Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
In The Wake Of Heins: Break Out Your Rulers Missouri It's Time To Measure Your Levees, Blake J. Pryor
In The Wake Of Heins: Break Out Your Rulers Missouri It's Time To Measure Your Levees, Blake J. Pryor
Missouri Law Review
Following the trend in other states, Missouri recently adopted the comparative reasonableness rule for cases involving the diversion of surface water and groundwater. The rule of reasonableness allows a landowner to make reasonable use of the land even though water drainage and flow is altered, as long as the use does not cause unreasonable harm. Missouri’s change to the reasonableness rule from the common-enemy doctrine has yielded favorable results for plaintiffs seeking damages for improper water disposal, but the rule’s initial adoption has left courts with wide latitude in how it should be interpreted. In the last decade, courts have …
Touchdown--A Victory For Injured Fans At Sporting Events, Stefan A. Mallen
Touchdown--A Victory For Injured Fans At Sporting Events, Stefan A. Mallen
Missouri Law Review
When fans attend sporting events, they usually do so at their own peril. Fans are expected to assume the known risks of flying baseballs, hockey pucks, or footballs. In fact, Judge Cardozo once summarized this situation by saying, “the timorous may stay at home.” While sports fans generally assume the risk of liability from acts by players that send balls flying into the stands, the question arises as to the liability of stadium owners for injuries caused when one fan injures another fan after a player has sent a ball into the crowd. In Hayden v. University of Notre Dame, …
Deadly Trap Or Reasonable Danger: What Standard Of Care Applies To Non-Electrical Injuries From Power Lines, Brett A. Emison
Deadly Trap Or Reasonable Danger: What Standard Of Care Applies To Non-Electrical Injuries From Power Lines, Brett A. Emison
Missouri Law Review
Missouri demands “the highest degree of care regarding dangerous instrumentalities because of the great risk of injury or death.” However, Missouri also has held that only ordinary care is required when, in a suit against an electric utility, the injury was not caused by the “the inherently dangerous properties of electricity.” This Note examines the struggles faced by a divided court in determining which standard to apply when these holdings conflict.