![]() ![]() If Plaintiff was falsely imprisoned, was the imprisonment privileged? Coblyn v. issue (2) Does restraint of personal liberty, by fear of a personal difficulty, amount to a false imprisonment? Plaintiff sued Defendant for false imprisonment Coblyn v. facts Defendant (kennedy's inc)'s store thought plaintiff was attempting to steal an ascot Under the circumstances, defendant could not be considered an information content provider of the offending information Coblyn v. ruling/rationale Yes, plaintiff's claim is barred issue Is plaintiff's claim barred by 47 USC 230(c)(1) → no provider of interactive computer services shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider Carafano v. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in California, alleging invasion of privacy, misappropriation of the right of publicity, defamation, and negligenceĬourt rejected defendant's immunity argument under 47 USC 230(c)(1) → no provider of interactive computer services shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider Carafano v. facts An unknown person posted a trial profile of Plaintiff Carafano without her permission or knowledgeĪs a result, Plaintiff received numerous threats and sexually explicit messages When dealing with explosives, defendant is strictly liable for resulting damageĪbnormally dangerous materials are ALWAYS subject to strict liability, but make sure it was the abnormally dangerous activity that caused the injury abnormally dangerous activity An activity that is not of common usage and creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors.ĪLWAYS subject to strict liability, but make sure it was the abnormally dangerous activity that caused the injury Carafano v. Trial court awarded plaintiff damages Booth v Rome precedent Required negligence must be shown, unless the blast was accompanied by a physical invasion of the property Spano v Perini issue/question May a person that has sustained property damage caused by blasting on nearby property maintain action for damages without a showing that the blast was negligent? Spano v Perini ruling/reasoning Judgement affirmed No physical trespass and no proof of negligence facts Plaintiff's (Spano) garage destroyed by Perini Corp (defendant's) negligence explosion of 194 sticks of dynamite Wells ruling golf club is not inherently dangerous that leaving it where children could play could constitute negligence Spano v. Wells issue/question Does leaving a golf club lying in a yard where children might find it qualify as negligence? Lubitz v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |