Davis v. Baugh Indus. Contractors, Inc.
Trial Court dismissed the suit saying it was property owner's fault. Issue: An employee of the property owner was killed when a concrete wall collapsed. Should the risk of liability stay only on the property owner, or extend to a contractor?
Rule: For the past forty years it has been the rule that liability belongs only to the property owner (and not a contractor, even if the contractor was negligent). However, thirty-seven states have rejected that rule and a contractor is liable for injury or damage as a result of negligent work, when it was reasonably
foreseeable that a third person would be injured due to that negligence. non expert landowner is incapable of recognizing issues
Application: We abandon the ancient completion and acceptance doctrine.
Conclusion: The order of the trial court ruling in favor of the contractor is reversed. Further proceedings
LAMSON v. CRATER LAKE MOTORS
Jury held for Lamson, company appealed saying lamson had no cause of action
Issue: Plaintiff contends he was fired for complaining about sales tactics that violated the company’s code of ethics. Was this wrongful termination?
Rule: At-will employment. Was the stated reason for termination pretextual? Was this termination a violation of public policy?
Application: Plaintiff’s internal complaints of unlawful sales practices are not of the same importance as health and safety violations (does not serve societal duty)…. There is no evidence the defendant intended to silence plaintiff in a manner that would conceal illegal activities.
Conclusion: Plaintiff was not discharge for fulfilling an important public duty.
The trial court should have granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
at-will discharge unless lamson was serving society which he wasn't
Davis v. West
Issue: HRS sued Davis for an unpaid bill and received a default judgment. Radoff was appointed as the receiver and sent a letter to the defendant’s bank demanding payment, which was received. Davis sued Radoff for abuse of process. Is Radoff protected by derived judicial immunity?
Rule: Derived judicial immunity attaches to the delegation, appointment or court employment of a person acting in such capacity. Test: Is the person seeking immunity intimately associated with the judicial process and does that person exercise discretionary judgment comparable to that of the judge?
Application: A court-appointed receiver acts as an arm of the court and is immune from liability for actions grounded in his conduct as a receiver.
Conclusion: The trial court properly granted summary judgment on Radoff’s motion for summary judgment.
Blimka v. My Web Wholesalers, LLC
Issue: Blimka in Idaho ordered jeans from a company in Maine. When the requested quantity (quality) did not arrive, Blimka sued. Defendant was properly served in Maine but did not respond. The court issued a default judgment. Defendant claims the court lacked personal jdx.
Rule: An allegation of fraud is sufficient to invoke the state’s long-arm statute.
Application: Defendants purposefully directed their allegedly false representations into Idaho. Therefore, the exercise of personal jdx is presumed not to offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Conclusion: The district court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment was not an abuse of discretion.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Please join StudyMode to read the full document