Myers v. Funderburk

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that expert testimony was unnecessary for a negligent training claim against police officers because the jury need only “common knowledge or experience” to recognize Fourth Amendment violations
• stating that “[w]e have recognized the policy undergirding the public duty doctrine and applied the doctrine in a number of cases” and discussing several of them
• explaining that a plaintiff can establish causation by showing that negligent training was both a “substantial factor” in an injury and that injury was a “foreseeable result”
• reasoning that adequately pleaded negligence claim also satisfied fiduciary duty claim
• when hiring an employee that is expected to come into contact with the public, the employer must make reasonable inquiry into the employee’s fitness
• when hiring an employee that is expected to come into contact with the public, the employer must make reasonable inquiry into the employee’s fitness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).