Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Negligence (11)
- Personal injury (7)
- Automobile accident (5)
- Tort reform (5)
- Wrongful death (4)
-
- Evidence (3)
- Jury instructions (3)
- Products liability (3)
- Res Ipsa Loquitur (3)
- Auto accident (2)
- Automobile liability (2)
- Civil liability (2)
- Contributory negligence (2)
- Last clear chance doctrine (2)
- Medical malpractice (2)
- Medical malpractice liability (2)
- Negligence, recovery for injury (2)
- Nonsuit (2)
- Res ipsa loquitur (2)
- Actions for Wrongful Death (1)
- Asbestos (1)
- Assumption of Risk (1)
- Breach of warranty (1)
- Care Toward Children (1)
- Care as to Guests (1)
- Citizen's arrest (1)
- Contributory Negligence (1)
- Contributory negligence, credibility, duty of care (1)
- CrossFit (1)
- Damages (1)
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 30 of 89
Full-Text Articles in Law
Liability For Crossfit Trainers, Law Review
Liability For Crossfit Trainers, Law Review
GGU Law Review Blog
Even though injuries in CrossFit are not unusual, just like they’re not unusual or unexpected in any physical activity, the main issue in this post is how much responsibility should a CrossFit trainer have if an athlete does get hurt?
Media Violence Tort Cases: Problems Of Causation And The First Amendment, David Franklyn
Media Violence Tort Cases: Problems Of Causation And The First Amendment, David Franklyn
Publications
Introduction to the Northern Kentucky Law Review Symposium 2000.
Introduction To The Northern Kentucky Law Review Products Liability Symposium 1999, David Franklyn
Introduction To The Northern Kentucky Law Review Products Liability Symposium 1999, David Franklyn
Publications
Introduction to the Northern Kentucky Law Review Products Liability Symposium 1999.
The Apparent Manufacturer Doctrine, Trademark Licensors And The Third Restatement Of Torts, David Franklyn
The Apparent Manufacturer Doctrine, Trademark Licensors And The Third Restatement Of Torts, David Franklyn
Publications
In this Article, I argue that trademark licensors should be subjected to liability under the apparent manufacturer doctrine in two situations: (1) when a licensor induces consumers to believe the licensor manufactured the product, or (2) when a licensor induces consumers to believe that the licensor controlled the standards or specifications for manufacturing the product. Under either prong of the proposed test, a plaintiff would be required to show that a reasonable consumer of the licensed product would have relied on the trademark in the requisite manner. Once the plaintiff makes this showing, courts would then presume that the actual …
Will We Lose The War Against Asbestos In Buildings?, Assembly Office Of Research
Will We Lose The War Against Asbestos In Buildings?, Assembly Office Of Research
California Assembly
No abstract provided.
Joint Hearing On Proposition 51, Senate Committee On Judiciary, Assembly Committee On Judiciary
Joint Hearing On Proposition 51, Senate Committee On Judiciary, Assembly Committee On Judiciary
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
Staff Report Of The Joint Committee On Tort Liability To The Governor And Legislature, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
Staff Report Of The Joint Committee On Tort Liability To The Governor And Legislature, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
Transcript Of Hearing On Procedural Reform, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
Transcript Of Hearing On Procedural Reform, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
Transcript Of Hearing On Government Liability, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
Transcript Of Hearing On Government Liability, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
Transcript Of Hearing On Products Liability, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
Transcript Of Hearing On Products Liability, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
Transcript Of Hearing On Professional Liability, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
Transcript Of Hearing On Professional Liability, Joint Committee On Tort Liability
California Joint Committees
No abstract provided.
Gonzi V. Superior Court Of San Francisco, Jesse W. Carter
Gonzi V. Superior Court Of San Francisco, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Court granted writ of mandate directing the trial court to permit plaintiff to have a court reporter to be present when she submitted to a court ordered physical examination by a doctor employed by defendants in a negligence suit.
Courtell V. Mceachen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Courtell V. Mceachen [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The evidence supported the theory that a five-year-old minor child was contributorily negligent with respect to her injuries, so it was reversible error to give the jury an instruction that negated the child's contributory negligence.
