Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Negligence-Proximate Cause, W. Stirling Maxwell
Negligence-Proximate Cause, W. Stirling Maxwell
Michigan Law Review
An owner left his car in defendants' parking garage with the key in the ignition. Defendants' employee stole the car and loaned it to X who had no knowledge of the theft. X, while driving the car, ran into plaintiff nearly twelve hours after the theft. Held, as a matter of law defendants were not guilty of negligence. Assuming, however, that defendants were negligent, such negligence was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injuries. Howard v. Swagart, (App. D.C. 1947) 161 F. (2d) 651.
Torts-Duty To Control Conduct Of Another-Duty Of Infant Passenger Owner To Control Infant Driver, John F. O'Connor S.Ed.
Torts-Duty To Control Conduct Of Another-Duty Of Infant Passenger Owner To Control Infant Driver, John F. O'Connor S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff's decedent, an infant twenty years of age, owned an automobile which was being driven by a lad of seventeen at the request of decedent who, with a girl companion, occupied the rear seat of the automobile. The infant driver did not have a driver's license. Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of the decedent brought an action under the Death Act for damages arising from the death of the decedent which occurred as a result of a collision between the automobile and defendant's locomotive. There was evidence bearing upon the defendant's negligence and negligence on the part of the …
Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.
Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut sued defendant, a citizen of Ohio, for injuries received when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger collided with a truck driven by defendant. Defendant removed the case from a Connecticut state court to a federal district court and then obtained an order citing plaintiff's husband, a citizen of Connecticut and the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, as a third-party defendant under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had no claim against the third party by Connecticut substantive law which does not recognize contribution between tort-feasors. …
Insurance-Right Of Insured To Make His Own Defense At Expense Of Insurer Where P And D Are Insured By Same Insurer, Kenneth Liles
Insurance-Right Of Insured To Make His Own Defense At Expense Of Insurer Where P And D Are Insured By Same Insurer, Kenneth Liles
Michigan Law Review
The drivers of two automobiles involved in a collision were insured against liability for damages by the same insurance company. Their policies contained clauses reserving to the insurer the right and duty to defend all actions. One driver, Borad, sued the other, O'Morrow, who, through counsel of his own selection, filed a cross complaint for damages and gave notice to the insurance company that these attorneys would also present his defense. When the company informed O'Morrow that it considered his independent defense a breach of the co-operation clause, he brought this action for declaratory relief. On appeal from a judgment …