About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/relwtrts0345 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations TORTS Generally N.D.Iowa, 2024. Cit. generally in disc. Buyer of a winch that retailer sold under its private-label brand name sued retailer, alleging a design defect and other claims after his finger became entangled in the winch and had to be amputated. This court denied in part retailer's motion for summary judgment, holding that buyer's design-defect claim was not barred under an Iowa statute that immunized retailers from strict liability solely from a design or manufacturing defect, because buyer's claim was for negligence, rather than strict liability. The court noted that Iowa courts largely followed the Restatements, adopting new Restatements shortly after they were published, and that, while Iowa courts recognized strict liability for products claims, a product user could still proceed on a negligence theory under the Restatement First of Torts and the Restatement Second of Torts, both of which provided that the manufacturer of a dangerous product was liable for a failure to exercise reasonable care in the product's manufacture and design. Wilson v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 747 F.Supp.3d 1168, 1174. DIVISION ONE. INTENTIONAL HARMS TO PERSONS, LAND, AND CHATTELS CHAPTER 2. INTENTIONAL INVASIONS OF INTERESTS IN PERSONALITY TOPIC 4. THE INTEREST IN FREEDOM FROM CONFINEMENT § 35. False Imprisonment C.A.11, 2025. Subsec. (1)(d) quot. in sup. Filipino seamen who worked on a cruise ship filed claims for false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress against Florida-based employer that owned the ship, alleging that employer took two months to repatriate them to the Philippines after the ship's operations were suspended by the federal government during a pandemic. The district court granted employer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under maritime law. This court affirmed, holding that seamen did not state a claim for the maritime tort of false imprisonment, because they failed to allege that employer lacked the lawful authority to confine them to the ship. The court COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.