Hunter V. Mohawk Petroleum Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Hunter V. Mohawk Petroleum Corp. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A California gas station was not liable for personal injury one customer caused to another customer where no evidence showed that the gas station was on notice that the customer was acting, or might act, negligently.
Gomes V. Byrne [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Gomes V. Byrne [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Because plaintiff assumed the risk that a dog barking at him through a fence would bite him if he entered through the gate of the fence, the dog's owner was not liable for injuries resulting from the dog bite.
Laird V. T. W. Mather, Inc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Laird V. T. W. Mather, Inc. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
In a personal injury action brought by a customer against a department store, the trial court committed reversible error by instructing the jury on the presumption of due care after the customer had testified as to her own acts and conduct.
San Francisco V. Ho Sing, Jesse W. Carter
San Francisco V. Ho Sing, Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Municipality had a right to recover indemnity from property owners for the amount it was compelled to pay a pedestrian for injuries received when she fell over a defective skylight in a sidewalk in front of the abutting property owners' premises.
Kollert V. Cundiff [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Kollert V. Cundiff [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A jury instruction on contributory negligence with respect to an adult passenger was prejudicial where the jury might have believed that the driver's negligence was attributable to the adult riding in the car.
Deshotel V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Deshotel V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where the legislature had not changed the common law rule that a wife could not recover for the loss of consortium resulting from her husband's negligent injury, the wife had no claim for such losses against those who caused her husband's injury.
Alarid V. Vanier [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Alarid V. Vanier [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Although a driver rear-ended another car, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the driver took reasonable steps to maintain his brakes, and therefore the driver was able to overcome the statutory presumption of negligence.
Trust V. Arden Farms Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Trust V. Arden Farms Co. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was not applicable where defendant relinquished all control of the instrumentality that caused the injury and the plaintiff failed to show that its condition did not change since defendant relinquished control.
Vater V. County Of Glenn [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Vater V. County Of Glenn [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Governmental immunity barred a wrongful death action brought against an irrigation district by an injured party for the deaths of her husband and son, who were killed when they drove into a canal from a bridge that contained no warning devices
Dow V. Holly Mfg. Co., Jesse W. Carter
Dow V. Holly Mfg. Co., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A general contractor was liable for the negligent installation of a defective gas heater by one of its subcontractors, which caused the death of members of a family residing in the home.
Ambriz V. Petrolane, Ltd., Jesse W. Carter
Ambriz V. Petrolane, Ltd., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Parents' wrongful death judgments for deaths of their children due to an explosion in their home was upheld against a gas distributor who was liable for independent contractors it employed to deliver the gas, an abnormally dangerous activity.
Daggett V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., Jesse W. Carter
Daggett V. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Where impeachment evidence regarding the safe speed for operating a train was admissible and railway failed to request a limiting instruction, husband properly recovered for the loss of his wife and two minor children after a collision.
Garibaldi V. Borchers Bros. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Garibaldi V. Borchers Bros. [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
A trial court did not err in giving an instruction on continuing negligence in conjunction with an instruction on last clear chance, and an instruction on a truck driver's right to assume that a minor would exercise the care of a child his age.
Barrera V. De La Torre [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Barrera V. De La Torre [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
The trial court did not err in instructing jury that it could not infer driver's negligence from mere happening of accident, even though facts would support giving of res ipsa loquitur instruction; driver's negligence was question of fact for jury.
Taylor V. Hawkinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Taylor V. Hawkinson [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Compromise verdict for passenger, her husband, and driver of husband's car after first trial did not render issue of liability res judicata on retrial, and judgment on liability was not binding upon driver of other car until after he could attack it.
Brandelius V. San Francisco [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Brandelius V. San Francisco [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
City and county were entitled to a new trial in a survivor's wrongful death suit. Evidence that the city's cable car had the last clear chance to avoid the accident at issue in the trial warranted a jury instruction on the last clear chance doctrine.
Leonard V. Watsonville Community Hospital [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Leonard V. Watsonville Community Hospital [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter
Jesse Carter Opinions
Grant of nonsuit as to doctor was proper because the testimony of patient's adverse parties was clear and uncontradicted to effect he was not responsible for leaving clamp in patient's abdomen and there was no rational ground to disbelieve testimony.