DOCSLIB.ORG

Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Law 580: Torts Thursday, November 12, 2015 November 10, 11, 12: • Casebook pages 813-843, 866-884 • Oral Argument #4 on Tuesday November 10 Chapter 11: Property Torts and Ultrahazardous Activities II. Property Torts D. Consent III. Ultrahazardous (Abnormally Dangerous) Activites Trespass to Land Prima Facie Case 1. Volitional Act 2. Intent to cause entry onto land 3. Entry onto plaintiff’s land Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) § 158. Liability for Intentional Intrusions on Land. One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally (a) enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so, or (b) remains on the land, or (c) fails to remove from the land a thing which he is under a duty to remove. Affirmative Defenses: 1. Consent 2. Self Defense 3. Defense of Others 4. Defense of Property 5. Recapture of Property 6. Necessity Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation (Minn 1910) p. 824 1. Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What’s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? “We are satisfied that the character of the storm was such that it would have been highly imprudent for the master of the Reynolds to have attempted to leave the dock or to have permitted his vessel to drift a way from it. …Nothing more was demanded of them than ordinary prudence and care, and the record in this case fully sustains the contention of the appellant that, in holding the vessel fast to the dock, those in charge of her exercised good judgment and prudent seamanship. “…But here those in charge of the vessel deliberately and by their direct efforts held her in such a position that the damage to the dock resulted, and, having thus preserved the ship at the expense of the dock, it seems to us that her owners are responsible to the dock owners to the extent of the injury inflicted.” — Vincent v. Lake Erie (p. 825) “This is not a case where life or property was menaced by any object or thing belonging to the plaintiff, the destruction of which became necessary to prevent the threatened disaster. Nor is it a case where, because of the act of God, or unavoidable accident, the infliction of the injury was beyond the control of the defendant, but is one where the defendant prudently and advisedly availed itself of the plaintiffs’ property for the purpose of preserving its own more valuable property, and the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the injury done.” — Vincent v. Lake Erie (p. 826) “In my judgment, if the boat was lawfully in position at the time the storm broke, and the master could not, in the exercise of due care, have left that position without subjecting his vessel to the hazards of the storm, then the damage to the dock, caused by the pounding of the boat, was the result of an inevitable accident. If the master was in the exercise of due care, he was not at fault.” — Vincent v. Lake Erie, Lewis, J., dissenting (p. 826) Conversion Prima Facie Case 1. Volitional Act 2. Intent to exercise control over personal property 3. Major interference with property owner’s possession or control of personal property Thyroff v. Nationwide Insurance (NY 2007) p. 831 1. Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What’s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? Restatement (Second) of Torts(1965) § 222A What Constitutes Conversion (1) Conversion is an intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel. (2) In determining the seriousness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important: (a) the extent and duration of the actor's exercise of dominion or control; (b) the actor's intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other's right of control; (c) the actor's good faith; (d) the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other's right of control; (e) the harm done to the chattel; (f) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other. Trespass to Chattels Prima Facie Case 1. Volitional Act 2. Intent to interfere with personal property [“chattel”] 3. Damage to the personal property or interference with the owner’s use of it Restatement (Second) of Torts(1965) § 217 Ways of Committing Trespass to Chattel A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally (a) dispossessing another of the chattel, or (b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another. § 218 Liability to Person in Possession One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if, (a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or (b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or (c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or (d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest. § 222 Liability for Dispossession One who dispossesses another of a chattel is subject to liability in trespass for the damage done. If the dispossession seriously interferes with the right of the other to control the chattel, the actor may also be subject to liability for conversion. Restatement (Second) of Torts(1965) § 222A What Constitutes Conversion …. Comment c. Recovery of full value of chattel. The importance of the distinction between trespass to chattels and conversion … lies in the measure of damages. In trespass the plaintiff may recover for the diminished value of his chattel because of any damage to it, or for the damage to his interest in its possession or use. Usually, although not necessarily, such damages are less than the full value of the chattel itself. In conversion the measure of damages is the full value of the chattel, at the time and place of the tort. When the defendant satisfies the judgment in the action for conversion, title to the chattel passes to him, so that he is in effect required to buy it at a forced judicial sale. Conversion is therefore properly limited, and has been limited by the courts, to those serious, major, and important interferences with the right to control the chattel which justify requiring the defendant to pay its full value. Trespass to Land Trespass to Chattels Prima Facie Case Prima Facie Case 1. Volitional Act 1. Volitional Act 2. Intent to cause entry onto land 2. Intent to interfere with personal property [“chattel”] 3. Entry onto plaintiff’s land 3. Damage to the personal property or interference with the owner’s use of it Conversion Prima Facie Case 1. Volitional Act 2. Intent to exercise control over personal property 3. Major interference with property owner’s possession or control of personal property Affirmative Defenses: 1. Consent 2. Self Defense 3. Defense of Others 4. Defense of Property 5. Recapture of Property 6. Necessity Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) p. 840 1. Who sued whom? 2. What happened? 3. What’s the procedural history? 4. What question(s) is/are before this court? 5. What does plaintiff argue? 6. What does defendant argue? 7. What does the court decide? 8. Why? “Minnesota case law establishes that an entrant may become a trespasser by moving beyond the possessor’s invitation or permission. See State v. Brooks- Scanlon Lumber Co., 128 Minn. 300, 302 (1915) (when consent given to cut mature trees, cutting of immature trees exceeded scope of consent and constituted trespass).… Although trespass in Brooks-Scanlon related to tangible objects, the decision nonetheless demonstrates that the scope of consent can be exceeded even though the entrant remains within the geographic limits of the consent. …. “Courts in other jurisdictions have recognized trespass as a remedy when broadcasters use secret cameras for newsgathering. Newsgathering does not create a license to trespass or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office.” — Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting (p. 841).
Recommended publications

