Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Strict Liability Upon Gunowners (Slug): A Proposed Balanced Approach, David Louis
Strict Liability Upon Gunowners (Slug): A Proposed Balanced Approach, David Louis
St. Mary's Law Journal
Careless or apathetic gunowners, whose lost or stolen firearms are used in the commission of a violent crime, should be held strictly liable. Current tort law leaves victims of gun violence and their families without a mode of redress against an irresponsible gun owner whose actions played a pivotal role in the victim’s ultimate injury. Without effective liability principles to regulate gun ownership, gunowners are provided de facto immunity regardless of whether the harm suffered by the victim is intertwined with the gunowners careless behavior. This comment examines the efficacy of existing tort liability principles as provided in the Restatement …
Do Black Lives Matter? Race As A Measure Of Injury In Tort Law., Alberto Bernabe
Do Black Lives Matter? Race As A Measure Of Injury In Tort Law., Alberto Bernabe
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Courts should not recognize an injury for wrongful birth or wrongful life based on the race of the child. In Cramblett v. Midwest Sperm Bank, the petitioner contracted with a sperm bank to be artificially inseminated from an anonymous sperm donor. The petitioner selected a donor with blond hair and blue eyes. The sperm bank accidentally inseminated the petitioner with sperm from a different donor. Petitioner gave birth to a mixed-race baby girl. Two years after the birth, petitioner filed a lawsuit against the sperm bank alleging wrongful birth. The court dismissed her case, nonetheless the issue remains whether race …
Elimination Of The Distinctions Between Trespassers, Licensees, And Invitees - Landowner Has A Duty Of Reasonable Care To Foreseeable Entrants., Lawrence Likar
Elimination Of The Distinctions Between Trespassers, Licensees, And Invitees - Landowner Has A Duty Of Reasonable Care To Foreseeable Entrants., Lawrence Likar
St. Mary's Law Journal
A pure negligence approach to bystander recovery imposes an undue burden upon a merely negligent defendant. Third parties, who suffer emotional distress after witnessing someone suffer an injury, lack standing to sue if they themselves suffered no physical injury. Under a pure negligence approach, however, bystanders now have a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Nonetheless, this method of recovery exceeds the scope of the general principles of negligence law. For instance, a secondary reaction to a specific traumatic stimulus is not foreseeable and is heavily dependent upon an individual's prior mental conditioning. The law requires more than mere …
Economic Coercion As Plaintiff's Defense To Volenti Non Fit Injuria In Strict Liability Actions., Charles T. Locke
Economic Coercion As Plaintiff's Defense To Volenti Non Fit Injuria In Strict Liability Actions., Charles T. Locke
St. Mary's Law Journal
Although Texas courts have commented on the harshness of “assumed risk” principles for quite some time, they have been reluctant to alter the situation. However, the Fifth Circuit decision in Messick v. General Motors Corporation may effectively serve to soften this well-established doctrine. Volenti non fit injuria, or “assumed risk,” will preclude recovery where the plaintiff voluntarily assumes a risk of injury arising from another’s negligence. One exception to the rule is the “hard choice” doctrine, which considers whether the defendant’s negligence left the plaintiff with a reasonable choice to avoid the danger. Interestingly, Texas courts refuse to extend the …
The Doctrine Of Charitable Immunity Does Not Bar The Suit Of A Paying Patient Seeking To Recover Damages Sustained As A Result Of Negligence On The Part Of An Agent, Servant Or Employee Of A Charitable Hospital., Sidney Gibson
St. Mary's Law Journal
Southern Methodist University v. Clayton limited and clarified the scope of the charitable immunity doctrine in Texas, making it the leading opinion on the doctrine’s scope as of 1943. Clayton held charitable organization are liable to an employee for injuries proximately caused by the negligence of its agents but not liable to others in absence of proof of negligence on part of charity in employing or keeping the agent. Clayton’s progenies subsequently added two refinements: a charity is liable to an injured party, if, through negligence, improper equipment for treatment or service is used and causes an injury; and the …