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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/resttlph5324 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL HARM Generally D.Kan.2024. Cit. generally in cases cit. and quot. in ftn. Patron who was injured by a bullet from third- party gunfire in a motel parking lot that pierced the exterior wall of her room sued motel owner and its affiliates, alleging that they breached their duty to provide appropriate security measures to protect patrons from harm. This court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that defendants owed no duty under Kansas law to protect plaintiff from the injury inflicted by the bullet. The court reasoned that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendants knew or should have known of the unreasonable risk to plaintiff as a result of the third-party criminal acts that occurred, noting that Kansas courts had not yet adopted principles described in Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm that omitted foreseeability of risk from the duty analysis. Blalock v. SRKBS Hotel, LLC, 726 F.Supp.3d 1266, 1291. CHAPTER 1. INTENT, RECKLESSNESS, AND NEGLIGENCE: DEFINITIONS § 1. Intent Fla.2024. Com. (b) quot. in sup. Guardianship of an intoxicated pedestrian who was severely and permanently injured after being struck by a drunk driver sued bars that served alcohol to pedestrian and driver, who were both underage, seeking money damages. The district court entered judgment on a jury verdict for guardianship. The court of appeals reversed, finding that bar should have been permitted to assert a comparative-fault defense. Answering a certified question, this court held that an action permitted by Florida's dram shop statute's underage-drinker exception, which limited a bar's liability to situations where the sale of alcohol to an underage patron was done both willfully and unlawfully, was a negligence action for purposes of Florida's comparative-fault statute. The court rejected bar's argument that the exception's willfulness requirement required the commission of an intentional tort, citing Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm § 1 in noting that the COPYRIGHT C2025 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.