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

Case Citations (March 2016 through June 2016) [i] (2016)

handle is hein.ali/resttlph5305 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM Generally N.J.2015. Parallel table 2 cit. in ftn. In property owners' action against neighbor who owned a leaking underground oil-storage tank, this court affirmed the determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim against defendant for nuisance or trespass under the Restatement Second of Torts §§ 822, 824, or 166, noting that those standards had not been altered under the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm. Ross v. Lowitz, 120 A.3d 178, 185, 188. Introduction Ariz.App.2015. Intro. Note quot. in disc. Locksmith who was hired to change the locks on a house after a foreclosure brought a negligence action against landowners whose tenant, unaware of the foreclosure, shot plaintiff; plaintiff alleged that defendants were negligent in failing to inform tenant of the foreclosure and of the possibility that someone could inspect the property and change the locks. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants. This court affirmed, holding that plaintiff failed to establish that defendants owed him a duty of care under Arizona law. The court determined that plaintiff failed to show that a duty of care based on Restatement Second of Torts § 321 should be imposed in this case, noting that Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm replaced and superseded relevant sections of Restatement Second of Torts. Alcombrack v. Ciccarelli, 238 Ariz. 538, 544, 363 P.3d 698, 704. CHAPTER 1. INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, AND NEGLIGENCE: DEFINITIONS § 3. Negligence C.A.9, 2015. Cit. in ftn. to diss. op. Widow of hiker who was attacked and killed in a national park by an aggressive 370-pound male goat sued the United States and the National Park Service for negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that park officials breached their duty of reasonable care by failing to destroy the goat in the years leading up to hiker's death. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Affirming, this court held that the discretionary-function exception to the Act's waiver of immunity applied, because the decision to use nonlethal methods to manage the goat was susceptible to policy analysis. The dissent argued that defendants' inaction was the result of negligence, rather than a discretionary decision to delay or decline to relocate or remove the goat, and cited the definition of negligence set forth in Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 3 in reasoning that the exercise of discretion was the essence of most negligence, and that the existence of discretion was of little value for distinguishing T1mAL 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