Chapter 7 Torts: Private Wrongs Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

LAW OF TORTS

A

*DEFINING the duties and rights people have to each other.
*comes from Common Law of England.
*Latin - “to twist”
*concerns compensating victims for wrongful or unacceptable conduct and
sometimes public policy reasons.
*TL is a vehicle through which both claims for compensation by victims, and sometimes demands for punishment, can be administered.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

WHAT IS A TORT

A

A private wrong* committed that injures another -victim- in person or property and for which society allows the legal remedy of monetary charges.

  • other than breach of contract
  • an injury from another
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

tortfeasor / joint tortfeasors

A

wrongdoer / two or more wrongdoers /who are liable for particular injuries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Three classes of torts

A

intentional
negligent
strict liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

intentional tort

A

purposely commits some act that injures the victim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

difference between crimes and torts

A

Torts are Civil Law and not necessarily motivated by evil motivations
Crimes are Criminal Law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

NEGLIGENCE

A

Carelessness; failing to act as a reasonable person under the same circumstances, thereby causing injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Eight types of intentional torts

A
ASSAULT
BATTERY
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL DISTRESS
DEFAMATION
INVASION OF PRIVACY
CONVERSION OR THEFT
FRAUD
BAD FAITH
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

ELEMENTS OF NEGLIGENCE

A
  • Is there a DUTY OF CARE
  • duty of care breached through UNREASONABLE CONDUCT
  • was the result of above breech an injury to the defendant
  • was the breach of duty the cause of the victim’s injury
  • was the injury unforeseeable by a reasonable person?

(“Is there any social policy under which the liability ought to be cut off? p 229)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Most torts arise from roles as consumers, commuters, employees.

A

TRUE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

STRICT LIABILITY

A

A person is held responsible for harm to another without proof of fault.

*liability without fault

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Examples of sources of injuries that invoke STRICT LIABILITY

A

inherently dangerous activities;
wild animals;
explosives;
sale of defective products

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What proof is needed for strict liability?

A

An injury occurred and damages were suffered, and the injury was caused by a predictor act to which strict liability attaches, such as airplane crashes or defective consumer products.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The determination of absolute liability is a question of law for juries.

A

FALSE

The determination of absolute liability is a question of law for courts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

WHAT IS THE RESTATEMENT OF TORTS BALANCING TEST

*strict liability torts

A

A test of Abnormally Dangerous Activities

  • a: existence of a high degree of rich of some harm to the person, land, chattel
  • b: likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great
  • c: inability to eliminate the risk by the exercise of reasonable care.
  • d: extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage.
  • e: inappropriateness of the activity to the pace where it is carried on; and
  • f: extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

RES IPSA LOQUITUR what is the literal translation

A

The Thing Speaks For Itself

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

A
  • Inference of the defendant’s breach of duty
  • when courts infer that duty was breached. (as opposed to the victim’s proof of such)
  • The burden of proof shifts to the defendant, who must prove that he or she was not negligent.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Contributory Negligence

A

The negligence of a plaintiff that helped to cause a tort, and is usually barred from claiming damages if injured.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Assumption of Risk

A

When a plaintiff had knowledge of the dangerous conditions and voluntarily exposes him or herself to the particularly risk of injury.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

BAD FAITH

intentional tort

A

The deliberate failure to fulfill some duty or contractual obligation owed to another.

  • a purposeful failure to act on a promise or duty.
  • a duty of good faith and fair dealing.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

STATUTE OF REPOSE

A

A type of statute of limitations that specifies An absolute time during which cause of action must be brought to collect damages. The cuts the liability for injury after a specific amount of time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Levy

*torts/damages

A

A levy is a process whereby a court official confiscates assets of a judgement debtor to satisfy the judgment.

23
Q

attractive nuisance docterine

A

minors who trespass may collect damages if attracted on to the defendant’s premises where they are injured by a man-made instrumentality that has special appeal to children (such as a railroad turntable or an unfenced swimming pool).

24
Q

tests of attractive-nuisance doctrine

A

1) whether the defendant knew, or should have known, of the likelihood of trespassing children, and of the unreasonable risk of death or serious or injury to them from an artificial (ie man-made) condition
2) whether the children, because of their youth, do not realize the risk involved;
3) whether the benefit of maintaining the condition, coupled with the burden or cost of eliminating the hazard, s slight compared with the risk to the children.

25
Q

licensees

A

those on property with implied or express permission such as guests, postal service workers, utility workers, health inspectors, etc.