  • Self-Help and the Nature of Property

    2005] SELF-HELP AND THE NATURE OF PROPERTY Henry E. Smith* I. INTRODUCTION Self-help and the law's response to it lie at the center of a system of property rights. This has become all the more apparent as questions of property - and whether to employ property law at all - have arisen in the digital world. In this Article, I argue that self-help comes in different varie- ties corresponding to different strategies for delineating entitlements. Like property entitlements more generally, the law does not regulate self-help in as detailed a fashion as it could if delineation were costless. Both property entitlements and self-help show far less symmetry and a far lesser degree of tailoring than we would expect in a world in which we did not face delinea- tion costs of devising, describing, communicating, and enforcing the con- tent of rights and privileges to use resources. Part II of this Article sets the stage for an analysis of self-help by showing how the law-and-economics treatment of entitlements leads one to expect greater symmetry in entitlements than is to be found in the law. In the commentary, rights to be free from pollution are paired conceptually with so-called rights to pollute, but the law does not provide for free stand- ing rights - as opposed to occasional privileges - to pollute. Part III shows how these apparent anomalies receive an explanation on a theory of enti- tlement delineation that accounts broadly for costs as well as benefits. Roughly speaking, the law faces a choice among strategies for delineating entitlements, and in the choice among these strategies, the benefits of mul- tiple uses of resources must be traded off against the costs of delineation and enforcement.
  • Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age

    Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age

    Tulsa Law Review Volume 44 Issue 4 The Scholarship of Richard A. Epstein Summer 2009 Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age Catherine M. Sharkey Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Catherine M. Sharkey, Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age, 44 Tulsa L. Rev. 677 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol44/iss4/2 This Legal Scholarship Symposia Articles is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sharkey: Trespass Torts and Self-Help for an Electronic Age TRESPASS TORTS AND SELF-HELP FOR AN ELECTRONIC AGE Catherine M. Sharkey* INTRODU CTION ................................................................................................................ 678 1. SELF-HELP: THE MISSING THIRD REMEDY .......................................................... 679 II. CONCEPTUALIZING SELF-HELP IN CYBERTRESPASS DOCTRINE ........................... 684 A. Self-Help in Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case ................................................... 684 1. Threshold Prerequisite to Invoke Legal Process ................................... 684 2. Liability for Evasion of Self-Help ........................................................ 687 B. Self-Help "Opt-Out" as Affirmative Defense ............................................
  • Respondeat Superior Principle to Assign Responsibility for Worker Statutory Benefits and Protections Michael Harper Boston University School of Law

    Respondeat Superior Principle to Assign Responsibility for Worker Statutory Benefits and Protections Michael Harper Boston University School of Law

