25 Doctrines of Law You Should Know
"I'll sue you!" In America's litigious society, everyone needs €to know a few basics to avoid being snowed, cowed and generally abused. Even those who can afford to hire lawyers need to know what they are up to. This introduction to legal doctrines is a good first step if you want to file suit or help prepare your own legal defenses. When a conflict arises, what are the main doctrines of law that give one side an advantage? What do they mean, and how do they apply? When you can see through the legal jargon, the intimidation factor loses its power and you can concentrate on real issues and use these tools to take care of yourself. Some of America's doctrines go back to the 17th-century English Bench and have had a lasting impact on our legal system. Other doctrines are of more recent vintage but have had an equally profound influence. The author has researched 1,000 legal cases and identified 326 different doctrines of law; of those, he has selected 25 doctrines that average Americans are most likely to encounter in everyday €activities. In these pages he reviews actual cases to show how the doctrines apply in real-life scenarios and relates what happened in court. These non-jargon explanations of legal scenarios provide handy background reading for fans of court-room dramas and, since any one of us may end up in court these days, important general education for every adult in the United States. The 25 doctrines discussed are: 1. Res Ipsa Loquitur 2. Promissory Estoppel 3. Respondeat Superior 4. €Doctrine of Sudden Danger 5. Rescue Doctrine 6. Doctrine of Comparative Negligence 7. Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment 8. €Doctrine of Unclean Hands 9. Doctrine of Unconscionability 10. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine 11. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine 12. €Doctrine of Mitigated Damages 13. Quantum Meruit Doctrine 14. €Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity 15. Doctrine of Absolute €Immunity 16. Doctrine of Qualified Immunity 17. Last Clear Chance Doctrine 18. €Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine 19. Assumption of Risk Doctrine 20. €Public Duty Doctrine 21. Statute of Limitations 22. Equitable Estoppel 23. Res Judicata 24. Collateral Estoppel 25. Stare Decisis As an accessible point of introduction for those interested in the U.S. legal system, this book is suitable as a popular reference work for public libraries, auxiliary reading for business-school courses, a starting place for anyone caught in a legal conflict, and handy background reading for fans of court-room drama novels and T.V.
Other editions - View all
accident affirmed alleged AmeriPro appellant’s appellee applied argued assumption of risk award Barracchini barred breach Carter cause of action circuit court Civil Procedure claim collateral estoppel comparative negligence complaint conduct contract contributory negligence Court found Court reversed damages danger decision defendant defendant’s negligence determined dismissed doctrine of res duty emotional distress employees entitled evidence failed filed Fleming fraud genuine issue go-kart granting summary judgment harm Harrison Enterprises Heebsh infliction of emotional injury invitee issue of material Jenks jury lawsuit lease malpractice Margay and Eastern material fact matter of law ment Montiel motion for summary open-and-obvious party person petition plaintiff Pop’s Premises Liability promissory estoppel protect proximate cause public-duty doctrine qualified immunity reasonable release remanded res ipsa loquitur res judicata rescue doctrine result Sackett Sho-Pro sovereign immunity statute of limitations summary judgment Supreme Court Thornburg tion Torts trial court Trilogy truck unconscionable unreasonable vehicle Wal-Mart Walter wanton Whitaker Woodbridge
Page 24 - If the actor unintentionally causes emotional distress to another, he is liable to the other for illness or bodily harm of which the distress is a legal cause if the actor (a) should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the distress, otherwise than by knowledge of the harm or peril of a third person, and (b) from facts known to him should have realized that the distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm.