A Restatement (third) of Intentional Torts?
نویسنده
چکیده
Introduction........................................................................................................ 1062 Part I. What the Restatement (Third) Has Already Addressed, or Will Address.................................................................................... 1063 Part II. A Selective Review of Doctrinal Developments ................................. 1065 A. Battery ................................................................................................. 1066 1. Dual Intent or Single Intent? ........................................................ 1066 2. Consent to Medical Treatment ..................................................... 1071 3. Other Issues in Battery Doctrine .................................................. 1077 B. Other Doctrinal Developments ............................................................ 1078 Part III. A Broader Perspective ......................................................................... 1079 A. The “Apples and Oranges” Problem.................................................... 1080 B. The (Lack of) Generality Problem....................................................... 1083 1. Intentionally Causing Physical Harm ........................................... 1086 2. Intentionally Causing Emotional Harm........................................ 1086 3. Intentionally Causing Economic Harm ........................................ 1087 C. Tort Law’s Imperfect Hierarchy of Fault ............................................ 1088 D. Three Responses to These Problems ................................................... 1090
منابع مشابه
Section 8(c) of the proposed Restatement (Third) of Torts: is it really what the doctor ordered?
متن کامل
Developments in the Law of Trademarks and Service Marks--Contributions of the Common Law, the Federal Act, State Statutes and the Restatement of Torts
متن کامل
Attractive Nuisance: a More Flexible Approach
'RESTATEMENT, ToRTS §§ 334-339 (1934)'Id. § 333. 'Sioux City & Pac. R.R. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (873), was the first case to articulate the doctrine in this country, although the Court cited two, Connecticut cases, Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507 (1849) and Daley v. Norwich & W.R.R., 26 Conn. 591 (1858), and Lynch v. Nurdin, I QB. 29, 113 Eng. Rep. 1o41 (141), as "authorities" for its...
متن کاملTarasoff and the dangerous driver: a look at the driving cases.
In three recent cases, hereinafter referred to as the driving cases, the courts have taken up the issue of whether a psychotherapist should be held liable for negligent diagnosis and treatment and failure to warn third parties of a patient's potential danger to others in the operation of an automobile. These cases will be discussed as (1) an extension of the Tarasoff decision, which established...
متن کاملTort Duties of Landowners: A Positive Theory
One of the most controversial areas of modern tort law is that of the duty of landowners toward people who visit their land. The common law divided land visitors into three types: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The highest duty of care was owed to the invitee and the lowest to the trespasser. The distinctions led courts to hand down harsh decisions and to draw formal lines between the ca...
متن کامل