    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 11-13-2017 Using the Anglo-American Respondeat Superior Principle to Assign Responsibility for Worker Statutory Benefits and Protections Michael Harper Boston University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Common Law Commons, and the Labor and Employment Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Harper, Using the Anglo-American Respondeat Superior Principle to Assign Responsibility for Worker Statutory Benefits na d Protections, Boston University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper Series (2017). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/286 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING THE ANGLO‐AMERICAN RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR PRINCIPLE TO ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKER STATUTORY BENEFITS AND PROTECTIONS Michael C. Harper* Introduction The common law remains an intellectual battle ground in Anglo‐ American legal systems, even in the current age of statutes. This is true in significant part because the common law provides legitimacy for arguments actually based on policy, ideology, and interest. It also is true because of the common law’s malleability and related susceptibility to significantly varied interpretations. Mere contention over the meaning of the common law to provide legitimacy for modern statutes is usually not productive of sensible policy, however. It generally produces no more than reified doctrine unsuited for problems the common law was not framed to solve.
  • In the End, Truth Will out - Or Will It

    In the End, Truth Will out - Or Will It

    Missouri Law Review Volume 52 Issue 2 Spring 1987 Article 2 Winter 1987 In the End, Truth Will Out - Or Will It Donald L. Magnetti Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Donald L. Magnetti, In the End, Truth Will Out - Or Will It, 52 MO. L. REV. (1987) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol52/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Magnetti: Magnetti: In the End "IN THE END, TRUTH WILL OUT" ...OR WILL IT? "MERCHANT OF VENICE," ACT II, SCENE 2 Donald L. Magnetti* I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 299 II. Tim COMMON LAW OF DEFAMATION ....................... 300 III. Tim New York Times RULE: PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THE MEDIA 307 DEFENDANT ............................................ IV. THE PUBLIC FIGURE PLAINTI=: Gertz v. Robert Welch ...... 311 V. DEVELOPMENTS AFTER Gertz .............................. 318 A. Forum Shopping ................................... 318 B. Post-Gertz Decisions Add to the Confusion ........... 320 C. The Dun and Bradstreet Decision - A "Side-Step"... 326 D. Falsity - The Essence of a Defamation Action ....... 329 The Neutral Reportage Privilege ..................... 329 PriorRestraint Cases ............................... 331 The "False Light" Cases ............................ 332 The "Fictionalization" Cases ........................ 334 The "Libel-ProofPlaintiff" and "Subsidiary Libel" 336 D octrines.......................................... The Issue of Falsity ................................ 339 Sum mary .......................................... 342 VI. PROPOSED REMEDIES FOR IE DEFAMED PLAINT ..........
  • Vicarious Liability

    Vicarious Liability

    STATE OF FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION COMPENDIUM OF LAW Kurt M. Spengler Wicker, Smith, O’Hara, McCoy & Ford, P.A. 390 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1000 Orlando, FL 32802 Tel: (407) 843‐3939 Email: [email protected] www.wickersmith.com Christopher Barkas Carr Allison 305 S. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tel: (850) 222‐2107 Email: [email protected] L. Johnson Sarber III Marks Gray, P.A. 1200 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 800 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Tel: (904) 398‐0900 Email: [email protected] www.marksgray.com A. Elements of Proof for the Derivative Negligence Claims of Negligent Entrustment, Hiring/Retention and Supervision 1. Respondeat Superior a. What are the elements necessary to establish liability under a theory of Respondeat Superior? Under Florida law, an employer is only vicariously liable for an employee's acts if the employee was acting to further the employer's interest through the scope of the employee’s employment at the time of the incident. An employee acts within the scope of his employment only if (1) his act is of the kind he is required to perform, (2) it occurs substantially within the time and space limits of employment, and (3) is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. Kane Furniture Corp. v. Miranda, 506 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Additionally, once an employee deviates from the scope of his employment, he may return to that employment only by doing something which meaningfully benefits his employer's interests. Borrough’s Corp. v. American Druggists’ Insur. Co., 450 So.2d 540 (Fla.
  • A Theory of Vicarious Liability 287

