农业和Res Ipsa Loquitur

Chad G. Marzen
{"title":"农业和Res Ipsa Loquitur","authors":"Chad G. Marzen","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2954231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article is intended to contribute to the literature concerning the relationship between agricultural law and tort liability by examining cases involving the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to cases involving agriculture. \nCourts throughout the country vary on whether to apply res ipsa loquitur to cases involving agricultural interests. This Article finds that the following three general rules can be gleaned depending upon the fact pattern: 1. A majority of courts have held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not apply in cases involving crop or barn fires. 2. A majority of courts hold that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies in cases involving pesticide drift, the application of pesticides by crop dusting and spraying companies, as well as application of pesticides from contaminated barrels of insecticide. 3. There is a split in authority on whether res ipsa loquitur applies in cases involving escaped livestock.","PeriodicalId":82221,"journal":{"name":"Oklahoma law review","volume":"70 1","pages":"679"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agriculture and Res Ipsa Loquitur\",\"authors\":\"Chad G. Marzen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2954231\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article is intended to contribute to the literature concerning the relationship between agricultural law and tort liability by examining cases involving the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to cases involving agriculture. \\nCourts throughout the country vary on whether to apply res ipsa loquitur to cases involving agricultural interests. This Article finds that the following three general rules can be gleaned depending upon the fact pattern: 1. A majority of courts have held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not apply in cases involving crop or barn fires. 2. A majority of courts hold that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies in cases involving pesticide drift, the application of pesticides by crop dusting and spraying companies, as well as application of pesticides from contaminated barrels of insecticide. 3. There is a split in authority on whether res ipsa loquitur applies in cases involving escaped livestock.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82221,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oklahoma law review\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"679\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oklahoma law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2954231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oklahoma law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2954231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在通过审查涉及在涉及农业的案件中适用事实免责原则的案例,对有关农业法与侵权责任关系的文献作出贡献。全国各地的法院在是否对涉及农业利益的案件适用沉默规则方面各不相同。本文发现,根据事实模式可以收集到以下三个一般规则:大多数法院认为沉默不言原则不适用于涉及农作物或谷仓火灾的案件。2. 大多数法院认为,不追究责任原则适用于涉及农药漂移、作物喷粉和喷洒公司使用农药以及从受污染的杀虫剂桶中使用农药的案件。3.对于是否在涉及走失牲畜的案件中适用“失语保护法”,当局存在分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Agriculture and Res Ipsa Loquitur
This Article is intended to contribute to the literature concerning the relationship between agricultural law and tort liability by examining cases involving the application of the res ipsa loquitur doctrine to cases involving agriculture. Courts throughout the country vary on whether to apply res ipsa loquitur to cases involving agricultural interests. This Article finds that the following three general rules can be gleaned depending upon the fact pattern: 1. A majority of courts have held that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not apply in cases involving crop or barn fires. 2. A majority of courts hold that the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies in cases involving pesticide drift, the application of pesticides by crop dusting and spraying companies, as well as application of pesticides from contaminated barrels of insecticide. 3. There is a split in authority on whether res ipsa loquitur applies in cases involving escaped livestock.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EMPLOYEES WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: NEW DIRECTIONS FOR DISABILITY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW? Creative Processes Setting the Stage The Commenting Power: Agency Accountability through Public Participation List of Illustrations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1