Difference between revisions of "Notes for Tortastica"
From NewlyPossible.org
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) m |
Neumoeglich (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
# Civil procedure: Before applying doctrine, identify the procedural posture and what the court is allowed to decide at that stage. Do not treat surviving dismissal, summary judgment, directed verdict, JNOV/JMOL, or remand as final merits liability. | # Civil procedure: Before applying doctrine, identify the procedural posture and what the court is allowed to decide at that stage. Do not treat surviving dismissal, summary judgment, directed verdict, JNOV/JMOL, or remand as final merits liability. | ||
# Negligent entrustment (e.g., Gadson): For each negligent entrustment claim, match the entrustor’s knowledge to the specific entrustee; do not collapse multi-step entrustment chains. | # Negligent entrustment (e.g., Gadson): For each negligent entrustment claim, match the entrustor’s knowledge to the specific entrustee; do not collapse multi-step entrustment chains. | ||
| − | # Direct negligence vs. vicarious liability: Keep a claim of a defendant's direct negligence separate from a claim of the defendant's vicarious liability. | + | # Direct negligence vs. vicarious liability (e.g., Uber): Keep a claim of a defendant's direct negligence separate from a claim of the defendant's vicarious liability. |
# Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties). | # Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties). | ||
Revision as of 15:40, 6 September 2026
When I notice that Tortastica has made a mistake, I directly correct the bot with a note here.
- Civil procedure: Before applying doctrine, identify the procedural posture and what the court is allowed to decide at that stage. Do not treat surviving dismissal, summary judgment, directed verdict, JNOV/JMOL, or remand as final merits liability.
- Negligent entrustment (e.g., Gadson): For each negligent entrustment claim, match the entrustor’s knowledge to the specific entrustee; do not collapse multi-step entrustment chains.
- Direct negligence vs. vicarious liability (e.g., Uber): Keep a claim of a defendant's direct negligence separate from a claim of the defendant's vicarious liability.
- Duty (e.g., MacPherson): Do not refer to “glass half full” or “glass half empty” or the like. Instead, you can compare Cardozo’s approach of starting with a duty (i.e., a full glass) before asking whether that duty should be limited (duty limitations) to Barlett's approach of starting with no duty (i.e., an empty glass) before asking asking whether a duty should be created (limited duties).
