Chapter 7 - Torts

Question 2

Tort

Answer 2

A wrong. There are three categories of torts: 1. Intentional Torts, 2. unintential torts (negligence) and 3. Strict liability.

Question 3

Intentional Tort

Answer 3

A category of torts that requires that the defendant possessed the intent to do the act that caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

Question 4

Assault

Answer 4

The threat of immediate harm or offensive contact or 2. any action that arouses reasonable apprehension or imminent harm.

Question 5

Battery

Answer 5

Unauthorized and harmful or offensive direct or indirect physical contact with another person that causes injury.

Question 6

False Imprisonment

Answer 6

The intentional confinement or restraint of another person without authority or justification and without that person’s consent.

Question 7

Merchant Protection statutes

Answer 7

Statutes that allow mechants to stop, detain, and investigate suspected shoplifters without being hel liable for false imprisonment if 1. there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, 2. suspects are detaind for only a resonable time and 3. investigations are conducted in a reasonable manner.

Question 8

Tort of Misappropriation of the Right to Publicity

Answer 8

An attempt by another person to appropriate a living person’s name or identity for commercial purposes.

Question 9

Defamation of Character

Answer 9

False statements made by one person about another. In court the plaintiff must prove that 1. the defendant made an untrue statement of fact about the plaintiff and 2. the statement was intentionally or accidentally published to a third party.

Question 10

Libel

Answer 10

A false statement that appears in a letter, newspaper, magazine, book, photograph, movie, video and so on.

Question 11

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Answer 11

A tort that says a person whose extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another person is liable for that emotional distress.

Question 12

Unintentional Tort

Answer 12

A doctrine that says a person is liable for harm that is the foreseeable consequence of his or her actions

Question 13

res ipsa loquitur

Answer 13

A tort in which the presumption of negligence arises because 1. The defendant was in exclusive control of the situation and 2. the plaintiff would not have suffered injury but for someone’s negligence. The burden switches to the defendant to prove that he or she was not negligent.

Question 14

Strict Liability

Answer 14

Liability without fault

Question 15

Elements of negligence

Answer 15

• By Statutory Law we owe a Duty of Care
• Breach of Duty of Care
• Causation

Question 16

Duty of Care

Answer 16

Each person owes others a duty of ordinary care.
Sometimes a defendants duty of care is determines by the status of the defendant: Professionals (Doctors, attorneys, Accountants, et al)
Sometimes a defendents duty of care is determined by the status of the plaintiff: Premises Liability
An unknown trespasser
A known Trespasser
An invitee
A Patron (not necessarily a customer)

Question 17

Breach of Duty of Care

Answer 17

The Reasonable Person Standard
Hypothetical Standard Yet Objective, not subjective, analysis

Question 18

Causation

Answer 18

Actual Cause => The “But For” Test
Proximate Cause => “the foreseeability” test
“Unforseen Circumstances”
“Zone of Danger”
Palsgraf vs Long Island railroad

Question 19

KEA

Answer 19

KEA: Exceptiomgs tpo the requirements that plaintiff must be able to identify

Question 20

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 20

The thing speaks for itself
Cant identify what defendent did that was negligent
Plaintiff cant have done anything to contribute to accident
Thing could not have happened without negligence

Question 21

Negligence Per Se

Answer 21

• Defendant violated a statute intended to protect others like Plaintiff
• Assists plaintiff in (1) establishing that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of Care, and (2) proving Defendent Breached the Duty of Care Owed to Plaintiff

Question 22

Defenses to Negligence

Answer 22

• Assumption of the Risk
• Superseding Cause (as opposed to intervening cause)
• Comparative Fault
• Last Clear Chance

Question 23

Assumption of the Risk

Answer 23

• The risk assumed must be inherent to the activity
• The activity itself must be inherently dangerous
• Inherent: even when done properly there is a high probability of danger

Question 24

Superseding Cause (as opposed to intervening cause)

Answer 24

Eggshell skull doctrine: defendant who commits a negligent act takes the defendant as they find them

Question 25

Comparative Fault Elements:

Answer 25

Contributory Negligence

Comparative Negligence

Modified Comparative Negligence

Question 26

Last Clear Chance

Answer 26

If the plaintiff had taken action, they would have avoided injury
(very rare occurrence)

Question 27

Comp Fault: Contributory Negligence

Answer 27

• If the judge or jury finds that plaintiff, by own negligence, at all contributes to the accident then plaintiff recovers nothing

Question 28

Comp Fault: Comparative Negligence

Answer 28

Plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault allocated to plaintiff by judge or jury

Question 29

Comp Fault: Modified Comparative Negligence

Answer 29

Two step process: If judge or jury finds that plaintiff is more at fault than defendant, then plaintiff recovers nothing. If defendant is more at fault, follow comparative negligence

Question 30

Strict Liability

Answer 30

If plaintiff had taken action, they wouldve avoided injury