Law Commons^™

Tort Law: Cases And Commentaries, Samuel Beswick

All Faculty Publications

Preface

The law of obligations concerns the legal rights and duties owed between people. Three primary categories make up the common law of obligations: tort, contract, and unjust enrichment. This casebook provides an introduction to tort law: the law that recognises and responds to civil wrongdoing. The material is arranged in two main parts. Following a brief introduction (§1), the first main part addresses intentional, dignitary and dishonesty torts as well as corresponding defences and remedies (§2-§10). The focus pivots with a consideration of the overarching theories and goals of tort …

Vicarious Liability For Ai, Mihailis E. Diamantis

Indiana Law Journal

When an algorithm harms someone—say by discriminating against her, exposing her personal data, or buying her stock using inside information—who should pay? If that harm is criminal, who deserves punishment? In ordinary cases, when A harms B, the first step in the liability analysis turns on what sort of thing A is. If A is a natural phenomenon, like a typhoon or mudslide, B pays, and no one is punished. If A is a person, then A might be liable for damages and sanction. The trouble with algorithms is that neither paradigm fits. Algorithms are trainable artifacts with “off” switches, …

Where We’Re Going, We Don’T Need Drivers: Autonomous Vehicles And Ai-Chaperone Liability, Peter Y. Kim

Catholic University Law Review

The future of mainstream autonomous vehicles is approaching in the rearview mirror. Yet, the current legal regime for tort liability leaves an open question on how tortious Artificial Intelligence (AI) devices and systems that are capable of machine learning will be held accountable. To understand the potential answer, one may simply go back in time and see how this question would be answered under traditional torts. This Comment tests whether the incident involving an autonomous vehicle hitting a pedestrian is covered under the traditional torts, argues that they are incapable of solving this novel problem, and ultimately proposes a new …

Troll Storms And Tort Liability For Speech Urging Action By Others: A First Amendment Analysis And An Initial Step Toward A Federal Rule, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Commentary examines when, consistent with First Amendment principles of free expression, speakers can be held tortiously responsible for the actions of others with whom they have no contractual or employer-employee relationship. It argues that recent lawsuits against Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin for sparking “troll storms” provide a timely analytical springboard into the issue of vicarious tort liability. Furthermore, such liability is particularly problematic when a speaker’s message urging action does not fall into an unprotected category of expression, such as incitement or true threats, and thus, were it not for tort law, would be fully protected. In examining …

Vicarious Liability, Non-Delegable Duty And The Ng Huat Seng Decision, Kee Yang Low

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

In recent times, courts in Singapore and elsewhere have been grappling with the issue of delegability of duty of care. In the process, they have vigorously defended the conventional position that a duty of care is, in general, delegable. Accordingly, attempts at broadening the ambit of vicarious liability and non-delegable duty, respectively, have been carefully scrutinized. The recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni adds to the judicial thinking on this complicated and controversial subject.

Vicarious Liability, Non-Delegable Duty And The Ng Huat Seng Decision, Kee Yang Low

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

This article considers the evolving law relating to the delegability of the duty of care and the principle of vicarious liability, focusing particularly on the recent Singapore Court of Appeal decision in Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni.

Vicarious Windfalls, Justin Sevier

Scholarly Publications

The vicarious liability doctrine, which holds third parties responsible for the legal obligations of their duly authorized agents, was designed in part to ensure that tort victims are not undercompensated by insolvent agent wrongdoers. But many legal scholars are highly critical of the doctrine and suggest that fact finders’ systematic biases-particularly with respect to corporate third parties-cause unworthy tort plaintiffs to be overcompensated at the expense of innocent, deep-pocket corporate defendants. These scholars have offered little empirical evidence for these claims and, in fact, behavioral research suggests that their predictions are incorrect.

This Article introduces the concept of the vicarious …

Three Problems (And Two Solutions) In The Law Of Partnership Formation, Shawn Bayern

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article considers several foundational questions concerning the formation of general partnerships, a topic that has received little modern attention and that is governed largely by classical axioms rather than adaptive modern considerations. Its three main topics concern (1) the timing of partnership formation, (2) the aggregation of multiple distinct questions under the single heading of “partnership formation,” and (3) the rarely challenged proposition that general partners ought to be liable for partnership obligations, a doctrine that is surprisingly at odds with the rest of modern business-entity law.

When “Disruption” Collides With Accountability: Holding Ridesharing Companies Liable For Acts Of Their Drivers, Alexi Pfeffer-Gillett

Scholarly Articles

When Uber launched in San Francisco in 2010, it took the city by storm. Here was a high-tech transportation service that seemingly did everything better than taxicabs: it was more convenient, more accessible, more comfortable, and even cheaper in many instances. Uber’s initial success inspired a number of lower-cost, nonprofessional “ridesharing” options, which have flourished.

