TORTS - EVIDENCE - RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE - APPLICATION IN PENNSYLVANIA

The plaintiff sued defendant power company for damages resulting from the destruction of his building by fire. The electricity furnished by defendant, after being reduced by a transformer, passed from its main line through an auxiliary line to a point a few inches from plaintiff\u27s building where it was connected with the wiring system of the building which had been installed, and at the time of the accident was controlled, by plaintiff. Failing to show by direct proof that the transformer was defective and the proximate cause of the loss, plaintiff\u27s claim for negligent destruction of his building was predicated upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Held, affirming the decision of the lower court, that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the defendant had not shown that a defect in his own wiring system was not the proximate cause of the destruction of the building. Clark v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 336 Pa. 75, 6 A. (2d) 892 (1939)

TORTS - DUTY - LIABILITY OF ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER TO ONE WHO FALLS ON ICE

After having made some purchases in defendant\u27s store, plaintiff fell on the ice and snow covering the walk in front. Alleging that the defendant had negligently cleaned the walk by leaving ridges of snow which melted and froze, forming an uneven surface, the plaintiff and her husband brought actions against the defendant store owner to recover for the injuries sustained. The lower court directed a verdict for the defendant. Held, the plaintiff could not recover because the defendant did not owe a duty to her. Therrien v. First Nat. Stores, Inc., (R. I. 1939) 6 A. (2d) 731

INSURANCE - EXCLUSIONARY CLAUSES - DEATH DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE LAW BY THE INSURED

When a person carrying a life or accident insurance policy dies as the result of an act committed by him in violation of the law, the beneficiaries may or may not be precluded from recovering upon it. In the absence of a special exclusionary clause, the general view is that the beneficiary may recover. However, if it appears that at the time the insured took out the policy he intended to commit a crime recovery is barred, at least if the death occurred within the contestability period. In order to delimit from the general coverage provisions the risks that would otherwise exist, insurance companies often expressly provide that where the death of the insured is due to an act committed in violation of the law the company shall not be liable. This comment will analyze: (1) the types of exclusionary clauses and the general rules of construction; (2) the type of conduct which will constitute a violation of the law within the meaning of such clauses; (3) the rules of causation which the courts have established and the application of these rules in order to ascertain when a causal relation between the unlawful act and death exists; and (4) the proper scope and desirability of such clauses

SALES - RECOVERY BY SELLER AGAINST THIRD PARTY TORTFEASOR

Plaintiff sold a truck under a conditional sales contract expressly reserving title until the purchase price was paid by the buyer. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, possession was transferred to the latter. While the truck was in his possession it was destroyed through the negligence of the defendant, a third party. At the time of the destruction the buyer had not defaulted in the payments. Held, affirming the decision of the lower court, that the plaintiff had no right to maintain an action against the defendant to recover for the negligent destruction of the truck. Gas City Transfer Co. v. Miller, (Ind. App. 1939) 21 N. E. (2d) 428

INSURANCE - GIFT OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICY

The employer insured his employees under a group insurance plan. Each employee was given a certificate evidencing his personal insurance. The master policy contained a provision that no assignment should be binding until the original or duplicate of the certificate was filed at the insurer\u27s home office. It was established by the evidence that there had been a manual delivery of one of the certificates by an employee. The insurance company paid the amount 0£ that particular certificate into court. Held, in an action by the plaintiff, the alleged donee, against the estate of the insured, the named beneficiary, that the lower court properly refused defendant\u27s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff. Peel v. Reibel, 205 Minn. 474, 286 N. W. 345 (1939)

The Clinical Experience: A Case Analysis

In trying to combine the best possible educational experiencefor the student with the highest quality legal services to theclient, the clinician has one foot in each of two very differentworlds. At one extreme, practitioners view academics as ivorytower thinkers with no sense of the real world. At the other extreme,academics view practitioners as trades-people, movingcases to conclusion without any examination of either the publicpolicy behind the law or its theoretical underpinning. The chasmcan be large.This is the story of how Yale Law School\u27s HomelessnessClinic dealt with that problem and the educational theory behindthe clinic\u27s legal work

BILLS AND NOTES - ACCOMMODATION PAPER - DEFENSES WHICH CAN BE ASSERTED DY MAKER AGAINST ONE NOT A HOLDER IN DUE COURSE

The defendant, at the request of her husband, signed a blank promissory note. After making the note payable to himself, the husband discounted the note before maturity at the plaintiff bank. In an action by the bank against the wife, the accommodation maker claimed that the bank took in bad faith and that the negotiation to the bank was a diversion from the intended purpose of the accommodation. The plaintiff bank sought to recover upon the ground that the defendant was liable to it as a holder for value irrespective of whether it was a holder in due course. Held, affirming the decision of the lower court, that the defense was not open to the defendant because the plaintiff was a holder in due course. Madigan v. Lumbert, (Me. 1939) 5 A. (2d) 278