abnormally dangerous activity
In tort law, an abnormally dangerous activity is an activity that is "not common usage" and creates a foreseeable and very significant risk of physical harm, even when reasonable care is exercised by all parties.
In tort law, an abnormally dangerous activity is an activity that is "not common usage" and creates a foreseeable and very significant risk of physical harm, even when reasonable care is exercised by all parties.
In tort law, actual damages, also known as compensatory damages, are damages awarded by a court equivalent to the loss a party suffered. If a party’s right was technically violated but they suffered no harm or losses, a court may instead grant nominal damages.
Appropriation occurs when a defendant uses a plaintiff’s name, likeness, or image without their permission for commercial purposes. Appropriation is one of several torts falling under the category of invasion of privacy.
Assault is generally defined as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such a contact.
Assault and battery is a modern legal term which combines assault with the separate charge of battery. Assault refers to the wrong act of causing someone to reasonably fear imminent harm. This means that the fear must be something a reasonable person would foresee as threatening to them. Battery refers to the actual wrong act of physically harming someone.
Battery is an intentional tort. When a person intentionally causes harmful or offensive contact with another person, the act is battery.
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act provides a blanket immunity to vaccine manufacturers from tort actions filed in state or federal court by injured victims seeking compensation for injuries allegedly arising from defectively designed vaccines.
After their daughter suffered severe health problems following a routine vaccination for diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (“DTP”), Russell and Robalee Bruesewitz sued Wyeth, Inc., the manufacturer of the vaccine, alleging that Wyeth’s DTP vaccine was outmoded and inadequately designed. In response, Wyeth argued that Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“NCVIA”) exempted vaccine manufacturers from all design-defect claims, including the one asserted by the Bruesewitz family. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Wyeth and dismissed the claim. The Supreme Court must now determine whether to sustain the categorical preclusion of all design-defect claims advanced against vaccine manufacturers, or whether to expose vaccine manufacturers to potential design-based litigation. This decision will affect the right of vaccine victims to seek compensation for their injuries and the ability of vaccine manufacturers to avoid costly litigation that may drive them out of the vaccine market.
Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that, contrary to its plain text and the decisions of this Court and others, section 22(b)(1) preempts all vaccine design defect claims, whether the vaccine’s side effects were unavoidable or not?
This case turns on the Supreme Court's interpretation of the word “unavoidable” as it is used in 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (“NCVIA”). See Bruesewitz v. Wyeth Inc., 561 F.3d 233, 245 (3d Cir.
The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?"
A commercial tort claim is a type of tort claim where the claimant is an organization or an individual and the claim comes in the course of the business or profession of the claimant and does not include damages arising out of personal injury to, or the death of, an individual.