleman

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Decides - Community Safety Conventions At The Heart Of Tort Liability, Patrick J. Kelley

Cleveland State Law Review

What we need is a uniformly accepted theory that explains the tort liability system in terms of its ultimate social function. The reason we don't have one, I will argue, is that our understanding of the tort liability system has been skewed by an earlier, flawed attempt at descriptive theory. Before embarking on a new search for a descriptive theory, we first ought to formulate a search plan, sometimes called, forbiddingly, a "theoretical methodology." Using John Finnis's social science methodology, we can identify the two halves of the focal case of tort liability: intentional battery and negligent infliction of personal …

A Comparative Negligence Checklist To Avoid Future Unnecessary Litigation, John M. Rogers, Randy Donald Shaw

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Tort Indemnity In Florida, Gerald T. Wetherington

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The State Of The Art Defense In Products Liability: Unreasonably Dangerous To The Injured Consumer, Mark Desimone

Duquesne Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ohio Railroad Crossing Law: The Scope Of Liability, Donald P. Traci

Cleveland State Law Review

As a practicing attorney involved in personal injury suits initiated as the result of railroad crossing accidents, the author of this article shares a sense of guilt with other trial attorneys for the unsettled and confusing legal ruins left by recent efforts to moderate the statutory interpretations applicable to railroad crossing accidents. The history of the contradictions in the development of railroad crossing law and an alternative statutory interpretation to resolve the inconsistencies evidenced by the courts is the subject of this article.

Ohio Railroad Crossing Law: The Scope Of Liability, Donald P. Traci

Cleveland State Law Review

As a practicing attorney involved in personal injury suits initiated as the result of railroad crossing accidents, the author of this article shares a sense of guilt with other trial attorneys for the unsettled and confusing legal ruins left by recent efforts to moderate the statutory interpretations applicable to railroad crossing accidents. The history of the contradictions in the development of railroad crossing law and an alternative statutory interpretation to resolve the inconsistencies evidenced by the courts is the subject of this article.

Seat Belts And Contributory Negligence, Frans F. Slatter

Dalhousie Law Journal

There are now thirty-six cases mentioned in the Canadian and English reports where it has been argued that the failure to wear a seat belt amounts to contributory negligence. I The defence was successfully made out in only ten of these cases, with damages being reduced by five per cent to thirty-three and a third per cent under the applicable contributory negligence statutes. 2 This volume of litigation would not provoke comment were it not for the division of judicial opinion and the confusion of judicial thinking to be found in these conflicting decisions. Even in England where it was …

Reconciling Comparative Negligence, Contribution, And Joint And Several Liability

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Uniform Comparative Fault Act--What Should It Prove?, John W. Wade

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Committee has determined to treat the resultant delay as serendipitous and to use it for the purpose of improving the Act and presenting it in the best shape possible. To this end, as the Chairman of the Special Committee, I have prepared this presentation for publication. The presentation is intended to serve two purposes: (1) to provide for the legal profession information as to the present status of the Act, and the provisions it now carries, and (2) to solicit criticisms and suggestions for improvement from interested persons.

I am therefore presenting here the Uniform Comparative Fault Act in …

Innocent Injury And Loss Distribution: The Florida Pure Comparative Negligence System, Vincent S. Walkowiak

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contributory Negligence In Medical Malpractice, Diane Shelby

Cleveland State Law Review

The best and most complete defense to a charge of malpractice is the allegation and proof of the absence of negligence. It is also the most often used defense. Of the less popular defenses, contributory negligence on the part of the patient is probably the least attractive and the most difficult to maintain, even though it has been held to be a complete bar to recovery in several cases difficult to categorize.

Seat Belts And Contributory Negligence, Frank Edward Jolliffe

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Comments On Maki V. Frelk, Harry Kalven Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

My first reaction to the performance of the Illinois Appellate Court in Maki v. Frelk was to recall the old joke about the man who, when asked if he believed in baptism, replied: "Believe in it, hell, I've seen it done!" In any event the decision provides a twin stimulus to the commentator: first, to say something about the limits of common law change, and second, to say something about comparative negligence itself. Despite the spectacular novelty of the court's action, these re-main well-worn topics on which it will not be easy to say anything fresh. I am, however, moved …

Comment, James Fleming Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Within the past few years, courts have put nearly the whole field of products liability on a strict liability basis, free from the restrictions of privity; they have reversed the rule of non-liability for pre-natal injuries; they have virtually destroyed charitable immunity, while making serious inroads on governmental immunity. Some, of course, have deplored the role of courts in making these changes, and they will probably applaud the Illinois Supreme Court's decision in the Maki case. But for those of us who accept or welcome the present regeneration of judicial law making in the field of torts, further questions are …

Comment, Robert E. Keeton

Vanderbilt Law Review

Part of the price we pay for a system wisely dedicated to even-handed justice under law is that courts often fail to identify those exceptional cases in which the highest aims of the system are served rather than threatened by a judicial break with precedent. Thus it happens that in the long, slow story of law reform, a recent case in the Illinois courts raised hopes for a rare and distinctive breakthrough. In Maki v. Frelk, responding to an invitation from the state's supreme court to reexamine the well entrenched rule that contributory negligence of an injured person is a …

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 …

Comments On Maki V. Frelk--Comparative V.Contributory Negligence: Should The Court Or Legislature Decide?, Fleming James Jr., Harry Kalven Jr., Robert E. Keeton, Robert A. Leflar, Wex S. Malone, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

Believing that the holdings and opinions in the case of Maki v. Frelkare significant legal developments, the Vanderbilt Law Review has solicited comments on these decisions, which it is now pleased to publish. These comments by six distinguished torts teachers and writers bear on the relative merits of comparative and contributory negligence, but more importantly, they discuss whether the judicial or legislative method is most appropriate for adoption of a rule of comparative negligence. It is hoped that these comments will be used as a sound basis for action, whether the problem arises before the courts or legislatures.

Abstracts Of Recent Cases, Robert Bruce King

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Both Ways Test In Negligence Actions

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bowling Alley Tort Liability, Matthew J. Koch

Cleveland State Law Review

Tort liability of the bowling alley proprietor or operator has become a common problem with the increased popularity of bowling. The two principal grounds upon which tort liability of the proprietor or owner may be predicated are negligence and nuisance.