Torts - Revision history

Neumoeglich: /* Key materials */

2026-09-06T00:04:12Z

Key materials

2026-09-05T22:47:41Z

Key materials

2026-09-05T21:46:29Z

Palsgraf v. LIRR

2026-09-05T16:11:29Z

Negligence: Affirmative defenses

2026-09-05T16:11:04Z

Contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of risk

2026-09-03T20:58:50Z

Affirmative acts that cause physical harm

2026-09-03T20:57:37Z

Affirmative acts that cause physical harm

2026-08-27T19:55:17Z

Holdings

2026-08-25T18:43:38Z

Facts

2026-08-25T13:48:31Z

Holdings

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 # Torts schedule (TBA)
 # [https://newlypossible.org/courses/torts/exams/ Practice exams]
 # [[Torts notes]] (per heading when assigned)
 # Tortastica BoodleBox Tutorbot
@@ Line 13: / Line 14: @@
 ## Classwide chat link sent by email
 ## Course folder link sent by email
 == Introduction ==

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 # [https://newlypossible.org/courses/torts/exams/ Practice exams]
 # [[Torts notes]] (per heading when assigned)
 == Introduction ==

@@ Line 998: / Line 998: @@
 '''After class'''
 # Totally optional: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4227719 Bryant Walker Smith, DALL-E Does Palsgraf, 14 Journal of Law, Technology, and the Internet 82 (2023)]
-## [https://sora.chatgpt.com/p/s_68f6f31245688191a18aec4fe68c9a5d Sora 2 on Cardozo's factual summary (October 2025)]
+## [https://newlypossible.org/courses/torts/GenAI/Palsgraf-Cardozo.mp4 Sora 2 on Cardozo's factual summary (October 2025)]
-## [https://sora.chatgpt.com/p/s_68f6f452a8b881918922a8b99e2d1cb8 Sora 2 on Andrews's factual summary (October 2025)]
+## [https://newlypossible.org/courses/torts/GenAI/Palsgraf-Andrews.mp4 Sora 2 on Andrews's factual summary (October 2025)]
 # There is no formal after-class assignment today.

@@ Line 1,071: / Line 1,071: @@
 == Negligence: Affirmative defenses ==
-=== Plaintiff Conduct: Contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of risk ===
+=== Plaintiff conduct (contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of risk) ===
 '''Before class'''
 # Mowrey v. Cent. City R. Co., 51 N.Y. 666 (1873) (again)

@@ Line 1,071: / Line 1,071: @@
 == Negligence: Affirmative defenses ==
-=== Contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of risk ===
+=== Plaintiff Conduct: Contributory negligence, comparative fault, and assumption of risk ===
 '''Before class'''
 # Mowrey v. Cent. City R. Co., 51 N.Y. 666 (1873) (again)

@@ Line 403: / Line 403: @@
 # In Kubert, the court decides that the defendant had a duty but that the evidence was insufficient ''as a matter of law'' to establish that she breached that duty.
 # The court talks about duty in a very fact-specific way: "[W]hen a texter knows or has special reason to know that the intended recipient is driving and is likely to read the text message while driving, the texter has a duty to users of the public roads to refrain from sending the driver a text at that time." This is arguably a holding.
-# Courts often talk about duty in a fact-specific way. But it's not especially helpful. The court could have instead said that "the defendant whose affirmative conduct creates a risk of physical harm has a duty to act reasonably" and then, under the element of breach, considered whether the defendant's specific conduct was in fact reasonable.
+# Courts often talk about duty in a fact-specific way. But it's not especially helpful. The court could have instead said that "a defendant whose affirmative conduct creates a risk of physical harm has a duty to act reasonably" and then, under the element of breach, considered whether the defendant's specific conduct was in fact reasonable.
 === Duty to act affirmatively ===

@@ Line 397: / Line 397: @@
 # We're starting to see the overlap among the elements of duty, breach, and scope of liability.
 # As we'll learn, foreseeability plays an essential role in the law of negligence. But courts disagree about where (i.e., under which elements) they should analyze foreseeability.
-# Whereas MacPherson and the Restatement (Second) ask about foreseeability under the element of duty, the Restatement (Third) moves this particular inquiry to the element of scope of liability.
+# Whereas MacPherson and the Restatement (Second) ask about foreseeability under the element of duty, the Restatement (Third) moves this particular inquiry to the element of scope of liability -- at least for affirmative acts that cause physical harm.
 # The structure of our course tracks the Restatement (Third). But many of our cases predate the Restatement (Third) -- and even today the Restatement (Second) is still widely influential. That's okay! Remember that no restatement is conclusive or exhaustive. In our readings, you will (and should) find far more rule splits than universal rules.
 # A good exercise is to apply the Restatement (Third)'s duty rules to cases in which duty was analyzed under different rules.

@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 # How do the key facts in Gadson compare to the key facts in Jackson?
 # What is the outcome in Jackson?
-# Accordingly to Jackson court, what are the elements of negligent entrustment?
+# Accordingly to the Jackson court, what are the elements of negligent entrustment?
 # Where does the Jackson court get these elements?
 # How do the key facts in Jackson compare to the key facts in McAllister?

@@ Line 153: / Line 153: @@
 # A complaint is the document in which the plaintiff tells the defendant and the court what the plaintiff wants and why. A good complaint alleges material facts for each of the elements of each of the plaintiff's claims.
-=== Facts ===
+=== Facts and Procedural History ===
 '''Before class'''
 # [https://newlypossible.org/courses/torts/docs/GadsonPacket.pdf Gadson v. ECO Services (packet)]

@@ Line 219: / Line 219: @@
 '''After class'''
 # Holdings: Create a chart showing how Nettles v. Your Ice Co. led to Gadson v. ECO Services. Was this path inevitable?
-# Many of our readings from this point will consist largely of entire case opinions without notes or quizzes. This means that you should complete each assignment even more actively. Why are you reading these materials? What connections can you draw? What might we discuss in class? What would you like to discuss?
+# Remember to read actively by asking: Why are you reading these materials? What connections can you draw? What might we discuss in class? What would you like to discuss?
 '''Key takeaways'''
 # We can think of "entrustment" as near-term or long-term.