The flashcards below were created by user
marioavarela
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
-
The traditional rule for torts was ____ ____.
strict liabilty
-
What were the 2 ways to sue under the pre-industrial torts
- 1. trespass (direct injury)
- 2. trespass on the case (indirect injuries)
-
If you were injured directly or indirectly before 1850 could you recover
yes -always
-
What is one case that showed indirect injuries you could recover in pre-industrial
Patton v. Halstead
-
What was Patton v. Halstead about
sheriff letting prisioner out and being held responsible for his debt
-
What happened to change neg. standard
industrial revolution
-
why did negl. standard have to change
because RR would not have thrived if being sued constantly
-
What are the 3 major changes during the rise of the neg. standards
- 1. Doctrine of Statutory Authority
- 2. Contribuitory negligence
- 3. assumption of risk
-
In Lexingtong & Ohio RR v. Applegate why did the courts say the RR could continue operating regardless of nuisance
because they had authority to operate from govt.
-
Statutory Authority says what
given permission to operate from govt.
-
What was Lexington & Ohio RR v. Applegate about
RR being sued for nuisance and ct saying no they have statutory authority
-
Statutory authority was also applied to ____ cases
tort
-
Which case was about stopping RR nuisances
Lexington & Ohio RR v. Applegate
-
Which case was about RR burning down a mill
Burroughs v. Housatoric RR Co
-
What was Burroughs v. Housatoric RR about
burning down mill and court saying RR not at fault because they had statutory authority
-
What 4 things immunized companies from accidents
- 1. statutory authority
- 2. contributory negligence
- 3. assumption of risk
- 4. change from trespass to no absolute fault torts
-
What is one case about contributory negligence
Haring v. NY and Erie RR
-
What was Haring v. NY and Erie RR about
carriage hit by train, both at fault so he could not recover
-
Accidents at work also got changed, workers have an __ of __
assumption of risk
-
Which case was about assumption of risk
Farwell v. Boston and Worcester RR
-
Farwell v. Boston and Worcester RR was about what
workers having an assumption of risk
-
Workers having an assumption of risk changed the common law doctrine of ___ _____
respondant superior
-
Holmes Doctrine on The Common Law states that ___ by ___ ___ ____ ___ ___ ____
loss by accident must lie where it falls
-
Who said loss by accident must lie where it falls
Holmes, the common law doctrine
-
What case made it cheaper to kill someone than to scratch them
Casey v. Berkshire RR
-
Casey v. Berkshire was important why
made it cheaper to kill than to scratch, but eventually set up wrongful death lawsuits
-
What was the one case that the people and legislatures did not agree with and changed in future
casey v. berkshire
|
|