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

Case Citations [1] (Fall 2024)

handle is hein.ali/alitorts9926 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2024 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC HARM CHAPTER 1. UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ECONOMIC LOSS § 1. Liability for the Unintentional Infliction of Economic Loss: General Principles N.Y.Sup.Ct.App.Div.2023. Quot. in diss. op. Investors sued investment bank for negligent retention and supervision of an employee who defrauded investors of millions of dollars as part of a scheme to cover up the employee's mounting personal-trading losses and embezzlements. The trial court granted bank's motion to dismiss investors' claims for negligent retention and supervision, and the court of appeals affirmed that portion of the decision. Reversing and remanding, this court held that investors adequately alleged that bank had notice of the employee's propensity to commit fraud, and that a customer relationship was not a prerequisite to duty in a negligent-supervision claim. The dissent cited Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 1 in arguing that a special relationship was required in negligent-supervision cases where, as here, a plaintiff suffered purely economic losses. Moore Charitable Foundation v. PJT Partners, Inc., 217 N.E.3d 8, 21. Tex.2023. Com. (c) quot. in case quot. in sup. (citing com. (c) to § 1 of T.D. No. 1, 2012, which is now com. (c) to § 1 of the Official Text). Buyers of a tax-consulting business, who had paid funds to their attorney to be held in escrow pursuant to a settlement with sellers of the business, sued sellers, seeking a declaration that they had fulfilled their settlement obligations after the attorney absconded with the funds. The trial court granted summary judgment for buyers, finding that they had no further liability to sellers. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that no escrow agreement was created. Affirming on other grounds, this court held that, while buyers sufficiently rebutted the presumption against the creation of an escrow, nothing rebutted the resulting presumption that buyers also retained the risk of loss. Citing Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 1, the court reasoned that the creation of an escrow alone was insufficient to shift the risk of loss, particularly where, as here, both parties were sophisticated and well-counseled and had a full chance to consider how to manage the risks involved. Boozer v. Fischer, 674 S.W.3d 314, 333. § 8. Public Nuisance Resulting in Economic Loss COPYRIGHT (02024 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 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