Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- West Virginia University (9)
- Vanderbilt University Law School (7)
- University of Michigan Law School (4)
- Cleveland State University (3)
- Pepperdine University (3)
-
- The University of Akron (3)
- Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (3)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (2)
- University of Kentucky (2)
- Mitchell Hamline School of Law (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Washington School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 30 of 41
Full-Text Articles in Law
Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Mike Steenson
Minnesota Comparative Fault—Statutory Reform, Mike Steenson
Journal of Law and Practice
No abstract provided.
Liability Of Liquor Vendors For Injuries To Intoxicated Persons, Kemock V. Mark Ii, Elinore Marsh
Liability Of Liquor Vendors For Injuries To Intoxicated Persons, Kemock V. Mark Ii, Elinore Marsh
Akron Law Review
In an opinion anticipating, in part, the advent of the comparative negligence standard in Ohio, Kemock v. Mark II extends common law liability to include liquor vendors who serve already intoxicated patrons who injure themselves and whose injury is the proximate result of continued alcohol consumption. Relying upon an earlier Ohio Supreme Court decision and a California Supreme Court case, the Court of Appeals of Ohio recognizes liability for vendor negligence which damages the drinker. The test for recovery is one not previously applied in cases of this sort in Ohio; one which measures liability by balancing degrees of each …
Comparative Negligence In Ohio: Prospective Or Retrospective Application, Beth Whitmore
Comparative Negligence In Ohio: Prospective Or Retrospective Application, Beth Whitmore
Akron Law Review
Under Revised Code § 2315.19, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is no longer an absolute bar to recovery. Only where a plaintiff's fault is greater than that of all defendants combined is that plaintiff precluded entirely from recovery. Thus under the new Ohio statute, the possibility of recovery for the negligent plaintiff is significantly enhanced while at the same time liability exposure of the defendant is proportionately enlarged. It is therefore of critical importance to determine whether such an alteration in the relative rights of litigants is constitutional.
Judicial Application Of Ohio's Comparative Negligence Statute, Michael J. Olah, Paul F. Meyerhoefer
Judicial Application Of Ohio's Comparative Negligence Statute, Michael J. Olah, Paul F. Meyerhoefer
Akron Law Review
In the case of Wilfong v. Batdorf the Ohio Supreme Court reexamined the issue of the retroactive application of Ohio's comparative negligence statute. Ohio's statute abolishing the defense of contributory negligence in a tort action was passed with an effective date of June 20, 1980, and the court faced the task of deciding whether comparative fault measurements could be used in an action arising prior to the effective date of the statute, but not coming to trial until after the effective date of the act. Previously the court had the opportunity to examine this issue in the case of Viers …
Safeway Stores, Inc. V. Nest-Kart: The Culmination Of Li V. Yellow Cab Co., David R. Haglund
Safeway Stores, Inc. V. Nest-Kart: The Culmination Of Li V. Yellow Cab Co., David R. Haglund
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring
Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler
Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler
Pepperdine Law Review
In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …
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 …
A Practical View Of Farley V. Sartin, Thomas J. Hurney Jr.
A Practical View Of Farley V. Sartin, Thomas J. Hurney Jr.
