Saltalamachia Torts Section 6A 2010

In this class we continued the discussion of enabling torts that was started last class with Reynolds v. Hicks and the Dram Shop Acts.  Case covered was Vince v. Wilson.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1285862895.17.mp3]

In this class we discussed Uhr, Strauss and Reynolds v. Hicks.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1285348165.14.mp3]

This is the podcast for Sept. 20, 2010.  Cases discussed were Farwell v. Keeton, Moch, Randi and Tarasoff.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1285090593.12.mp3]

This is the podcast for class #6.  We began a new section and will now focus on the element of Duty.  Discussed was the Harper v. Herman case.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1284648068.6.mp3]

Here are some interesting background facts on the Tarasoff case.

The Tarasoff case is perhaps inextricably linked to Berkeley in the 1960’s, and life around the University of California campus. The campus was justifiably famous for being a world-class intellectual center and was attracting students from all over the globe. Tatiana Tarasoff and Prosenjit Poddar were two such students. She was born of Russian parents who had emigrated to Brazil, while he was from a small Bengali village and was a member of an “untouchable” caste. He came to Berkeley to study naval architecture, having always attended schools where no dating or other social interchange between the sexes was permitted. The freewheeling atmosphere that prevailed in Berkeley at that time must have been totally alien to him.

They met at a dance at the International House, and he was apparently immediately smitten. She was friendly with him, but they were never actually romantically involved. When he found out that she was romantically involved with other men, his obsession and jealosy grew. He told friends and coworkers of his desire to kill Tatiana. It was at this time that he started seeing a psychiatrist at Cowell Hospital, the UC medical center.

Strangely enough Poddar had developed a friendship of sorts with Tatiana’s brother, who was knew of Poddar’s obsession, and may have had some sense of the danger, although he testified that he never believed that Poddar would kill his sister. The two young men were even rooming together at the time of the killing, the brother having told Poddar where Tatiana was on the day she was killed. Poddar went to her house, they argued, he shot her with a pellet gun and then stabbed her 17 times with a kitchen knife.

Adapted from Shuck and Givilber, Torts Stories, Foundation Press 2003

This is the podcast for September 13, 2010.  Cases discussed are Negri, Gordon, and the res ipsa loquitur cases.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1284477152.4.mp3]

In this class we continued the discussion of the standard of care–who decides it and how can it be determined.  Cases discussed were Akins, Andrews, Trimarco, T.J. Hooper, Martin v. Herzog, and Tedla v. Ellman.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/09/1283392579.1.mp3]

In this class we discussed how the standard of reasonable care can be defined, and who can best determine if it has been met.  Cases discussed were U.S. v. Carroll Towing, Bethel, Goodman, and Pokora.

Click here to download the Classcaster
audio.

Play It Now!
[audio:http://saltalamachiatorts6a2010.classcaster.net/files/2010/08/1283214508.3.mp3]

The facts of Carroll Towing are surprisingly complicated. In total there were 4 different corporate defendants, plus the federal government. While the docks of lower Manhattan are today relatively quiet, at the time of this case, which was 5 months before the Allies invaded Europe on D-Day, they were crowded and congested beyond limits, with boatloads of material waiting to be shipped and ships waiting to be transported across the ocean. Barges were attached to other barges in a “string” because there was no available space on the piers. In order to remove (or “drill out”) one of the 5 barges that had been attached to the Anna C. the ropes that had held her to the pier had to be reattached by the crew of The Carroll. It was during this process that the Anna C and her string of barges broke loose and collided with a ship, puncturing the Anna C and eventually causing her sinking. Tugboats were around that could have pumped water from the Anna C and prevented her from sinking, but no one was aboard her to alert them of the need for help.

And where was the captain of the Anna C (the “bargee”)? He originally testified that he was on board at all time, and only ‘fessed up to being AWOL when crew members from The Carroll testified that no one was aboard. His absence made the issue of negligence more difficult. If he had been onboard and simply failed to do anything to save the Anna C, he was surely negligent. His absence, however, created the issue that is at the heart of this case…Was the failure to have a bargee on board contributory negligence on the part of the owners of the Anna C?

Adapted from Gilles, Torts Stories, Foundation Press, 2003

After tonight, you should all have your Westlaw passwords and should be signing on to TWEN.  The URL is http://tinyurl.com/2gx424e. Your TWEN password is on the front of the syllabus, and is Torts20106A.  If you have any problems signing in, please call the Library reference desk.  The librarians can help you.

I have already posted the slides for next week’s classes on the ‘course materials’ tab of TWEN.  I do recommend that you use these slides in advance of class to help you focus your reading and to be better prepared for the class discussion.