Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Torts

Michigan Law Review

Automobile collision

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Damages - Automobile Collisions - Penalties For Failure To Settle Small Claims Promptly, Ralph E. Boches Mar 1958

Damages - Automobile Collisions - Penalties For Failure To Settle Small Claims Promptly, Ralph E. Boches

Michigan Law Review

Recent Arkansas legislation provides for double damages, reasonable attorney's fees of not less than fifty dollars, and court costs for failure to pay property damage claims arising from automobile collisions within sixty days after the submission of estimates of damage. Application of the statute is limited to claims under two hundred dollars. Furthermore, if the defendant presents a "meritorious defense," liability under the statute does not attach. Acts of Arkansas (1957), Act 283, Senate Bill 166.


Negligence-Foreseeability As A Limitation On Liability, Frank Bowen Jr. Jan 1952

Negligence-Foreseeability As A Limitation On Liability, Frank Bowen Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff's truck broke down on the road. Another truck driver, attempting to pass plaintiff's truck, became mired beside it, and the two trucks blocked the road. While plaintiff lay under his truck attempting repairs, a bulldozer operated by the defendant approached the two trucks from the rear." The driver of the second truck signaled the defendant to push his, the mired truck, but the defendant, mistaking the signal, pushed plaintiff's truck, causing it to run over plaintiff's legs. The defendant had not seen the plaintiff beneath the truck. The issue of defendant's negligence was submitted to the jury, and verdict …


Master And Servant - Liability For Torts Of Servant - Scope Of Employment, Robert E. Sipes Jan 1939

Master And Servant - Liability For Torts Of Servant - Scope Of Employment, Robert E. Sipes

Michigan Law Review

Defendant corporation was an owner and operator of taxicabs. One of its cabs was hailed by another taxicab driver to pursue the latter's taxicab which had just been stolen from him. During the pursuit defendant's taxicab struck plaintiff's car. Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant for the damage to his car. Held, the driver of the cab was not acting in the scope of his employment so defendant cannot be held. Bindert v. Elmhurst Taxi Corp., (N. Y. Mun. Ct. 1938) 6 N. Y. S. (2d) 666.