The text for this course is Epstein & Sharkey, Cases and Materials on Torts, 11th ed. only (2016). Copies are available for purchase or rental at the CSU Bookstore. There is also a required course Supplement, which should be available for purchase on Tuesday, 8/20, at the Support Office, LB 115.

For Monday, 8/26:

(1) Pick up a copy of the course Syllabus on the counter at the Student Services Center (available Mon., 8/19) and read it carefully before our first class.

(2) In the course Supplement read pp. 1-19 for class discussion and pp. 20-25 for background on the accident problem. Pay particular attention to pp. 1-13: How do decisions made by trial judges on procedural motions give rise to substantive rules of law?

(3) In the casebook read and brief Hammontree v. Jenner, 132-134, for class discussion. What is the main issue before the appellate court? What is a "jury instruction"? What is the difference between "negligence" and "absolute [or "strict"] liability and why would that matter here? [Note: The casebook excerpt of the case omits two points: (a) Plaintiffs' original complaint stated causes of action based on both negligence and strict liability; (b) defendant Jenner testified at trial, without contradiction, that he was properly taking his medication the day the accident occurred. If true, would that fact be legally relevant? Why? Why do you think plaintiffs withdrew their negligence count at trial?]

Should Jenner have been held liable? Why or why not? Did the Hammontrees have any credible legal arguments, given the existing law in this jurisdiction, or was their lawyer wasting their time and money in taking the case up on appeal? What about policy: Would any function of tort law (Supp, 13-19) have been served by holding Jenner liable?

Wednesday, 8/28:

(1) Continue discussion of Hammontree.

(2) In the casebook, read and brief Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff. (pp. 4-top 11; omit n.6) What does the term "intent" mean in the law of intentional torts? Why is Vosburg considered an intentional tort case? Do you think defendant Putney was trying to physically harm plaintiff Vosburg? If not, what was his "intent"? What is a "battery" [a.k.a. "trespass to the person"] and why was there one in Vosburg? What "intent" and what result would be needed today for this tort, according to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, §13, p. 9?

Thursday, 8/29:

Continue discussion of intent and battery, casebook, pp. 4-top 11. Also read Supp, pp. 25a and 25b (Leichtman, Shaw).