Some skeptics, including taxicab operators, have decried the arrival of these peer-to-peer ridesharing services, now classified by regulators as Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). While such complaints could be easily dismissed as the dying groans of a “disrupted” industry, a string of passenger safety incidents has …

Health Law—Negligent Credentialing And You: What Happens When Hospitals Fail To Monitor Physicians, Whitney Foster

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser

Seattle University Law Review

It is somewhat radical to suggest that an employer should not be held vicariously liable for an employee's voluntary submission to sexual advances where the alleged harasser is a supervisor, and this approach is a marked departure from existing assumptions regarding sexual harassment. Most decisions and writings on the topic have imposed--under a traditional agency theory-- vicarious liability upon the employer for the sexually harassing conduct of its supervisors.4 Specifically, courts addressing this issue have held that “[t]here is no question that a ‘tangible employment action’ occurs when a supervisor abuses his authority to act on his employer's behalf by …

Respondeat Superior, Intentional Torts, And Clergy Sexual Misconduct: The Implications Of Fearing V. Bucher, Michael J. Sartor

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Limiting The Vicarious Liability Of Franchisors For The Torts Of Their Franchisees, Joseph H. King, Jr.

Washington and Lee Law Review

No abstract provided.

Florida's Tort Reform Act: Keeping The Faith With The Promise Of Hoffman V. Jones, George N. Meros, Jr., Chanta Hundley

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tort Reform 1999: A Building Without A Foundation, Robert S. Peck, Richard Marshall, Kenneth D. Kranz

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Erisa Preemption Of Medical Malpractice Claims: Can Managed Care Organizations Avoid Vicarious Liability?, J. Bradley Buckhalter

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment begins by briefly discussing the theory of respondeat superior and the vicarious liability of MCOs for the negligence of affiliated physicians.' Next, the section presents an overview of ERISA, focusing on ERISA's preemption of laws that impact employee benefit plans, particularly medical malpractice claims brought against MCOs seeking to hold them vicariously liable for an affiliated physician's negligence. Section III applies current ERISA preemption doctrine to a situation such as Peterson's, in which a plaintiff attempts to hold an MCO vicariously liable for an affiliated physician's negligence. Section IV concludes that, given the current state of ERISA preemption …

Toward A More Just And Predictable Civil Justice System, George N. Meros, Jr.

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Franchising Dilemma Continues: Update On Franchisor Liability For Wrongful Acts By Local Franchisees, Randall K. Hanson

Campbell Law Review

The purpose of this update is to review recent franchisor liability cases to determine the direction of franchisor liability cases. The three most common theories used to invoke franchisor liability will be discussed, and North Carolina's approach to this area of the law will also be examined.

Negligence: Strubhart V. Perry Memorial Hospital: Taming The Monster Of Corporate Negligence Or Creating An Unpredictable Form Of Hospital Liability?, Jeannie Pinkston

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fault With Comparative Fault: The Problem Of Individual Comparisons In A Modified Comparative Fault Jurisdiction, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

Minnesota courts have interpreted the Minnesota Comparative Fault statute as requiring comparison of a plaintiff's negligence with the individual negligence of each defendant. Exceptions to this rule involve joint venture cases. This Article examines the individual comparison rule and explores an alternative rule which provides for a comparison of the plaintiff's negligence with the aggregate negligence of the defendants.

Allegheny Airlines, Inc. V. United States (Case Note), Gerald S. Reamey

Faculty Articles

On September 9, 1969, Robert W. Carey, a student pilot flying a solo cross-country flight in a plane owned by the operator of the flight school in which he was enrolled, collided with an Allegheny Airlines plane near Fairland, Indiana, destroying both aircraft and killing Carey, the crew of the Allegheny aircraft, and all 78 passengers. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. and G.E.C.C. Leasing Corporation brought suit-seeking recovery of damages sustained by their aircraft and engine, and named Forth Corporation, owner of the airplane and operator of the flying school, as a defendant. The trial court, in holding for the defendants, determined …

Physician's Liability For Torts Of Hospital Employees, Irene E. Svete

Cleveland State Law Review

Why should a treating physician be held liable for any lack of treatment on the part of the hospital employees? On what basis can such a conclusion be reached? An agency relationship was considered as existing between the parties, making the physician liable for the actions of the hospital employees. He was the "Captain of the Ship," the one in control of the patient's treatment and care. Only he was answerable for resulting injury and death from lack of said treatment. The "Captain" will be held liable for others' negligence where the acts performed by them are under conditions where …

The Hospital's New Responsibility, Arthur F. Southwick

Cleveland State Law Review

The focus for this discussion is the hospital as a corporate institution and its liability for injuries caused a patient or visitor. The fundamental question is: What legal duties does the hospital and its personnel owe the patient or the visitor? To attempt an answer to this question one must first have an understanding of the role and nature of a hospital in modern society.

Res Ipsa Loquitur In Joint Tortfeasor Cases, William B. Nagy

Cleveland State Law Review

Generally it has been held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable against multiple defendants where it is not shown that their liability was joint or that they were in joint or exclusive control of the injury-producing factor, or where the specific wrongdoer, among several possible, was not identified. A fundamental principle of res ipsa loquitur is that it is available to a plaintiff only when it operates substantially to identify the probable wrongdoer in a given situation. Conversely, the doctrine has been held applicable against multiple defendants where they are properly charged as joint tortfeasors on …

Contributory Negligence In Europe, Huib Drion

Cleveland State Law Review

The Dutch law relating to contributory negligence is entirely judge made law, as it is in France and Belgium and in the other countries which have derived their civil codes from the Code Napoleon. We have here a good example of the advantage of the more elastic development of judge made law in the countries with codified laws, at least in the field of the law of torts.

Vicarious Liability For Fraud And Deceit In Iowa, Frank Edward Horack

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.