Neighbor News
Tort Law Cases that Defined the Industry
As with any other field of law, questions about liability and the like have been answered through prior tort cases.
Tort law has been around for ages, and there are so many great examples that define the industry. For the layman, tort cases more or less encompass legal situations where an individual may be held liable for an injury inflicted upon another individual. They usually also involve the injured party seeking some sort of compensation for the damages, whether they be property loss, pain and suffering, or physical harm. Here are some classic examples of Tort Law that defined the industry.
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916)
This classic case involved a Buick car whose wheels collapsed. Buick sold the car to a retail dealer, who then sold it to the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was driving, the car suddenly collapsed and he was thrown from the car and injured. Buick believed they shouldn’t be held liable for the car collapsing because they did not manufacture the wheel, and they also had no prior relationship to the plaintiff since the plaintiff bought the car through a third party retailer. The judge claimed that it was Buick’s responsibility to make a safe automobile and that this extended to ensuring that the parts it used were also safe.
Garratt v. Dailey (1955)
The defendant was a child at the age of five and the plaintiff was an older woman. The case involved the child pulling a chair out from under the woman just as she was about to sit down, which caused her to sustain injuries and damages. At first glance, you might think that because it was a five-year-old child there’s no way the court would say he acted intentionally. However, they ruled that age is irrelevant in determining whether or not an intentional tort was committed. This decision was important in establishing that acting with “substantial certainty” of resultant harm is enough to show intent.
Summers v. Tice (1948)
This classic case involved three men going hunting—two behind, one in front in the shape of a triangle. The two in the back saw a bird and fired, causing the man in the front to get hit with the birdshot. The question is, which of the two men in the back are at fault? The court concluded that both of the men who were in the back of the triangle were at fault. If the plaintiff doesn’t have a way to figure out who specifically caused his injury, he can still recover against each of them or both of them as long as he can show that both of them were negligent. It’s then up the defendants sort out their own liability between the two of them. This case has become more important over time in a lot of pharmaceutical cases when it comes to determining the distribution of liability.
