1936
DOI: 10.2307/3308364
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cases on Municipal Corporations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1985
1985
1985
1985

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…31 The "public duty doctrine" is followed in Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Washington. 32 The doctrine is not followed in Florida, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska, and Wisconsin. 33 States that have rejected the "public duty doctrine" follow a line of case authority similar to the following: the duty of a building inspector to inspect for safety defects is a duty owed not to the mere public, but rather is one which flows to any person proximately injured as a result of his negligence in failing to detect such defects.…”
Section: E Effect Of Removing Immunitymentioning
confidence: 96%
“…31 The "public duty doctrine" is followed in Arizona, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, Illinois, Nevada, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Washington. 32 The doctrine is not followed in Florida, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska, and Wisconsin. 33 States that have rejected the "public duty doctrine" follow a line of case authority similar to the following: the duty of a building inspector to inspect for safety defects is a duty owed not to the mere public, but rather is one which flows to any person proximately injured as a result of his negligence in failing to detect such defects.…”
Section: E Effect Of Removing Immunitymentioning
confidence: 96%