26
Q

Premises Liability

A

reasonable duty of care to licensees. No duty to inspect for dangerous conditions that are not obvious, but once made aware must repair or warn licensees.

27
Q

invitees

A

one who enters another’s land with the permission (implied or express) of the owner or occupier, for a matter of business benefitting the owner or occupier.

28
Q

business premises

A

require a high duty of care, which is owed to invitee. This means the owner must routinely inspect for dangerous conditions and either correct them or clearly warn the invitees.

29
Q

conditions to prove Business Premises liability

A
  1. the premises were in a dangerously defective condition
  2. the condition was the result of the store owner’s conduct, or the owner was made aware and given time to correct the dangerous condition.
  3. the usual rules of causation were satisfied.
30
Q

To recover damages

A

a person must suffer a loss, harm, wrong, or invasion of a protected interest.

31
Q

The purpose of tort law

A

to compensate people for legally recognized injuries that result from unreasonable behavior.

32
Q

What distinguishes a tort from a crime?

A

a crime does not require an injury. A tort requires a harm or injury.

33
Q

duty

A

The mandatory obligation enforceable in court to recognize and respect the person, property, and rights of others. Legal duty is the reciprocal of legal right.

34
Q

Everyone has a duty imposed by law to behave with due care as a reasonable, prudent (i.e. cautious and careful) person would behave under the same or similar circumstances.

A

behave with due care as a reasonable, prudent (i.e. cautious and careful) person would behave under the same or similar circumstances.

35
Q

Elements of Negligence

A
  • Did the defendant owe a duty of care to the injured victim?
  • Did the defendant breach that duty through unreasonable conduct?
  • Did the plaintiff suffer an injury as a result of the defendant’s breach of the duty of care?
  • Did the defendant’s breach of duty cause the victim’s injury?
  • Is there any social policy under which the defendant’s liability ought to be cut off? For example, what the injury so remote from the defendant’s act that it would be unforeseeable by a reasonable person?
36
Q

reasonable person test

A

determines the standard for duty of care:
we have a duty to act as carefully or prudently as a so-called reasonable person would act under all of the circumstances existing at the time.

37
Q

when are we liable to a victim we injure?

A

If we owe that victim a duty of care and

If there is no social policy cutting off our responsibility.

38
Q

who determines what is considered reasonable?

A

The jury or judge (if there is no jury)

39
Q

Determinants of duty:

A
  • the forseeability or likeliness of harm to the victim
  • the proximity or closeness between the unreasonable act and the injury,
  • the moral blameworthiness of the defendant.
  • the public policy of preventing future harm;
  • the financial burden on the defendant and the community imposing the liability.
  • the availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.
40
Q

The Standard of Care

A

Ordinary Care: what would a reasonable person have done under the same or similar circumstances?

41
Q

An accident

A

A sudden, unexpected, unintended happening that causes injury or death or loss of property.

42
Q

When is nobody at fault for an accident

A

Natural disaster like an earthquake or natural landside.

43
Q

When is their fault for an accident

A

When someone did something or failed to do something that caused an injury.

44
Q

How do courts determine whether duty of care is breached:

A
  • Nature of the act: (outrageous or commonplace)
  • how the act is performed ( cautiously or carelessly)
  • the relationship to the parties (landowner duty to trespasser)
  • the nature of the injury (serious or slight)

foreseeable consequences

45
Q

What must have caused a harm for a tort to be committed?

A

The wrongful activity from the failure of duty of care.

46
Q

Two questions to determine is there is causation:

A
  1. Is there an actual cause?

2. Was the act the proximate cause of the injury?

47
Q

Foreseeability is not required to prove a duty

A

FALSE

Without forseeability, There is no duty to act or refrain from action.

48
Q

The extent of the injury determines liability

A

FALSE

Fault determines liability

49
Q

What determines negligence

A

Breech of duty

50
Q

Without ______ there is no duty
Without duty there is no _________
Without _______there is no Fault
Without fault there is no liability.

A

without forseeability there is no duty
Without duty there is no neglilgence.
without negligence there is no fault
without fault there is no liability

51
Q

if something is forseeable there is a duty of care
if there is a breach of duty of care, there is negligence.
If there is negligence, there is fault of injury
if there is fault of injury, there is liability.

A

tort of negligence standards

52
Q

The question of forseeability is not an element of

A

causation

53
Q

the question of forseeability does not arise until the issue of causation has been determined.

A

when does the question of forseeability arise

54
Q

a causal relation is not required to prove negligence

A

false. In the absence of causal relation plaintiff has no case.