BOOK II: THE CAUSATION ELEMENT No. 377, Page 811. TITLE A: CAUSATION SUB-TITLE (II): PLURAL CAUSES Complainants were joint owners of certain tracts of forest lands in Georgia. Defendants were engaged in mining and manufacturing sulphur and copper ores near by, and had erected furnaces, smelters, and ovens in such proximity to plaintiffs' property as to cause injury thereto by the smoke and fumes from their operation. - Defendants, because they were separate and independent concerns, each conducting his own affairs, objected to the bringing of a joint action against them. Complainant maintained that all persons maintaining structures or carrying on operations whose effect mingles and contributes to the injury to another's property may be properly joined as defendants, although each transacts his own separate and independent business. Which was correct? (1910, Ladew v. Tennessee Copper Co., 179 Fed. 245.) NOTES: "Admiralty-Collision-Apportionment of Damages." (C. L. R., XI, 280.) No. 410, Page 849. PROBLEMS: TITLE B: ACTIVE CAUSATION SUB-TITLE (II): EXCEPTIONS Topic 2. Highways The plaintiff was injured by the fall of a limb of a shade-tree standing on the public way owned of the defendant town. The limb had been for more than a year so decayed as to be in danger of fracture by ordinary winds. Is the town responsible? (1911, Wright v. Chelsea, Mass. 93 N. E. 840.) NOTES: "Municipal Corporations - Ice as a Defect in Sidewalk." (A. L. Reg., L, 571.) "Evidence - Violation of Municipal Ordinance - Abutter's Liability for Sidewalk Injury." (H. L. R., XXIV, 322.) Topic 3. Sundry Statutory Responsibilities No. 415, Page 859. NOTES: "Water-Supply - Negligence." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 413.) "Water Company's Liability for Pipe in Sidewalk." (M. L. R., IX, 448.) Topic 4. Sundry Special Responsibilities No. 417, Page 865. CHAPTERS: Thos. Babington Macaulay, "Notes on the Indian Penal Code" (1837, Note M. Miscellaneous Works, Harper's ed., vol. IV, p. 251). TITLE C: CULPABLE CAUSATION No. 447, Page 901. NOTES: SUB-TITLE (II): REMOTENESS Topic 1. Event of Inanimate Nature "Defendant's Act concurring with Act of God, as Proximate Cause." (A. L. Reg., L, 572.) No. 448, Page 904. NOTES: Topic 2. Act or Condition of Plaintiff "Personal Injuries - Predisposition to Disease." (M. L. R., IX, 521.) Topic 3. Third Person's Act SUB-TOPIC A. INDUCED BY DEFENDANT'S ACT No. 456, Page 916. The defendant was the employer of a servant K., who was pregnant by the defendant. The defendant by representing to the plaintiff that K. was virtuous and chaste induced the plaintiff to marry her. The plaintiff now sues for damages. May he recover? (1896, Kujek v. Goldman, 150 N. Y. 176.) SUB-TOPIC C. THIRD PERSON A BAILEE, LESSEE OR CONTRACTOR No. 468, Page 939. PROBLEMS: The defendant was landlord of the plaintiff. The defendant also owned the adjacent land, and caused the building to be removed and an excavation to be made for a new building. This work was done by an independent contractor. For lack of proper shoring to support the building occupied by the plaintiff during the excavation, the regulations of the city building-code not being observed, the walls collapsed, and the plaintiff's goods were damaged. May he recover, assuming that the defendant was not personally negligent? (1910, Paltey v. Egan, — N. Y. —, 93 N. E. 267.) The defendant was a coal-dealer and delivered a load of coal at the premises of M. The coal was put in through a cellar-hole in the sidewalk, and M took off the cover to let in the coal, and then put on the cover again after the delivery. The cover was loose, and the plaintiff in passing over it fell and was injured. Is M or defendant or both responsible? (1911, Gillis v. Cambridge Gaslight Co., Mass. 93 N. E. 574.) NOTES: "Torts Liability for Negligence of Independent Contractor in Work not Inherently Dangerous." (A. L. R., LIX, 352.) "Torts- Liability of Contractor to a Third Person for Defective Construction." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 353.) "Negligence Lessor's Contractor-Liability for Damage suffered by Lessee." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 414.) "Carriers-Dangerous Shipment - Consignor's Liability." (C. L. R., XI, 80.) "Owner's Liability for Injury from Automobile used by Borrower." (Y. L. J., XX, 660.) SUB-TITLE (III): PROXIMATENESS Topic 1. General Principle No. 478, Page 959. ESSAYS: Francis H. Bohlen, "The Rule in Rylands and Fletcher." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 298, 373.) Topic 2. Sundry Trespasses No. 492, Page 981. Simeon E. Baldwin, “Liability for Accidents in Aerial Navigation." (Michigan L. R., IX, 20.) NOTES: "Highways-Street Railway's Duty towards other Vehicles." (C. L. R., XI, 87.) No. 507, Page 1007. NOTES: Topic 3. Keeping Animals "Liability for Injuries by Animals." (C. L. R., XI, 273.) Topic 4. Keeping Dangerous Things on Premises No. 523, Page 1035. PROBLEMS: The defendant's milldam was carried away by a flood, and a portion of the plaintiff's dam, lying lower down, was destroyed by the debris. May the plaintiff recover without showing negligence by the defendant? (1910, City Water Power Co. v. Fergus Falls, Minn., 128 N. W. 817.) NOTES: "Liability of Employer for Permissive Wrongful Use of his Premises by his Employees; Hogle v. Mfg. Co." (Y. L. J., XX, 500.) "Application of the Rule of Fletcher v. Rylands to a Milldam." (H. L. R., XXIV, 412.) Topic 5. Defamation, Trademark, etc. No. 528, Page 1050. TRADEMARK: The plaintiff sold golf balls under the mark of a Maltese cross. The mark was registered in 1907. The defendant in 1909 sold golf balls under the same mark, but was ignorant of infringing the plaintiff's mark, and offered to submit to a perpetual injunction and to cease user and to pay £10 nominal damages. The plaintiff insisted on an account of profits. Is he entitled? (1910, Slazenger v. Spalding, L. R. 1 Ch. 257.) No. 535, Page 1060. NOTES: Topic 6. Act Prohibited by Statute "Statutory Prohibition of Child-Labor." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 412.) ESSAYS: Wm. P. Malburn, "The Violation of Laws limiting Speed as Negligence." (A. L. R., XLV, 214.) EXCURSUS TO BOOKS I AND II: NATURE OF A CAUSE OF ACTION No. 541, Page 1076. Defendant railroad company, in building its track, made an embankment which cut off the surface drainage and overflowed the plaintiff's land. May the plaintiff recover for the damage to date of suit, or for the value of the land as permanently injured? (1910, Strange v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 245 Ill. 246, 91 N. E. 1036.) |