Estate of Berthiaume v. Pratt, M.D.

The plaintiff, as administratrix of her husband's estate, brought an action for invasion of privacy and for assault and battery based on photographs taken of her dying husband by his physician despite the husband's physical indications that he did not want to be photographed. In taking the pictures, the physician lifted the decedent's head, which accounts for the assault and battery charge. The husband died later that day.

The lower court granted the physician's motion for a directed verdict. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine reversed, reasoning that the jury could have found that the decedent's right to privacy had been invaded, and that assault and battery had occurred when the patient was touched without his consent for purposes other than treatment. A new trial was ordered.

Ivancic v. Olmstead

The plaintiff was injured during a windstorm by an overhanging limb from a tree on his parents' neighbors' property. He brought suit for negligence and trespass. The trial court submitted the case to a jury on a negligence theory, and the jury awarded the plaintiff money damages. Both parties sought to set aside the verdict, and a new trial was held. On cross-appeals, the New York appellate court reversed and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the defendant did not have constructive notice of a defect in the tree and, thus, no liability for negligence could ensue.

The Court of Appeals of New York (the highest state court) agreed with the appellate division's conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence. The court also determined that overhanging tree branches are not an intentional invasion of property and do not, therefore, constitute a trespass.

Debra McCann v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Debra McCann sued Wal-Mart in federal district court for a false imprisonment that she alleged occurred while she and her sixteen year-old daughter and twelve-year old son, were shopping in one of defendant's stores. Store employees evidently mistakenly confused the McCanns with some other family and informed McCann that her children were not permitted in the store because of prior shoplifting. Debra's protests and attempts to establish her identity and clear up the matter were to no avail. The McCanns were escorted by two store employees to a place within the store where they were led to believe they would meet police officers.

At least one of the store employees was always "watching" the McCanns and one store employee refused to allow the younger child to go to the bathroom, and accused him of prior shoplifting. The employees, in fact, never did call the police, but the McCann's innocence was established by a Wal-Mart security officer named Bickmore who eventually came to the scene. The McCanns then left the store after having been detained for just over an hour. Wal-Mart lost the jury trial and appealed the $20,000 damage award in favor of the plaintiffs. The McCanns also appealed because they claimed that the trial court should not have dismissed their claim for punitive damages. Wal-Mart argued that the facts were legally insufficient to constitute false imprisonment. The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the district court concluding that a false imprisonment had occurred and that the McCanns were not entitled to punitive damages.

Elli Lake v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

While on vacation, Lake and Weber, both females, were photographed while both were nude together in the shower. They brought the film to a Minnesota Wal-Mart for processing and were informed that the nude picture was not processed because of the photo's "content." Subsequently, it was learned that the picture was developed by a Wal-Mart employee and was circulating through the local community. An invasion of privacy lawsuit was filed. Wal-Mart filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the complaint failed to state a claim under Minnesota law. The motion to dismiss was allowed, and the decision was upheld by the Minnesota Appeals Court. The Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Reversing the lower court's decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided for the first time to recognize the tort of invasion of privacy. The court reasoned that the right to privacy is an integral part of our humanity. The type of privacy interest at issue in this case was one worthy of protection. Minnesota's common law must evolve to reflect contemporary values. Lake alleged a claim that should be recognized as actionable. The motion to dismiss was be denied, and the case continued to trial.

Gilhooley v. Star Market Company, Inc.

The plaintiff was injured when he slipped on a green pepper in the produce department of a grocery store owned and operated by the Star Market Company. He alleged that his injury was the result of the defendant's negligence, and a jury tried the matter. The court entered judgment for the defendant after the jury returned a verdict in favor of the store. The plaintiff appealed, claiming that the trial judge had refused to give a requested instruction with respect to the store's duty to display and market its peppers. The intermediate court of appeals, however, disagreed with the plaintiff and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The plaintiff again appealed, this time to the state supreme court. That court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. The evidence indicated that the store had complied with industry practices in displaying its merchandise and had established adequate monitoring procedures. The state supreme court concluded that the trial judge's jury instructions were correct.

Weirum v. RKO General, Inc.

An action was brought for the wrongful death of the plaintiff's decedent, who was killed when his automobile was forced off a highway by a person responding to the defendant radio station's contest rewarding the first contestant to locate a peripatetic disc jockey.

The jury returned a verdict against the defendant, who appealed. The Supreme Court of California held that the radio station was liable because it was foreseeable that the broadcaster's youthful listeners would race to arrive first at the desired destination and in their haste would disregard highway safety.

Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.

Alyssia Benejam was injured while attending a Tiger's baseball game in Detroit. She, her friend, and the friend's family sat close to the playing field along the third base line and behind the protective netting that protects fans from being struck by projectiles such as batted and thrown balls, and bats and bat fragments that often leave the field in conjunction with the game of baseball. Evidently a bat fragment managed to circumvent the screen and severely damaged Alyssia's fingers. The Tigers lost the jury trial where the plaintiffs claimed that Tigers were negligent because the protective netting should have extended further down the third base line. The Tiger's appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's judgment. The appeals court ruled that the Tiger's had satisfied their legal duty to provide "sufficient screening behind home plate to meet ordinary demand for protected screening" and were, therefore, not responsible for the injuries sustained by Alyssia.

