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

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through April 2019)

handle is hein.ali/resttlph5311 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM Generally Ariz.2018. Cit. generally but not fol. In a negligence action against employer arising from the death of employee's son, who contracted mesothelioma through exposure to asbestos fibers carried home on employee's work clothes, this court held that an employer that used asbestos in its workplace did not have a duty under the common law to protect the public from secondary exposure to asbestos. The court declined to adopt the duty framework set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, reasoning that it created a limitless duty of care owed to all people at all times that was inconsistent with Arizona law, which provided that duty was based on a special relationship recognized by the common law or on a relationship created by public policy. Quiroz v. ALCOA Inc., 416 P.3d 824, 827, 836-843. Kan.2018. Cit. generally but not fol., cit. generally in case quot. in disc. Estate of driver who was killed in a two-car accident at a rural intersection sued owners of property located at one corner of the intersection, alleging that an overgrowth of trees and vegetation on the property obstructed the view at the intersection and contributed to the accident. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and the court of appeals affirmed. Affirming, this court held that, consistent with Restatement Second of Torts, defendants owed no common-law duty to passing drivers to correct a natural condition on their property that affected road visibility at the intersection. The court declined to adopt the approach set forth in the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, which provided that a property owner could be liable to someone off the property who was injured by a natural condition of the property if the landowner knew of the risk or the risk was obvious. Manley v. Hallbauer, 423 P.3d 480, 482. Introduction Tex.2018. Quot. in ftn. In former employee's defamation action against former employer who falsely accused him of taking illegal kickbacks, this court determined, among other things, that, while employee was entitled to an award of past reputation damages, because the record bore legally sufficient evidence that employee's reputation was harmed in the past, he was not entitled to an award of future reputation damages, because there was no evidence that future impairment was reasonably probable, as required for a plaintiff to recover damages for prospective harm under the Restatement Second of Torts. The court noted that, unlike the Restatement Second of Torts, the Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm did not address protection of reputation. Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605,623. CHAPTER 1. INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, AND NEGLIGENCE: DEFINITIONS § 1. Intent COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved ALI 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