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

Contracts Commons

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

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Contracts

The Class Of Injuries Test: A Unifying Proposal To Determining Duty, Proximate Cause, And Superseding Cause In Negligence Claims, Judge Leonard J. Feldman, Julia Doherty Jan 2024

The Class Of Injuries Test: A Unifying Proposal To Determining Duty, Proximate Cause, And Superseding Cause In Negligence Claims, Judge Leonard J. Feldman, Julia Doherty

Seattle University Law Review

While there seems to be universal agreement that liability in tort cannot be unlimited, there is widespread disagreement regarding the various tests that courts utilize to limit such liability. We assume here that breach can be proven: the defendant failed to conduct themself in accordance with the salient standard of conduct (for example, failure to exercise reasonable care under all the circumstances). In the ensuing litigation, the court and jury are asked to decide several issues that each limit liability for negligence. Here, we focus on three oft-debated issues: duty, proximate cause, and superseding cause. The tests for each are …


Foreseeability And Duty In Washington Negligence Law: Leaving The Road Less Traveled By, Leo Linder Jan 2024

Foreseeability And Duty In Washington Negligence Law: Leaving The Road Less Traveled By, Leo Linder

Seattle University Law Review

Washington negligence law is a confusing labyrinth of foreseeability that not even Ariadne’s string could guide plaintiffs out of. Foreseeability is implicated in four distinct analyses, several of which overlap considerably. Doctrines that were once questions of law are now questions of fact, and vice versa. Something needs to change.

Washington has taken the novel approach of bifurcating the duty element into two parts—duty’s mere existence, which is a question of law for the court to determine; and duty’s scope, which is a question of fact handed off to the jury to determine. Foreseeability impacts both of these assessments, but …


Are You Free To Contract Away Your Right To Bring A Negligence Claim?, Scott J. Burnham Jan 2014

Are You Free To Contract Away Your Right To Bring A Negligence Claim?, Scott J. Burnham

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article explores the enforceability of the exculpatory clause—a contract term in which one party agrees to give up the right to bring a negligence claim against the other party. A spectrum of views on whether a contract containing such a clause is aberrant or not is presented and analyzed, followed by the author’s view of the rubric by which the enforceability of the clause should be measured. The article concludes by deconstructing one contract in which the clause was found.


Teaching Torts With Sports, Adam Epstein Dec 2010

Teaching Torts With Sports, Adam Epstein

Adam Epstein

The purpose of this paper is to offer a pedagogical road map for an alternative way to engage students when arriving at the torts portion of the business law or legal environment course. It is designed to encourage utilizing sports cases and sport-related videos when teaching torts which can be effective and energizing. My research demonstrates that the prominence of sports related tort cases and examples are much more apparent in the negligence and intentional tort categories than in products liability or strict liability. More specifically, an effective way to relate the concept of negligence in sports is in the …


Sales - Implied Warranty - Privity Of Contract As A Prerequisite To Recovery From Manufacturer, John L. Peschel S. Ed. Jan 1961

Sales - Implied Warranty - Privity Of Contract As A Prerequisite To Recovery From Manufacturer, John L. Peschel S. Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff sustained injuries in the course of his employment when a defective abrasive wheel, while being used in its intended manner, exploded in his face. The abrasive wheel was purchased by plaintiff's employer directly from the manufacturer. Plaintiff sought recovery from the manufacturer on two grounds: negligence in the manufacture of the abrasive wheel and breach of implied warranty for fitness of purpose. The negligence issue was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict adverse to the plaintiff. The manufacturer's demurrer to the cause of action based upon implied warranty was sustained by the trial court. On appeal from …