Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Nevor V. Moneypenny Holdings, Llc: Availability Of Prejudgment Interest For Mixed Maritime Law And Jones Act Claims, Adam S. Bohanan
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 …
Respondent Superior As An Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves From Direct Negligence Claims, J. J. Burns
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 …
What Are We Comparing In Comparative Negligence?, Paul H. Edelman
What Are We Comparing In Comparative Negligence?, Paul H. Edelman
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
In tort cases, comparative negligence now is the dominant method for determining damages. Under that method, the jury apportions fault among the parties and assesses damages in proportion to the relative fault assessment. Comparative negligence contrasts with contributory negligence, where any fault attributed to the plaintiff bars recovery. Although comparative negligence routinely governs in tort cases, its most basic feature remains uncertain: how to apportion fault. In this Article, I demonstrate that at least two different methods exist, and that these methods lead to radically different outcomes. I create a framework, building on a traditional model from law and economics, …
Admiralty - Collision - Last Clear Chance, Erik Stapper
Admiralty - Collision - Last Clear Chance, Erik Stapper
Michigan Law Review
The City of Calcutta anchored in the navigation channel as an emergency precaution on a foggy night. The vessel was hit by a scow in tow of the tug Brooklyn, whose navigator had observed the anchored ship for ten minutes. The scow sank and its owner sought to hold the City of Calcutta liable for failure to get underway after the fog had lifted. Held, libel dismissed. Even if the Calcutta was remiss in not moving, no liability could attach because the Brooklyn had the last clear chance of avoiding the accident. Arundel Corp. v. The City of …
Negligence - Last Clear Chance - Evidence Insufficient As A Matter Of Law, Theodore G. Koerner
Negligence - Last Clear Chance - Evidence Insufficient As A Matter Of Law, Theodore G. Koerner
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, having fallen asleep at night at the side of a narrow dirt road, was run over by defendant's automobile. He alleged that defendant was negligent in operating a vehicle at an excessive speed without proper lights. Defendant pleaded that plaintiff was contributorily negligent by being asleep in the road, and plaintiff then replied that defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury. On appeal from a judgment of involuntary nonsuit, held, affirmed, three justices dissenting. The plaintiff, by falling asleep at the side or in the middle of the road, was contributorily negligent as a matter …
Sales - Contributory Negligence - Use As A Defense In Action For Breach Of Implied Warranty, Thomas S. Erickson
Sales - Contributory Negligence - Use As A Defense In Action For Breach Of Implied Warranty, Thomas S. Erickson
Michigan Law Review
Defendant installed an oil burner in plaintiff's apartment building. The burner failed to function properly and exploded two months after installation. There was no evidence that the furnace was repaired subsequent to the explosion. Plaintiff continued to use the furnace for four years until a second explosion caused considerable damage to the building. Upon inspection, the cause of the explosions was found to be a defective system of heating and piping the oil. Plaintiff brought this action for breach of implied warranty to install the furnace in a good and workmanlike manner and recovered consequential damages. On appeal, held, …