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

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/rstotelwti0004 and id is 1 raw text is: . THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations TORTS 3D: REMEDIES (DRAFTS) CHAPTER 1. COMPENSATORY DAMAGES TOPIC 1. GENERAL RULES FOR MEASURING COMPENSATORY DAMAGES § 3. One Satisfaction (No Double Recovery) Ariz.App.2024. Com. (d) quot. in sup. (T.D. No. 1, 2022). Property owner filed claims for, among other things, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress against neighbor in connection with allegations that neighbor harassed her and interfered with her use of a shared easement that both parties used to access their respective properties. The trial court entered judgment on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages. This court vacated in part, holding that the award of compensatory damages for plaintiff's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) duplicated the award of compensatory damages for plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The court reasoned that, because plaintiff s counsel conceded that the same operative facts supported both claims, under Restatement Third of Torts: Remedies § 3, plaintiff could only recover once for that harm. Smith v. Olsen, 551 P.3d 610, 622. TOPIC 2. INJURY TO THE PERSON § 26. Wrongful Pregnancy Tex.2024. Subsec. (a), (b), com. (c), and Rptr's Notes cit. in ftn. (T.D. No. 2, 2023). Mother filed an action for medical negligence against doctor and his medical practice, alleging that doctor failed to perform a sterilization procedure that she requested and paid for in connection with the birth of her third child, and failed to tell her that the procedure was not done, which resulted in an unplanned pregnancy and the birth of her fourth child. The trial court granted summary judgment for doctor and medical practice. The court of appeals reversed in part and remanded. This court reversed in part and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding that Texas law did not permit the recovery of noneconomic damages or damages for economic expenses incurred in raising a healthy child. The court noted that Restatement Third of Torts: Remedies § 26 and the majority of jurisdictions followed a limited-recovery approach in assessing the scope of damages recoverable for an unplanned but healthy pregnancy, which rejected COPYRIGHT 02025 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.