ABOUT THE BOOK—TOOLS TO SUCCEED

• The Capsule Summary provides a quick reference summary of the key concepts covered in the full Outline.
• The detailed course Outline with black letter principles supplements your casebook reading throughout the semester and gives structure to your own outline.
• The Quiz Yourself feature includes a series of short-answer questions and sample answers to help you test your knowledge of the chapter’s content.
• Exam Tips alert you to issues and commonly used fact patterns found on exams.
• The Casebook Correlation Chart correlates each section in the Outline with the pages covering that topic in the major casebooks.

• Burden of proof where Defendant’s sexual conduct is claimed to be battery and Defendant raises the defense of consent. Rondini v. Bunn (N.D. Ala 2020.)
• Defendant’s liability based on being a “substantial factor” in the harm suffered by Plaintiff, including the modern tendency to reject the substantial-factor standard. Doull v. Foster (Mass. 2021).
• The “value of a chance” doctrine, used to make Defendant liable in medical-malpractice cases where Defendant’s negligence deprived Plaintiff of a less-than-50% chance at a recovery. Smith v. Providence Health & Services (Ore. 2017).
• The declining use of a later “superseding cause” as a reason to relieve Defendant of liability, where Plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred but for the occurrence of that event. Barry v. Quality Steel Prods. (Conn. 2003).
• Courts’ disallowance of liability for pure economic losses caused by Defendant in toxic-tort cases involving pollution of land or water. Southern Cal. Gas Leak Cases (Cal. 2019).
• Government liability for ministerial errors versus sovereign immunity for discretionary decisions. Lorman v. City of Rutland (Vt. 2018).
• Failure-to-warn liability where Defendant is the maker of a brand-name pharmaceutical, but Plaintiff was injured by faulty labeling of the generic version of the same drug made by someone other than Defendant. T.H. v. Novartis Pharma. (Cal. 2017).