    A Theory of Vicarious Liability 287

    A Theory of Vicarious Liability 287 A Theory of Vicarious Liability J.W. Neyers* This article proposes a theory' of vicarious liability Cet article propose une thiorie de la responsabilite which attempts to explain the central features and du fail d'autrui qui essaie d'expliquer les limitations of the doctrine. The main premise of the caracteristiques el les limitations centrales de la article is that the common law should continue to doctrine. La principale primisse de cet article eslque impose vicarious liability because it can co-exist with la « common law » doit continuer a imposer la the current tort law regime that imposes liability for responsabilite du fait d'autrui parce qu'elle peul fault. The author lays out the central features of the coexisler avec le regime actual de la responsabilite doctrine of vicarious liability and examines why the delictuelle qui impose la responsabilite' pour fauie. leading rationales (such as control, compensation, L 'auteur e'nonce les caracteristiques centrales de la deterrence, loss-spreading, enterprise liability and doctrine de la responsabilite du fait d'autrui et mixed policy) fail to explain or account for its examine les raisons pour lesquelles les principaux doctrinal rules. motifs (comme le controle. I'indemnisation. la The author offers an indemnity theory for vicarious dissuasion. I'etalement des penes, la responsabilite liability and examines why the current rules of d'entreyirise et la police mate) ne peuvenl m vicarious liability are limited in application to expliquer nijuslifier les regies de cette doctrine. employer-employee relationships and do not extend L 'auteur propose une thiorie des indemnltis pour la further.
  • 1:16-Cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 1 of 17 Pageid

    1:16-Cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 1 of 17 Pageid

    Case: 1:16-cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:<pageID> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Case No. 16-cv-8219 v. ) ) Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. ONSITE HEALTHCARE, INC., S.C., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Onsite Healthcare, Inc., S.C.’s motion to dismiss [29]. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion [29] is granted with respect to Counts II through Count V, but denied with respect to Count I. This case is set for further status on June 15, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. to discuss pre-trial scheduling and the possibility of settlement. I. Background Defendant Onsite Healthcare, Inc., S.C. “provides professional medical services to home bound patients in the State of Illinois through its staff of licensed physicians.” [29-1, at 2.] Plaintiff Able Home Health, LLC is a “home healthcare agency” that provides “nursing and therapy services to home bound patients” in Illinois. Id. In July 2016, Plaintiff received a two- page fax on its fax machine from Defendant. [1, ¶ 9.] That fax is on Defendant’s letterhead, addressed to “Home Health Partners,” and has the subject line, “New Physician to serve the Rockford Area.” [1, at 21.] The text of the fax’s first page states: Dear Partners in Healthcare, We are happy to announce the addition of Louis R. Warren, MD to Onsite Healthcare’s team of Providers. Dr. Warren will be able to support the internal Case: 1:16-cv-08219 Document #: 36 Filed: 05/17/17 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:<pageID> medicine needs of patients in the areas of Rockford and Belvedere effective July 11, 2016.
  • Dual Drilling Co. V. Mills Equipment Investments, Inc. - a Statement About Conversion Or a Statement About the Concept of Fault? Mark Fernandez

    Dual Drilling Co. V. Mills Equipment Investments, Inc. - a Statement About Conversion Or a Statement About the Concept of Fault? Mark Fernandez

    Louisiana Law Review Volume 60 | Number 3 Spring 2000 Dual Drilling Co. v. Mills Equipment Investments, Inc. - A Statement About Conversion or a Statement About the Concept of Fault? Mark Fernandez Repository Citation Mark Fernandez, Dual Drilling Co. v. Mills Equipment Investments, Inc. - A Statement About Conversion or a Statement About the Concept of Fault?, 60 La. L. Rev. (2000) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol60/iss3/14 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dual DrillingCo. v. Mills Equipment Investments, Inc.-A Statement About Conversion or a Statement About the Concept of Fault? I. INTRODUCTION The common law tort of conversion provides a means of protecting one's possessory and ownership interest in chattels.' Conversion is an intentional tort, but the requisite intent need not include a desire to harm the plaintiff's possessory or ownership interest?2 The intent required is merely a volition to exercise control over a chattel which is in fact contrary to another's possessory or ownership interest. Accordingly, a reasonable mistake by the defendant will not serve as a defense since error as to fact or law does not negate the requisite intent.3 This characteristic has lead some scholars to classify common law conversion as a strict liability tort since neither conscious wrongdoing nor negligence is necessary.4 In Dual Drilling Co.
  • 1 TORTS 1) Observation and Analysis of Facts

