Categories: All - causation - liability - pollution

by Hua Wang 17 years ago

408

Aug 24 Torts: SL v Neg

The discussion explores various landmark cases in tort law, particularly focusing on negligence and nuisance within the framework of common law. It examines the principles established in cases like Bolton v.

Aug 24 Torts: SL v Neg

Aug 24 Torts: SL v Neg

  • common law: no one wrote rules down; they just start deciding cases
  • inference is never perfect b/c results can trump rule statem
  • tort law is common law

  • statute law

  • exercise 2
  • Siegler v Kuhlman

    Restatement (2nd) of Torts
    abnormally dangerous activity = L, even w/.utmost care

    unusual risk

    not common usage

    extraordinary danger

    Bolton v Stone

    Rogers v. Elliott
    church bell

    right to use prop vs peculiar temperament

    Victim precaution
    P sued for neg and nuisance, use Rylands principle
    Blackburn in Rylands

    mischief, at his peril, prima facie, escape

    Losee v Buchanan

    Kent v Gulf State Utilities
    rake held by P's deceased touched D's pwr wires

  • Kent
  • P caused accident in Kent

  • Sullivan
  • P did not cause accident

  • Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert
  • dynamite set by P's deceased killed him
  • Coxhill v Forward
    D's LPG auto tank exploded and burned P's premises

  • Coxhill extends Musgrove
  • Musgrove v Pandelis
    D's newfangled car leaked gas and ignited; fire spread to P's adjacent premises

  • Musgrove v Pandelis

  • Walker Shoe Store v Howard's Hobby Shop
  • D's furnace tank leaked and caught fire, which spread to P's adjacent premises

  • Rainham Chemical Works, Ltd v Belvedere Fish
    West v Bristol Tramways Co

  • West v Bristol Tramways Co

  • Vaughan
  • nature of authorization (authorized to use rr)
  • here, no authority to use creosote

  • West extends Rylands
  • don't read case broadly
    creosote fumes de D's newly laid tracks damaged P's plants
    Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert

  • Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert
  • limits Sullivan

  • Delano
  • P contributed to accident in this case
  • Central Trust less clear b/c dynamite set off by co-worker, not P
  • assume risk?
  • P's deceased set dynamite that killed him

  • Central Trust & Savings Bank v Toppert

  • Delano v Mother's Super Market
  • P slipped on D's ice

  • under neg, precaution = NL
  • under sl, precaution still = L
  • Davis v Niagara Falls Tower
    congealed ice de D's twr fell onto and broke P's adjacent skylight

  • Davis v Niagara Falls Tower Co

  • Lubin v Iowa City
  • D's water main broke and flooded P's basem
  • ~ b/c predictable

  • Guille v Swan
  • trespass
  • emerging tech (unusual to have twr so high)

  • Vaughan
  • Diff b/c contributory neg
  • how to change facts in Davis to have ~ ruling: small piece of snow fell
  • how to change facts in Vaughan to have ~ ruling: coals bounce off of rr cars
  • Sullivan v Dunham

  • Sullivan v Dunham

  • Guille v Swan
  • D's balloon and following crowd invaded P's farm
  • R
  • analogy: not a classic escape, tresspass in both cases
  • Ds dynamited tree that struck P's deceased

    read broadly

    Cambridge Water Co v Eastern Counties Leather
    P's Rylands claim failed b/c natural use of land here
    not foreseeable
    long-distance pollution
    Madsen v East Jordan Irrigation Co
    excitable minks
    proximate causation
    D's steam boiler exploded and spread shrapnel and destruction to P's neighboring building