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

Case Citations [1] (April 2017 through August 2017)

handle is hein.ali/resttlph5308 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM CHAPTER 1. INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, AND NEGLIGENCE: DEFINITIONS § 1. Intent Idaho, 2016. Quot. in ftn. Estate and family of miner who was killed when a mine tunnel collapsed sued owner and operator of the mine, alleging that defendant's decision to remove a pillar from the mining area constituted sufficiently egregious conduct that permitted plaintiffs to pursue their claims outside of the state workers' compensation statute. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendant. Affirming, this court held that plaintiffs failed to show that defendant's conduct amounted to willful or unprovoked physical aggression under an exception to the statute's exclusivity provision. The court noted that willful physical aggression required a finding of specific intent to harm, in contrast to the definition of intent used in the common law of intentional torts and Restatement Third of Torts Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 1, under which intent could be found if the person acted either with the purpose of producing a consequence or knowing that the consequence was substantially certain to result. Marek v. Hecla, Limited, 384 P.3d 975, 982. CHAPTER 3. THE NEGLIGENCE DOCTRINE AND NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY § 7. Duty Ariz.App.2016. Cit. in ftn. Motorcyclist brought a negligence action against company that was granted a permit by the U.S. Forest Service to graze cattle on certain federally owned land, after he collided with an electric fence that defendant had erected in accordance with the terms of its permit. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. This court reversed and remanded, holding that, under Restatement Second of Torts § 386, defendant, as a permittee operating on federal land, owed a duty of care to the public when it erected improvements on the land. The court noted that because it concluded that it should follow § 386, it did not need to reach plaintiff s argument that it should adopt Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 7. Johnson v. Almida Land & Cattle Company, LLC, 383 P.3d 673, 674. Ariz.App.2016. Cit. in cases quot. in disc.; subsec. (a) quot. but not fol. Son of employee brought a claim for negligence against employer, alleging that he contracted mesothelioma from asbestos brought home on employee's work clothes. The trial court granted summary judgment for employer. Affirming, this court held, among other things, that employer was not liable to son under Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 54, which imposed a duty of reasonable care on possessors of land for artificial conditions or conduct on the land that posed a risk of physical harm to persons or property not on the land. The court declined to apply § 54, explaining that § 54 was a special 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