    1 TORTS 1) Observation and Analysis of Facts

    TORTS 1) Observation and analysis of facts (conduct). 2) Legal definition of torts. 3) Determination if there is a match between facts (conduct) and legal requirements of the tort in question. a. If so, determination of compensation. Tort constitutes a breach of a legal duty, other than under contract, with liability for damages. The elements of Canadian Tort: (i) conduct: intentional, negligent, strict liability; and (ii) damage. THE NEGLIGENT TORTS The negligent act o Defendant creates a reasonably foreseeable and substantial risk of its consequences. o The negligent act is determined by identifying the appropriate standard of care and applying it to the facts of the case. The standard of care is that of a reasonable –careful- person. It is an objective standard focused on the defendant’s conduct with reference to that of a reasonable person. o The central element in applying the standard of reasonable care is the concept of a reasonably foreseeable risk. o The deviation from the standard of care creates a reasonably foreseeable risk. Causation: a link between the defendant’s negligent act and the plaintiff’s damage. o Cause-in-fact: the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s negligence caused her loss. Determined by the but-for-test. Damage: no liability can arise in negligence unless the plaintiff suffers damages as a result of defendant’s wrongful act, but not all losses may be compensated. Remote damages are NOT compensated. 1 o Defendant is liable only for the REASONABLY FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES OF ITS NEGLIGENCE. o Defendant is liable only to plaintiffs who are within the proximate zone of danger.
  • Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: the Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass Shyamkrishna Balganesh Yale Law School

    Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: the Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass Shyamkrishna Balganesh Yale Law School

    Michigan Technology Law Review Volume 12 | Issue 2 2006 Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: The Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass Shyamkrishna Balganesh Yale Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr Part of the Common Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Legal Remedies Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Common Law Property Metaphors on the Internet: The Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass, 12 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 265 (2006). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mttlr/vol12/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Technology Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMON LAW PROPERTY METAPHORS ON THE INTERNET: THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE DOCTRINE OF CYBERTRESPASS Shyamkrishna Balganesh* Cite as: Shyamkrishna Balganesh, Common Law PropertyMetaphors on the Internet: The Real Problem with the Doctrine of Cybertrespass, 12 MICH. TELECOMM. TECH. L. REv. 265 (2006), available at http://www.mttlr.org/voltwelve/balganesh.pdf IN TRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 266 I. CYBERTRESPASS: NEW CAUSE OF ACTION/NOVEL PROPRIETARY INTEREST? .........................................................
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in the United States District Court for the Eastern D

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 in the United States District Court for the Eastern D

    Case 1:10-cv-01836-MJS Document 11 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CARE PLUS INSURANCE ) 1:10-CV-01836 AWI MJS MARKETING, a California ) 9 Corporation, and MIKE MASSAD, an ) ORDER GRANTING individual, ) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 10 ) DISMISS THE SECOND AND Plaintiffs, ) FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION 11 ) AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S v. ) MOTION TO DISMISS THE 12 ) THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE ) 13 INSURANCE COMPANY aka CGLIC, ) (Document #11) DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, ) 14 ) Defendants. ) 15 ____________________________________) 16 17 BACKGROUND 18 On August 16, 2010, Plaintiffs Care Plus Insurance Marketing (“CPIM”) and Mike 19 Massad, owner and operator of CPIM, filed a complaint for breach of contract, conversion, 20 defamation and unfair competition in violation of California Business Code § 17200, et seq. The 21 complaint arises from a contract dispute between Defendant Connecticut General Life Insurance 22 Company (“CGLIC”) and Plaintiffs. On October 5, 2010, Defendant removed the action to this 23 court because the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is at issue. 24 On October 12, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Defendant contends that the 25 second cause of action for conversion fails as a matter of law because conversion cannot be 26 predicated on only a contractual right of payment and Plaintiffs have not specifically identified 27 the money that was allegedly converted. Defendant argues that the third cause of action for 28 defamation should be dismissed because the complaint fails to meet the stringent pleading Case 1:10-cv-01836-MJS Document 11 Filed 12/21/10 Page 2 of 11 1 standard for defamation.
  • Emily White Finished Thesis

    Emily White Finished Thesis

    A critical analysis of the legal history of vicarious liability and its applications WHITE, Emily Charlotte Available from the Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ A Sheffield Hallam University thesis This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. Please visit http://shura.shu.ac.uk/21451/ and http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html for further details about copyright and re-use permissions. A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL HISTORY OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND ITS APPLICATION Emily Charlotte White A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Master of Law by Research September 2017 ABSTRACT This thesis presents an examination of the historical developments of vicarious liability law in the English legal system over the past 200 years. The developments considered date from the principles laid down in Joel v Morison [1834] EWHC KB J39 to the most recent case of Bellman v Northampton Recruitment Ltd [2017] IRLR 124. The various tests for employment status and the course of employment are discussed, with specific analysis into why the tests have changed and developed. Case law and academic criticism is presented to emphasise how the changes have had a positive or negative impact on the clarity and fairness of the area of law.