About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/restt5021 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY Generally D.N.M.2014. Cit. generally in ftn., cit. generally in case cit. in ftn. In a case in which cancer-treatment facility filed, inter alia, a claim for tortious interference with existing and prospective economic advantage against owner of hospitals and insurance companies, this court denied in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support that claim. In making its decision, the court relied on Restatement Second of Torts, but acknowledged that the New Mexico Supreme Court had previously looked to the Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability for guidance when dealing with questions of how to apportion liability. New Mexico Oncology and Hematology Consultants, Ltd. v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, 54 F.Supp.3d 1189, 1227. TOPIC 1. BASIC RULES OF COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITY § 1. Issues and Causes of Action Addressed by This Restatement Utah, 2015. Com. (c) quot. in diss. op., cit. in ftn. to diss. op. Parents, on behalf of their minor child, filed a negligence claim against organizations that ran a residential home for the disabled, after their child was invited into the home and sexually assaulted by defendants' employee, alleging that defendants breached their duty of care to the child. The trial court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. Reversing in part, this court held that fault could be allocated for intentional torts, as well as for negligence. The dissenting opinion argued that the state statute on comparative negligence did not apply to intentional torts and the court should not allocate fault to employee, but noted that Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 1, Comment c, apportioned tort liability to intentional torts. Graves v. North Eastern Services, Inc., 345 P.3d 619, 642. § 2. Contractual Limitations on Liability Vt.2014. Coins. (d) and (e) cit. in case cit. in disc. Building owner sued town, alleging that it negligently failed to disconnect water service to the building pursuant to the parties' agreement, and that she discontinued heating the building in reliance on town's promised undertaking, causing the building's water pipes to freeze and split. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict for plaintiff. Relying on the modem approach set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability, this court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on mitigation of damages rather than on comparative negligence. The court noted that, while it was not constrained to do so, it had generally followed the Restatements, including §§ 2 and 22, unless there was a strong rationale to the contrary, and there was no such strong rationale here. Langlois v. Town of Proctor, 113 A.3d 44, 55. uA wiem For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most