USA · 1L · Torts
Leading Cases
Negligence, duty and strict liability classics.
Space flip · ← → navigate · S save
Show all 6 questions and answers in this book
1.Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. (N.Y. 1928) — majority holding?
A duty of care is owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger; Mrs Palsgraf was not foreseeably endangered. Cardozo C.J. for the majority; Andrews J. dissented.
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
2.United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (2d Cir. 1947) — the Hand formula?
Negligence exists where B < P × L: the burden of adequate precautions is less than the probability of harm multiplied by the gravity of the loss. Judge Learned Hand.
United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947)
3.MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (N.Y. 1916) — significance?
Abolished the privity requirement for negligence claims against a manufacturer of a product that is dangerous if negligently made. Cardozo J.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382 (1916)
4.Summers v. Tice (Cal. 1948) — doctrine?
Alternative liability: where two negligent defendants fired and it cannot be shown which caused the injury, the burden shifts to each defendant to prove they did not cause it.
Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80 (1948)
5.Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (Cal. 1963) — held?
A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when a product it places on the market, knowing it will be used without inspection, has a defect that causes injury.
Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, 59 Cal. 2d 57 (1963)
6.Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (Cal. 1976) — held?
A therapist who determines (or reasonably should determine) that a patient presents a serious danger of violence to another bears a duty to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim.
Tarasoff v. Regents, 17 Cal. 3d 425 (1976)