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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 9 of 9

Full-Text Articles in Law

Cruises, Class Actions, And The Court, David Korn, David Rosenberg Jan 2012

Cruises, Class Actions, And The Court, David Korn, David Rosenberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Caveat

As the Carnival Triumph debacle splashed across the national consciousness, lawyers shook their heads. Sensationalist news coverage exposed common knowledge in the legal community: cruise passengers have little recourse against carriers, and, as a result, they often bear the brunt of serious physical and financial injuries. Cruise lines, escaping legal accountability for their negligence, sail off undeterred from neglecting passenger safety on future voyages. While its previous decisions helped entrench this problem, a recently argued case presents the Supreme Court with another opportunity to address it.


Respondent Superior As An Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves From Direct Negligence Claims, J. J. Burns Jan 2011

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 …


Federal Procedure-Joinder Of Legal And Equitable Claims-Trial By Jury, William O. Allen May 1951

Federal Procedure-Joinder Of Legal And Equitable Claims-Trial By Jury, William O. Allen

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff brought an action against his employer in a federal district court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for damages for personal injuries suffered during the course of his employment. In the same action, plaintiff sought to have a release, which he had executed, set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by defendant's fraud. Plaintiff requested a jury trial of both claims; defendant objected to a jury trial of the issue of setting aside the release, on the ground that a claim for cancellation of a release is for equitable relief triable to the court alone. Held …


Federal Courts-Use Of A Cross-Claim Under Rule 13(G) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rex Eames S.Ed. Nov 1950

Federal Courts-Use Of A Cross-Claim Under Rule 13(G) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, Rex Eames S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Under an ordinary automobile insurance policy, P insurance company promised to defend and indemnify Harvey for any suit arising from an accident involving his use of the insured truck. Collier sued Harvey in a state court alleging injuries due to the negligent use of the insured truck by two Harvey employees. Before judgment thereon, P, incorporated under the laws of Wisconsin, sued Harvey and Collier, citizens of Oklahoma, in the federal court. P sought a declaratory judgment on the grounds that (a) at the time of the accident the employees were under the control and supervision of the City …


Abstracts, Katherine Kempfer Feb 1943

Abstracts, Katherine Kempfer

Michigan Law Review

The abstracts consist merely of summaries of the facts and holdings of recent cases and are distinguished from the notes by the absence of discussion.


Recent Decisions, Michigan Law Review Dec 1942

Recent Decisions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The recent decisions consist merely of summaries of the facts and holdings of recent cases and are distinguished from the notes by the absence of discussion.


Appeal And Error - General Verdict On Several Counts- Several Specifications Of Negligence As Constituting One Cause Of Action Nov 1931

Appeal And Error - General Verdict On Several Counts- Several Specifications Of Negligence As Constituting One Cause Of Action

Michigan Law Review

In a highway accident case the plaintiff made five distinct allegations of negligence: failure to place lights upon a plank which had been placed across a highway; failure to remove the plank; permitting and suffering the plank to be placed where it was dangerous to travel; failure to construct poles, gates, and guards so that persons using the highway would be informed of the dangerous situation; and failure to employ a watchman to warn the public of the existence of the obstruction. Held, there was but one act of negligence, hence but one cause of action. Therefore, an erroneous …


Courts-Venue-Waiver Of Objection In Federal Courts May 1931

Courts-Venue-Waiver Of Objection In Federal Courts

Michigan Law Review

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant railroad, brought an action based on the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. A. secs. 51-59, for injuries sustained from a defective locomotive boiler. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was an inhabitant of the federal. district in which the action was brought. The court below directed a verdict for the defendant, as the plaintiff's proof did not tend to show negligence as required by the act, 45 U. S. C. A. sec. 51. On appeal, it was held that as the plaintiff's petition went far towards establishing a good cause …


Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review Apr 1922

Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Admiralty - Workmen's Compensation - Is a Hydroplane a Vessel? - Claimant was employed in the care and management of a hydroplane which was moored in navigable waters. The hydroplane began to drag anchor and drift toward the beach, where it was in danger of being wrecked. Claimant waded into the water and was struck by the propeller. Held, claimant is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, since a hydroplane while on navigable waters is a vessel, and therefore the jurisdiction of the admiralty excludes that of the State Industrial Commission. Reinhardt v. Newport Flying Service Corp. …