Arthur Best and David Barnes draw on their years of experience in teaching and writing about torts to ensure that Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems is user friendly for both students and professors. Concise and accessible, this casebook introduces cases and explains important concepts using clear, direct language and pedagogy. Classroom-tested features that have made this casebook a success include: Contemporary conception and content with the most current thinking on all of the key issues Appealing, memorable problems based on actual reported cases that reinforce understanding and help students to build analytical skills A balance of modern and classic torts cases including Vaughan v. Menlove (on standard of care), Palsgraf v. Long Island Railway Co. (on duty and legal cause), Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co. (on doctrine of incomplete privilege ), and Greenman v. Yuba Power (on product liability) Ample background information that places cases and statutes in context and captures student's interest Introductory and transitional notes that promote close attention to each case, as well as perspective notes that explore a range of viewpoints on tort law Updated throughout, the Third Edition includes: Updated statutory material and references to the Restatement (Third) of Torts New cases on the revised approach to duty and proximate cause adopted in the Restatement (Third) of Torts Expanded legal malpractice coverage, which will be of particular interest to professors who wish to respond to the recent Carnegie Report findings that students need more exposure to ethics issues and need better acculturation and professionalization Refreshed case selection so that focus is on modern cases The third edition of Basic Tort Law: Cases, Statutes, and Problems continues to offer a well-articulated, classroom-tested pedagogy that makes torts accessible and engaging.
... Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC80 at 193) doubted that 'there was anything to the advantage of the law's development in searching for a liability in tort where the parties are in a contractual relationship'.
This was established in Malone v Laskey (1907) and confirmed by the House of Lords in Hunter v Canary Wharf. Hunter v Canary Wharf [1996] 1 All ER 482 FACTS: A private nuisance action was brought against the developers of the Canary ...
Lord Pearson , Baker v Willoughby , at 496 I think a solution of the theoretical problem can be found in cases such as this by taking a comprehensive and unitary view of the damage caused by the original accident .
Rosenberg, 90 Md. App. 158, 600 A.2d 882 (1990), rev'd, 328 Md. 664, 616 A.2d 866 (1992) (see note 48, infra). See also Peroutka v. ... Sears, 163 Md. App. 220, 878 A.2d 628 (2005). 40 Compare former Md. Rule 342c 2(h) with Md. Rule ...
The book also incorporates comment on the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the law of torts.
(Per Lord Upjohn in London Passenger Transport Board v Upson [1949] AC 155, 168.) Discuss the approach taken by the courts to determine when a tortious remedy will be permitted to redress a breach of a statutory duty when the statute ...
The authors designed this book on current education research.
Confirmed in Garner v Salford County Council [2013] where the claim failed for lack of evidence that the defendant's negligence exposed the claimant to more than minimal levels of asbestos. The opposite conclusion was reached, ...
Hardbound - New, hardbound print book.
Tort Law and Alternatives: Cases and Materials