Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru case brief

Barber Lines A/S v. M/V Donau Maru case brief summary
764 F.2d 50 (1985)

CASE SYNOPSIS

The appellants in this case challenged a Massachusetts District Court's ruling that found in the favor of the appellees in an action where the appellants sought recovery for financial injury that was caused by the negligence of the appellees.

CASE FACTS
A ship, owned by the Appellees, spilled fuel oil into a harbor.  The spill prevented the appellants ship from being able to dock at a nearby berth.
The appellants sued the appellees and her owners in admiralty.
The appellants made the claim of negligence and sought to recover the extra expenses in the form of damages.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The lower court denied recover.  The lower court denied on the basis of the pleadings.
The appellants challenged the action.

DISCUSSION
-Appellate court agrees with lower court and affirms its decision.
-Court finds that controlling case law denies that appellants could recover damages for negligently causing financial harm.
-This is even when foreseeable, except in special circumstances.
-In this case, since the appellants had failed to bring themselves within any recognized class or category in which financial damages were appropriate and/or provide convincing reasons for the creation of any new exception that would work to their legal benefit, the court refuses to stray from the already existing precedent.

CONCLUSION
The court affirms the lower court's decision. 

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. case brief

Barton v. Bee Line, Inc. case brief summary
265 N.Y.S. 284 (1933)

CASE SYNOPSIS
The passenger (Plaintiff) seeks review of a NY Supreme Court order which set aside a verdict in her favor. 
The court ordered a new trial in an action against the defendant, who was a chauffeur.  The action alleged that the defendant was raped while in the passenger's vehicle.

CASE FACTS
The passenger claimed that she was raped while in the chauffeur's vehicle. 
The chauffeur testified that the passenger consented to sexual relations.
Jury was instructed that if the passenger was assaulted while in the vehicle, she was entitled to a recovery because the chauffeur would have been liable for damages for failure to perform his duty as a common carrier.
The verdict was returned and was in the favor of the passenger. 
The trial court set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial.


DISCUSSION
When reviewing the decision, the court stated that it was an error for the lower (trial) court to instruct the jury that the passenger was entitled to a verdict even if she had consented to intimate relations with the chauffeur.

HOLDING
A person who perpetrates an act of sexual intercourse with a female (not his wife) and with an individual under 18 years of age, under circumstances that do not amount to repe in the first degree is guilty of rape in the second degree.
A female under the age of 18, however, has no cause of action against a male with who she willingly consorts if she knows the nature and quality of her act.

CONCLUSION
The court affirms the trial court's order.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital case brief

Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital case brief summary
88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)

CASE SYNOPSIS
The plaintiffs in this case are a patient and his wife.
They challenged a decision from a Minnesota district court.
The district court had denied the plaintiffs' alternative motion to vacate the dismissal of an action against a doctor (defendant) or for a new trial.
The patient and his wife filed an action for damages against the doctor.
The action was for alleged assault and/or unauthorized operation by the doctor on a patient.

CASE FACTS
The patient was referred to the doctor in this case after he was informed that he had an enlarged prostate gland and bladder soreness. 
The doctor told the patient that he wanted to make a cystoscopic exam.  This was because he was not certain of the exact nature of the patient's ailment.
The doctor testified that he did not inform the patient at the office visit that any examination that the doctor wsa going to make had anything to do with the spermatic cords of the patient.
The doctor performed the cystoscopic exam, and afterwards the doctor told the patient that he should have a transurethral prostatic resection.
The next day the operation was performed.
During this operation, the patient's spermatic cords were severed.
The doctor testified that he was uncertain if he had informed the patient of this part of the procedure.

DISCUSSION
The court reversed the lower court's holding on appeal.
The court held that whether or not the patient consented to severing his spermatic cords was a fact of question that was for the jury to decide.  It was error for the trial court to dismiss the action.

HOLDING
In a situation where there is no immediate emergency, the patient should be informed before the operation takes place that his spermatic cords are going to be severed.

