Sentences with phrase «tortious act»

The court stated that it had never recognized a claim for tortious acts in concert before and declined to do so under the circumstances before it.

However, given DeVries and its immediate progeny, courts applying Ohio law now and in the foreseeable future are more likely to dismiss claims for tortious acts in concert.

Cases where the victim was trespassing or committing some other tortious act at the time of the incident (although a presumption against this exists if the victim is under 7 years of age)

Finally, the court determined that the Firm could not be liable for the alleged tortious acts of the Broker because the Broker was an independent contractor.

Tortious acts while picketing can be brought to the Labour Relations Board, typically in the form of cease and desist applications and directives to stop the wrongful picketing behaviour.

This event will be considered an independent intervening cause when the original actor could not have reasonably predicted that their action would have resulted in the final tortious act.

This is because each made a contribution to that part of the loss by a different tortious act in breach of different duties to the claimant.

The court found that Broker's tortious acts ended on the date of the closing and dismissed these claims because the suit was not filed within three years of that date.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently decided that Ohio law does not recognize claims for tortious acts committed by persons alleged to be acting in concert.

With statutes of repose, it is always crystal clear when the clock starts ticking: it starts running the moment the medical malpractice (or other tortious act) is committed.

Waiver of tort refers to a plaintiff's election at a common issues trial to have recovery quantified not by provable tort damages but rather by the defendant's gain arising from the alleged tortious act.

The district court asked the Ohio Supreme Court whether Ohio recognizes a cause of action for tortious acts in concert «under the applicable circumstances.»

Causation is an expression of the relationship that must be found to exist between the tortious act of the wrongdoer and the injury to the victim in order to justify compensation of the latter out of the pocket of the former.

If the limited liability partner (s) committed wrongful or tortious acts, they may be held liable with the result of them being sued for malpractice.

Rather, the monies represent the means of putting an individual back in the financial place that he would have been had the tortious act not occurred.

The monies are intended to compensate an individual for lost income due to a reduced capacity to earn that income, or to replace income that will never be made as a result of the tortious act.

This is usually the stuff of personal injury law, where employment prospects in the future — in the face of injuries sustained as a result of some tortious act — have to be studied with some care as any compensation payable must obviously reflect probable future loss.

An illness of this nature had a tendency to impair a patient's capacity to make reasoned and informed judgments about his future and such an illness was a direct result of the defendants» tortious act.

The judge admitted that the relationship between the priest and the defendants was not like a regular employment contract, but in this case, he opted to look at certain special factors, including the nature and closeness of the relationship between the priest and the defendant, and the connection between the tortious act and the purpose of the relationship / employment / appointment, which was based on the factors outlined below.

But are those differences such that the Defendants should not be made responsible for the tortious acts of the priest acting within the course of his ministry?

Those features may have relevance in a different context, but not to the question of whether, in justice, the Defendants should be responsible for the tortious acts of the man appointed and authorised by them to act on their behalf.

A «tort» is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.

The independent intervening cause is a theory that reduces or negates liability against one person because the tortious act only occurred because of another cause.

Thus, where a plaintiff suffers a single injury as a result of the tortious acts of multiple defendants, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to demonstrate that the conduct of each defendant was a substantial factor in the harm.

The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants had provided each other with «substantial assistance and encouragement» in the commission of the underlying torts and were thus also liable on a claim for «tortious acts in concert.»

In the immediate wake of DeVries, Ohio courts are not permitting claims for tortious acts in concert.

Joint and several liability applies to any persons who act in concert in committing the tortious act, or aid or encourage the act, or ratify or adopt the act.

Given the absence of discussion of the underlying circumstances in the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in DeVries, and the court's limiting statement that it declined to recognize a claim for tortious acts in concert «under the circumstances of [the DeVries] case,» it is not clear that Ohio courts will never recognize such a claim.

Recognized as viable claims in other states, these claims impose liability for either conspiring to have someone commit a tort or knowingly encouraging or assisting another person's tortious act.

You might say «hold on now, indivisible injury presumes a finding that each of tortious acts could have been, in fact, a but - for cause of the injury.»

But if each of the tortious acts could have been a but - for cause, isn't that the Clements explanation of the circumstances to which material contribution apply?

His claim was rejected, for the loss «must inevitably flow from the tortious act of the defendant» (see Burton, per Baron Bramwell), which this did not.

In other words, it was thought that no sane plaintiffs» lawyer would sue in 1978 for a tortious act that allegedly occurred in 1953, because the risk of dismissal was so obvious.