Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1921–1996 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Huntsville Hosp.green1 sentence1996See, Young , 595 So.2d 1386 . | 1 | 1 |
CIE Service Corp. v. Smithgreen2 sentences1992While we still recognize that "[i]t is difficult to impose liability on one person for an intentional criminal act by a third person," CIE Service Corp. v. Smith , 460 So.2d 1244 , 1247 (Ala. 1984), we conclude that there was evidence that the relationship between the hospital and Young here was a "special relationship or circumstance" 3 that would except this case from the general rule, and we hold that the question of foreseeability was one for the jury. 1992While we still recognize that "[i]t is difficult to impose liability on one person for an intentional criminal act by a third person," CIE Service Corp. v. Smith, 460 So.2d 1244, 1247 (Ala.1984), we conclude that there was evidence that the relationship between the hospital and Young here was a "special relationship or circumstance" [3] that would except this case from the general rule, and we hold that the question of foreseeability was one for the jury. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Weed v. Weed
neutral
1 sentence1978Weed v. Weed, 358 So.2d 459 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); Meyers v. Meyers, 55 Ala.App. 697 , 318 So.2d 725 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Meyers v. Meyers
neutral
2 sentences1978Weed v. Weed, 358 So.2d 459 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); Meyers v. Meyers, 55 Ala.App. 697 , 318 So.2d 725 (1975). 1978Weed v. Weed, 358 So.2d 459 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); Meyers v. Meyers, 55 Ala.App. 697 , 318 So.2d 725 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bell v. Seals Piano & Organ Co.
neutral
2 sentences1922Co., 201 Ala. 428 , 78 South. 806 , but the evidence does not exclude this case from the general rule. 1922Co., 201 Ala. 428 , 78 South. 806 , but the evidence does not exclude this case from the general rule. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Pressley v. Bloomington & Normal Railway & Light Co.
green
1 sentence1921Co., 271 Ill. 622 , 111 N. E. 511 ; Curtis on Law of Elec. § 417; Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light Co., 91 Kan. 450 , 138 Pac. 632 , 50 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light, Heat & Power Co.
green
2 sentences1921Co., 271 Ill. 622 , 111 N. E. 511 ; Curtis on Law of Elec. § 417; Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light Co., 91 Kan. 450 , 138 Pac. 632 , 50 L. 1921Co., 271 Ill. 622 , 111 N. E. 511 ; Curtis on Law of Elec. § 417; Hoffman v. Leavenworth Light Co., 91 Kan. 450 , 138 Pac. 632 , 50 L. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.