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Efficiency, Fairness, And Common Sense: The Case For One Action As To Percentage Of Fault In Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished Or Modified Joint And Several Liability, John S. Hickman
Vanderbilt Law Review
Plaintiffs are the masters of their own actions.' They decide when, where, and whom to sue. Although the law has evolved in ways that limit a plaintiffs procedural choices, plaintiffs enjoy a growing number of situations in which they can recover, and an increase in the number of possible defendants For example, governmental tort liability statutes, while limiting procedural choices, now allow plaintiffs to sue government entities. Modern jurisdictional rules give courts a wider reach and thus enable plaintiffs to reach more defendants in one action. Perhaps most importantly, a plaintiffs own negligence no longer bars recovery in most jurisdictions. …
Individual And Institutional Responsibility: A Vision For Comparative Fault In Products Liability, Mary J. Davis
Individual And Institutional Responsibility: A Vision For Comparative Fault In Products Liability, Mary J. Davis
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
Comparative Negligence Under The Code: Protecting Negligent Banks Against Negligent Customers, Julianna J. Zekan
Comparative Negligence Under The Code: Protecting Negligent Banks Against Negligent Customers, Julianna J. Zekan
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Article will examine modern banking practices with respect to processing checks and the effect of technology on liability for forged or altered checks. Part I describes the magnetic ink character-recognition system. Part II discusses check truncation. Part III recounts the evolution of contract and tort theories of liability from traditional to modern bank practices. Part IV analyzes the new comparative negligence provisions. Part V investigates the standards of ordinary care. Part VI evaluates the respective duties of the banks and their customers in light of the provisions that reflect the banking industry's transformation from the Paper Age to the …
King V. Kayak Manufacturing Corporation: Comparative Assumption Of Risk In West Virginina, Daniel W. Greear
King V. Kayak Manufacturing Corporation: Comparative Assumption Of Risk In West Virginina, Daniel W. Greear
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Presumption Of Due Care And The Law Of Comparative Negligence, Michael A. Pellini
The Presumption Of Due Care And The Law Of Comparative Negligence, Michael A. Pellini
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
What Must Cause Injury In Products Liability?, Aaron Gershonowitz
What Must Cause Injury In Products Liability?, Aaron Gershonowitz
Indiana Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: Beyond Bradley To Pure Comparative Fault, Jeff L. Lewin
Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: Beyond Bradley To Pure Comparative Fault, Jeff L. Lewin
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Beyond Bradley: A Critique Of Comparative Contribution In West Virginia And Proposals For Legislative Reform, James B. Stoneking
Beyond Bradley: A Critique Of Comparative Contribution In West Virginia And Proposals For Legislative Reform, James B. Stoneking
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Apportionment In Kentucky After Comparative Negligence, John M. Rogers
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Comparing Fault, David C. Sobelsohn
Comparative Negligence And Strict Products Liability: Where Do We Stand - Where Do We Go, Lawrence R. Kulig
Comparative Negligence And Strict Products Liability: Where Do We Stand - Where Do We Go, Lawrence R. Kulig
Villanova Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Comparative Negligence Checklist To Avoid Future Unnecessary Litigation, John M. Rogers, Randy Donald Shaw
A Comparative Negligence Checklist To Avoid Future Unnecessary Litigation, John M. Rogers, Randy Donald Shaw
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Contribution Among Antitrust Defendants, Jane G. Parks
Contribution Among Antitrust Defendants, Jane G. Parks
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Recent Development argues that no single federal common law rule of contribution exists and that federal securities law decisions provide the best analogy from which to imply a right of contribution under the antitrust laws. Thus, the Recent Development proposes that the Supreme Court should fashion a rule permitting contribution among antitrust defendants.
Alas And Alack, Modified Comparative Negligence Comes To West Virginia, Thomas C. Cady
Alas And Alack, Modified Comparative Negligence Comes To West Virginia, Thomas C. Cady
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: A Defense Overview, Alvin L. Emch
Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: A Defense Overview, Alvin L. Emch
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Appendix--Sample Special Interrogatory Forms
Appendix--Sample Special Interrogatory Forms
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
Negotiation And Settlement: An Insurer's View Of Comparative Negligence, John L. Hunt
Negotiation And Settlement: An Insurer's View Of Comparative Negligence, John L. Hunt
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Plaintiff's View Of Comparative Negligence, E. Joseph Buffa Jr.
The Plaintiff's View Of Comparative Negligence, E. Joseph Buffa Jr.
West Virginia Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Multi-Disciplinary Approach To Seat Belt Issues, Stephen J. Werber
A Multi-Disciplinary Approach To Seat Belt Issues, Stephen J. Werber
Cleveland State Law Review
It is imperative that a multi-disciplinary approach to the seat belt defense be attempted. With a growing number of exceptions, courts have ruled that a defendant may not seek to lessen or avoid liability by showing that the plaintiff failed to use a restraint system. In this way the seat belt defense has frequently been rendered unavailable. Too often, the judiciary has determined as a matter of law that a reasonable person need not use a life-saving mechanism, denying juries an opportunity to reach a different conclusion. Thus, paradoxically, while courts have expanded the scope of injury liability by asserting …
Shor V. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1977), June Hinson Allen
Shor V. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1977), June Hinson Allen
Florida State University Law Review
Torts-RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION IS NOT BARRED BY DOCTRINE OF INTERSPOUSAL IMMUNITY IN FLORIDA.
Wallis V. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co., Carolyn Brack Armbrust
Wallis V. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co., Carolyn Brack Armbrust
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
No abstract provided.