cause of action for negligence

• Gonzalez v. Posner, (Ohio 2010)

The trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and Civ.R. 12(C), where no cause of action for negligence exists against a person furnishing intoxicating beverages to an underage adult and then requesting him to leave his residence, whereby the underage adult suffered self-inflicted death in an single car automobile accident due to his intoxication.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Forsythe v. Conatser, (Ohio 2004)

Plaintiff’s evidence in opposition to a motion for summary judgment could have supported a finding of either intentional tort or negligence. The trial court properly granted summary judgment on the intentional tort claim on the basis that the limitations period had expired. However, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the cause of action for negligence, which had a longer limitations period. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Labor Law Section 241(6) Claim Reinstated by Appellate Court

Where the plaintiff brought claims under Labor Law Section Section 200, 240(1) and 241(6) - in addition to a common-law negligence cause of action - for injuries sustained from a fall, there was a triable issue of fact regarding the Labor Law Section 241(6) claim. All other claims were determined to be properly dismissed. Reviewing the June 18, 2003 decision of New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County Judge Andrew V. Siracuse dismissing the Labor Law and negligence claims in Fred Piccolo v. St. John's Home for the Aging d/b/a St. John's Meadows, Lahr Construction Corp., d/b/a LeCesse Construction Co., et al., the Appellate Division, Fourth Department modified the order by reinstating the Section 241(6) claim insofar as it was based on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a).

• Daily Record (Rochester, NY)
• November 10, 2004

• Connelly v. Poliafico, (Ohio 2002)

Complaint sufficient to state a cause of action in negligence, complaint insufficient to state a cause of action for an employer intentional tort.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Punitive Damages in U.S. Maritime Law: Miles, Baker, and Townsend

Introduction. II. Background: Five Conceptual And Analytical Tools. A. The Seaman's Trilogy. B. The Distinction Between Compensatory and Punitive Damages. C. The Distinction Between Pecuniary Compensatory Damages and Non-Pecuniary Compensatory Damages. D. The Two Types of Fatal-Injury Litigation. E. The Distinction Between Causes of Action and Remedies. III. A Short Version Of The Maritime Punitive Damages Story. IV. An Analysis Of Miles. A. The Holdings and Reasoning of Miles. 1. Facts and Holding: Punitive Damages Were Not at Stake. 2. The Plaintiff's Two Causes of Action. 3. The Plaintiff's Two Fatal-Injury Remedies. B. Refuting the Revisionist Version of Miles. 1. Punitive Damages Are Easily Characterized as Pecuniary. 2. Miles Does Not Rule Out All Non-Pecuniary Damages For Seam...

..., when a seaman is injured by workplace negligence, the seaman has a statutory cause of action in tor...

• Louisiana Law Review
• Nbr. 70-2, January 2010

• Southwick v. Univ. Hosp., Inc., (Ohio 2006)

Malpractice - Procedure/Rules: The trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendants following opening statements in a medical-malpractice trial: The plaintiff could not prevail on her claim that the defendants’ negligence in failing to advise her of a carcinoma had reduced her chance of recovery from eighty-five percent to seventy-five percent, because the plaintiff, who remained cancer-free at the time of trial, could recover only for the reduced chance itself , and because Ohio does not recognize a cause of action for loss-of-chance when the alleged negligence does not reduce the chance of recovery to less than fifty percent.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U. S. (2009)

..., and then filed this declaratory relief action regarding its obligations. Townsend filed suit und... death suffered due to his employers’ negligence. To that end, the Act created a statutory negligennce cause of action, but it did not eliminate pre-existing r...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• Savage v. Kucharski, (Ohio 2006)

MALPRACTICE – Civ.R. 56(C); summary judgment; standard of review; statute of limitations for legal malpractice; R.C. 2305.11(A) provides that a claim for legal malpractice must be brought within one year after the cause of action accrues; cause of action for legal malpractice accrues when there is a cognizable event whereby the client discovers or should have discovered his injury related to attorney's representation or when the attorney-client relationship terminates, whichever is later; attorney-client relationship can terminate upon the affirmative act of either party; elements of cause of action for legal malpractice; failure by plaintiff in legal malpractice action to supply expert testimony regarding alleged negligence may render summary judgment for defendant appropriate.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Informed-Consent Suit Sounds in Negligence, Not Battery

A woman who sued the surgeon who cut the milk ducts in her breast while excising a mass was not entitled to a jury instruction on battery, the Court of Appeals held yesterday. The proper cause of action for an informed consent case is negligence rather than the intentional torts of assault and battery, the top court confirmed.

• The Daily Record (Baltimore)
• April 14, 2004

• Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811 (2001)

... further asserted that the injuries were caused by the negligence of petitioner and another, and p... a federal claim, stating that no cause of action exists, under general maritime law, for death resu...

• U.S. Supreme Court