Kaplan Torts MBE Flashcards
If a college coach had “no reason to believe that certain situation [such as a storm] presented a danger to his players,” and that lightening or danger came “suddenly,” under what theory is the school and coach liable
If a player’s death is an accident, the coach (and the school board) may be liable for the wrongful death if the coach and board were negligent for continued practice in a spite of a storm or the condition. However, the facts state that the coach had “no reason to believe the situation presented a danger to his players.” Therefore, if the coach had no reason to know of the danger, he did not act unreasonably and, therefore, was not negligent.
In order to recover for slander, a private citizen must plead and prove
Special damages (i.e. pecuniary loss).
To recover for infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiff must suffer
severe emotional distress
What kind of suffering does NOT constitute sever emotional distress under a claim for infliction of emotional distress or intentional infliction of emotional distress
1- Hurt feelings 2- Seriously hurt feelings 3- Very upset 4- Unkind 5- Unreasonable 6- If you get negligent it is a distraction of an answer because negligence is not an element of IIED
The elements of the tort action for deceit may be summarized as follows:
(1) a false representation made by the defendant (usually this representation must be one of fact); (2) knowledge or belief on the part of the defendant that the representation is false; (3) an intention to induce the plaintiff to act or to refrain from action in reliance upon the misrepresentation; (4) justifiable reliance upon the representation on the part of the plaintiff; and (5) damage to the plaintiff, resulting from such reliance.
The threshold question for Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress requires that conduct
by the defendant that was extreme and outrageous. That is a stringent requirement, demanding that the conduct really be “beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious.”
The rescue doctrine means that
The fact that someone will try to come to the rescue when others are in danger is regarded as a foreseeable occurrence. As Judge Cardozo put it, “danger invites rescue.” A rescuer who is injured during the rescue attempt, therefore, can recover against the person whose negligence created the need for someone to come to the rescue.
What conduct is not required in order to hold a defendant liable under the rescue doctrine
Intent is not necessary, and it does not matter whether the defendant intended to hurt himself, or anyone else, or if the conduct is criminal or not.
As a general rule, either a law enforcement officer or a private citizen will not be liable for an arrest when
when an arrest occurs without a warrant to prevent a felony or breach of the peace that is being committed–or reasonably appears about to be committed “In His Presence”.
Either a law enforcement officer or a private citizen will be liable for an arrest when
Once the crime has been committed and completed, which is generally outside the presence of the officer or private citizen, but his authority depends upon the fact that the person actually did commit the crime, and the officer or private citizen take the full risk of a mistaken arrest. As a result, he must take the full risk for falsely arresting the man. Therefore, pointing the pistol to assist the arrest, can create liability for assault.
Consent is generally a defense to an
intentional tort claim. Consent is to the defendant’s conduct, rather than its consequences. Thus, if the plaintiff willingly engages in a boxing match, he does not consent to be killed, although he does consent to the defendant hitting him if he can and, consequently, if death unexpectedly results, his consent to the act will defeat any action for the invasion of his interest.
As a general rule, a person is not held liable for failing to control the conduct of a third person unless
A special relationship exists between the parties.
What are the types of “Special Relationships” that give rise to liability for the conduct of a third person
(1) innkeeper and guest; (2) common carrier and passenger; (3) school and pupil; (4) landlord and tenant; (5) jailer and prisoner; and (6) employer and employee.
A landlord has the responsibility to act for the protection of his tenants, and will be held liable if
his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of harm to the plaintiff (other tenants) due to or through the criminal or tortious acts of others, and as a result, the owner will be subject to liability if he was aware that such a danger existed on account of his tenants and took no action.
