Torts II Spring 2006
What is the collateral source rule? (discussed on exam review) defeats defense that insurance will pay
I. Traditional Strict Liability
a. Conversion
i. Poggi v. Scott (1914)
1. barrels of wine in a leased basement
2. building was sold to Scott
3. Scott sold the barrels of wine that didn’t belong to him
4. purchasers knew the barrels had wine
5. wine owner sued Scott for conversion
6. Conversion is:
a. intent does not matter
b. STRICT LIABILITY
c. exercising unjustifiable and unwarranted dominion and control over the property of another (such that the property cannot be returned)
d. used when the property cannot be returned; defendant may be forced to pay purchase price to the plaintiff
e. good faith defendant will not have to forfeit his cost of labor, just pay value of item before conversion
ii. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)
1. spleen removed; cells used to develop research product
2. failure to disclose was upheld
3. plaintiff’s cause for conversion was not upheld
4. court found no property right in excised cells
5. public policy to encourage medical research; upholding conversion might inhibit research
b. Animals
i. Gehrts v. Batteen (2001- South Dakota)
1. dog tethered in the back of a truck
2. 14 yr old girl asks owner to pet dog, gets permission
3. dog bit girl in face
4. causes of action: strict liability and negligence
5. under strict liability must prove
a. causation – the defendant’s action caused the harm
6. court does not accept strict liability theory b/c there is not a statute imposing strict liability for dogs attacking people (but there is a statute imposing strict liability for dogs attacking chickens)
7. court says there is no evidence that defendant was negligent; it is unusual for court to grant summary judgment on negligence claim rather than letting jury decide negligence
ii. in a strict liability state, the owner is responsible for all the damage the dog causes; but if a person provokes the dog, they will probably
ading the cost
iv. is driving a car ultrahazardous?
1. not considered so b/c it is common in our society
2. valuable to community
3. although dangerous, not considered ultrahazardous
v. Indiana Harbor Belt R.R. v. American Cyanamid Co. (1990)
1. chemical leak; switching line had to pay almost $1 million to clean up mess
2. suit to recover $$ from the company that was shipping the chemicals in a leased RR car
3. Who had the duty to maintain the car? In this case, the chemical co. apparently had the duty
4. court refused to apply strict liability, remanded for consideration of negligence claim
seems that the court’s main reason for denying strict liability is that the risk could likely be prevented by due care, but defendant couldn’t argue this b/c they would be implicating themselves in a negligence claim
