))
34. Tort Cases – Substantial Factor Test; Primary Assumption of Risk Doctrine; Going and Coming Rule and An Exception; Immunity for Police Officers Engaged in a High-Speed Pursuit
Manage episode 305526265 series 2999236
Content provided by civilaction. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by civilaction or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Union Pacific Railroad v. Ameron Pole Property
Brian and Shant discuss an inquiry into the causation element of an accident involving a light pole. The plaintiff’s case first thrown out on summary judgment was later reversed because the remaining parties’ indemnity suit and the plaintiff’s complaint were inextricably connected.
Gordon v. ARC Manufacturing, Inc. 4th DCA
Brian and Shant discuss whether or not the court should have instructed the jury on primary assumption of risk on an inherently dangerous activity. The court did not and the issue on appeal was that very issue. Shant further details that the nature of the activity not the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s conduct, is a determining factor.
Bingener v. City of LA 2nd DCA
Brian and Shant discuss the exceptions to the Going and Coming Rule after a water treatment worker struck and killed a pedestrian on his way to his water treatment plant. The plaintiff argues that his workplace would be liability because they allowed him to come back to work too early after a prior workplace injury.
Riley v. Alameda County Sheriff Office 1st DCA
Police immunity for officers involved in vehicular accidents as a result of a police pursuit. The policy addressing pursuit must be certified and it must address speed and air support. Brian and Shant unpack the policy requirements to determine liability.
98 episodes
Share
