Emanuel Crunchtime for Torts

Emanuel CrunchTime(R) for Torts, Sixth Edition, by Steve Emanuel focuses on those topics that are important in today's courses on Torts and includes an abundance of short-answer questions and answers as well as exam tips. This edition has been updated to reflect changes in the law, in casebooks, and topics tested on exams. Students will benefit from: Flowcharts illustrate principles and concepts A capsule summary explains the major topics and issues covered in the course Exam Tips teach you how to avoid common traps and pitfalls Short-answer questions (with answers) provide an opportunity to test your knowledge Multiple-choices questions in the style of questions on the Multistate Bar Exam (with detailed answers) build your exam-taking skills and confidence Essay questionswith model answers help you review and prepare for exams Included in The Sixth Edition of CrunchTime(R) for Torts New coverage of the "value of a chance" issue: Can a medical-malpractice patient recover anything when there's a less-than-50/50 chance that non-negligent treatment would have led to a better outcome? [Smith v. Providence Health & Services] Expanded discussion of courts' refusal to allow plaintiffs to recover for "pure economic loss," including the California Supreme Court case holding that businesses whose profits were damaged by a toxic gas leak cannot recover anything if they did not also suffer some personal injury or property damage. [Southern California Gas Leak Cases] Expanded coverage of the modern approach to the "both ways" rule for imputed contributory/comparative negligence, including the court's refusal to apply the rule against owner-passengers of a vehicle who are injured due to the combined negligence of a third party and the driver of the owner's vehicle. [Seaborne-Worsely v. Mintiens] Expanded coverage of the duty to warn in prescription-drug product-liability suits, including whether a plaintiff can recover for inadequate labeling from the maker of the brand-name version of a drug, if the plaintiff actually took a generic version made by some other manufacturer. [T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.] New coverage of strict product-liability suits arising from Internet sales, including whether a company that merely supplies fulfillment services--and never takes title to the goods--can nonetheless be liable as a "seller" of the goods. [Oberdorf v. Amazon.com Inc.]