About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

Restatement, Second, Torts (April 2017 through August 2017) [1] (2017)

handle is hein.ali/restate0327 and id is 1 raw text is: 





                                     TORTS 2D





Generally

Ariz.App.2016. Cit. generally in ftn. In a negligence action brought by motorcyclist against permittee
after motorcyclist collided with an electric fence that defendant had erected in accordance with the terms
of its permit, this court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendant and
remanded, holding that, under Restatement Second of Torts § 386, defendant owed a duty of care to the
public. The court acknowledged that Arizona courts generally followed the Restatement Second of Torts
unless it was contrary to Arizona law, and determined that Arizona state-court precedent did not conflict
with § 386. Johnson v. Almida Land & Cattle Company, LLC, 383 P.3d 673, 674.



      DIVISION   ONE.  INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND, AND CHATTELS

   CHAPTER 1. MEANING OF TERMS USED THROUGHOUT THE RESTATEMENT OF
                                           TORTS

§ 8. Unavoidable Accident

Or.2017. Quot. in sup. Oil re-refining company appealed department of environmental quality
commission's final order that assessed penalties against company for accepting hazardous waste without
a proper manifest form and treated hazardous waste without a proper permit, arguing that it reasonably
relied on assurances by the generator of the waste that the material it transported and treated was not a
hazardous waste. The court of appeals affirmed the commission's order. Affirming, this court held that
company's level of culpability was immaterial to establishing a violation of the relevant provisions.
Quoting Restatement Second of Torts § 8, the court concluded that the department was authorized to
bring actions for simple violations without evidence of a culpable mental state, because the commission
was directed to consider a company's culpability, such as whether the cause of the violation was an
unavoidable accident, negligence, or intentional act, when determining the amount of the fine to impose.
Oil Re-Refining Company v. Environmental Quality Commission, 388 P.3d 1071, 1079.

§ 8A. Intent

N.D.Ga.Bkrtcy.Ct.2017.  Cit. in case quot. in sup. Trustee for Chapter 11 debtor that was discovered to
have been operated as a Ponzi scheme brought an adversary proceeding against brokerage firm, seeking
to avoid as fraudulent certain transfers that debtor made to an account it maintained at firm. This court
entered summary judgment for firm, holding that trustee failed to establish that debtor made the transfers
to firm with the actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. The court reasoned that the Ponzi
scheme presumption did not apply, because the transfers at issue were not a direct and material
inducement to future investors. The court noted that the presumption relied in part on the principle set
forth in Restatement Second of Torts § 8A that knowledge to a substantial certainty constituted intent in




           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 nearly 3,000 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:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most