Anglin v. Florida Department of Transportation

The Anglins filed suit against the Florida Department of Transportation and a railroad company, alleging negligence in designing and maintaining a road and railway tracks. The Anglins' pickup truck had stalled in a six-inch accumulation of water on a highway, and Mrs. Anglin was seriously injured when another vehicle, attempting to provide assistance, collided with the truck. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the collision and the plaintiffs' actions in trying to push-start their truck were independent, intervening causes that were unforeseeable to the defendants.

The appellate court reversed. It ruled that the plaintiffs' actions were not an independent, intervening cause of the accident since the pool of water on the roadway initially created the situation. The court further held that although the good Samaritan's negligent conduct constituted an intervening cause, it was for a jury to decide whether his actions were reasonably foreseeable and, thus, could be attributed to the defendants' negligence.

Stein v. Langer

After experiencing mechanical difficulties, Stein, a truck driver, pulled onto the shoulder of a highway. Because the shoulder was narrow, the truck remained partially on the road. A passing friend, Cooper, pulled over and parked his truck facing Stein's truck in order to provide a jump-start. To conserve his battery, Stein turned his lights off; Cooper's lights and flashers were on. The defendant, Langer, hit Stein's truck with his car, pushing Stein's truck into the front of Cooper's truck. Stein was standing between the trucks at the time and was injured. He brought suit, and the jury returned a verdict finding Langer 55 percent negligent and Stein 45 percent negligent. No fault was attributed to Cooper. The court entered judgment against Langer, reducing the damage award by 45 percent. The plaintiff appealed, alleging that "the jury erred in assessing fault and in awarding him inadequate damages." The court of appeals affirmed the jury's allocation of fault.

Laaperi v. Sears Roebuck & Company, Inc.

Laaperi, as administrator of the estate of his three sons and on behalf of his injured daughter, brought suit against Sears Roebuck and another defendant for negligent design and manufacturing, breach of warranty, and negligent failure to warn about the inherent dangers of a smoke detector purchased from Sears. The smoke detector failed to sound an alarm when an electrical fire, caused by a short circuit, occurred in the Laaperi home. The trial court directed verdicts in favor of the defendants on all claims except for the negligent failure to warn. On that claim, the jury awarded slightly more than one million dollars for the deceased sons' actions and $750,000 for the injured daughter's claim. The court denied the defendants' motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Based on Massachusetts law, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment as to the actions brought on behalf of the three sons, concluding that it was for a jury to decide whether a warning was needed that an electrical fire would incapacitate an electric-powered smoke detector. The court, however, vacated the daughter's award and remanded for a new trial on damages since the law provided that she could receive compensation only for personal injuries suffered, not for grief incident to the loss of her three brothers.

Todd Hillabrand v. Drypers Corporation

Hillabrand was injured while tossing metal debris from the roof of a building into a dumpster when a piece of debris struck an electrical line. Hillabrand alleged that Drypers had negligently had a dumpster placed in close proximity to electric power lines near a building upon which he was working as a roofer. Drypers successfully moved for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that Hillabrand not proven that Drypers owed him a duty of care inasmuch as he was not their employee and was the employee of Holt Roofing, an independent contractor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court correctly found that there were no material facts in dispute and that as a matter of law Drypers owed Hillabrand no legal duty, thereby justifying the summary judgment.

Westberry v. Blackwell

While walking toward the defendants' house, the plaintiff received a superficial bite by the defendants' dog. After her son informed the defendants that the dog had tried to bite him, the plaintiff was again bitten by the dog, requiring stitches. The plaintiff sued under the theories of strict liability and negligence. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary nonsuit on both causes of action.

The Supreme Court of Oregon reversed, holding that a jury could have reasonably concluded that the defendants knew or had reason to know of the dog's tendency to bite, which would result in the defendants being strictly liable. The court further concluded that it was for a jury to determine whether the defendants were negligent in not confining their dog.

Leichtamer v. American Motors Corp.

The Leichtamers were passengers in a jeep that turned upside down, resulting in serious injuries to them and death to the driver and his wife. The Leichtamers brought suit, claiming that the collapse of the roll bar on the jeep was causally related to their injuries. After a trial, the jury found for the Leichtamers, and the defendants appealed.

The appellants argued that strict liability principles should not apply in a design defect case involving a "second collision" (when the alleged defect enhances the injuries). The court disagreed and stated that strict liability in tort has been applied to design defect "second collision" cases. Where plaintiffs can demonstrate sufficient evidence that an unreasonably dangerous product design proximately caused or enhanced their injuries in the course of foreseeable use, instructions on strict liability are proper.