The text for this course is Epstein & Sharkey, Cases and Materials on Torts, 11th ed. (2016) only. Copies are available for purchase or rental at the CSU Bookstore. There is also a required course Supplement, which will be available at no cost on Blackboard, probably during Orientation week.

For Monday, 8/24:

(1) Read the course Syllabus carefully before our first class. It will be sent to you as an email attachment.

(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 mattere here? [Note: The casebook excerpt of the case omits two points: (a) Plaintiffs' original complaint stated causes of action in both negligence and strict liability; (b) at trial, defendant Jenner testified, 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? What about policy? Would any function of tort law (Supp, 13-19) have been served by holding Jenner liable?

Wednesday, 8/26:

(1) Continue discussion of Hammontree.

(2) In the casebook, read and brief Vosburg v. Putney and notes ff. (pp. 4-11; 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 Putney was trying to physically harm 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, 8/27:

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