CONCLUSION
The dismissal of the patient and the wife's action against the doctor was reversed by the court.
A new trial was granted.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Baker v. Dennis Brown Realty, Inc. case brief

Baker v. Dennis Brown Realty, Inc. case brief summary
433 A.2d 1271 (1981)

CASE SYNOPSIS
A real estate agent (defendant in this case) appeals a judgement of a New Hampshire district court.
After a jury trial, damages were awarded to the plaintiff, who was a potential purchaser, on her action for the intentional interference with a prospective contractual relationship.

CASE FACTS
The plaintiff was a potential purchaser and made an offer on a home.
The agent of the seller later showed the house to another couple, who offered a few hundred dollars more to buy it.
The seller's agent would have split the commission with the prospective purchaser's agent.
Since the other couple did not have an agent, the agent would receive the full commission if the other couple's offer was accepted.
The agent presented both offers to the seller without informing the potential purchaser of the latter offer.
The seller accepted the higher offer.
The agent claimed that the New Hampshire statute prohibited actions that related to the sale of land unless there was a written contract.  The agent claimed that this precluded recovery.

DISCUSSION
-The court affirms the judgment.
-The court finds that the statute is inapplicable in this case because it deals with contracts. 
-A claim for prospective interference with contractual relationship is a tort action.
-There was no trial record, and the court refuses to disturb the findings that the agent's actions were not privileged.
-The court, however, finds that some of the damages are speculative.  The court vacates these.

CONCLUSION
The court vacates a portion of the damages that were awarded to the potential purchaser but otherwise affirmed the judgment in her favor.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd. case brief

Anderson v. Save-A-Lot, Ltd. case brief summary
989 S.W.2d 277 (1999)

CASE SYNOPSIS
This case deals with a worker's compensation appeal due to sexual harassment.
The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel in Tennessee reversed and remanded the trail court's decision which granted to the defendants summary judgement in the plaintiff's case.

CASE FACTS
The plaintiff was employed the defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed on a daily basis by her supervisor during her employment.
The plaintiff stated that as a result of the harassment, she suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and depression.
The plaintiff stated that she incurred medical expenses and was unable to work.
Plaintiff filed a worker's compensation action that sought reimbursement for her medical expenses as well as her lost earnings.
She also alleged violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in her complaint.
The trial court granted summary judgment in the dependant's favor.
The Special Worker's Compensation Appeals Panel reversed the trial court's decision.


DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the trial court's decision on appeal. 
The court found that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that her injury arose out of her employment.

Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.

American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut case brief

American Electric Power Company, Inc. v. Connecticut case brief summary
131 S.Ct. 2527 (2011)

CASE SYNOPSIS
The respondents in this case filed federal common law public nuisance claims against the power companies (petitioners). 
The respondents asked the court to set carbon-dioxide emissions.
The respondents comprise several states, land trusts, and a city.
The Second Circuit court of appeals reversed a dismissal, holding that the respondents had standing, that the nuisance claims were adequately stated and the Clean Air Act did not displace the federal common law.
The court granted Certiorari.

DISCUSSION
The Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) actions it authorized displaced any federal common law right to seek the relief sought.
The Clean Air Act referred directly to the types of emissions in this case.
The statute directed the EPA to list different categories of air pollution and establish emission standards.
At the time, the EPA was doing this for greenhouse gas emissions from power plants fired with fossil-fuel.
The act itself provides a means to seek limits on the emissions, which is the same relief that the respondents are seeking by invoking the federal common law.
Congress had delegated to the EPA the decision of whether and how to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants.
The delegation is what displaced the federal common law.
The judgments that the respondents would commit to the federal judges could not be decided with the decision-making scheme that was enacted by Congress.
The court stated that it was error to find that the federal judges could set limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the fact of a law that empowers the EPA to set the same limits, subject to judicial review only in order to ensure against arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful action under the statute.

CONCLUSION
The Second Circuit's exercise of jurisdiction was affirmed.
The Supreme Court was equally divided.
The judgment of the Second Circuit that claims under the federal common law of nuisance were stated and that the Clean Air Act did not "displace" federal common law was reversed.
The case was remanded.
This was a 6-0 Decision with 1 concurrence.


Suggested law school study materials

Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.