LGST 101 Tort Law Flashcards
Tort
A civil wrong in which one person’s conduct causes a compensable injury to the person, property, or recognized interests of another, in violation of a duty imposed by law
Jurisprudential justifications for torts
- Morality/justice—> helps compensate the victim of such harm
- Social or economic policy/social utility–> good to compensate the victims
- Procedural efficiency–> efficient in awarding the damages
- Formal reasoning–> proper reasons in who needs to pay
Who do we need torts
Compensation of those harmed as a result of someone else’s conduct
Preventive—> forces you to behave
Placement of costs on those who, based on one of several jurisprudential considerations, ought to bear it
Some particular action and identify the person, risk is not insubstantial and not the type the community accepts, and the tortfeasor is capable of reducing or eliminating the risks or its consequences
Tortfeasor
Person who committed the tortious act
Compensatory damages
Damages awarded to compensate the victims for the sum of their actual injury or loss. Harms that can be translated to money in tort law.
In general, tort comes to bear when:
- We can identify a particular person as responsible for the creation of the risk;
- The risk is not insubstantial and is not of a type the community accepts
- And the tortfeasor is capable of reducing or eliminating the risk or its consequences
Intentional Tort Definition
- The defendant actually intended to harm the plaintiff in some way and
- The action was purposeful and knowing
Battery and Assault
Battery is the intentional and unpermitted physical contact with plaintiff. Intentional contact actually happens
Assault is the intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Doesn’t need to actually happen
Transferred Intent
Defendant’s intent to commit a harmful act, or to harm someone, can be attributed to the defendant’s actions
False imprisonment
When the defendant confines the plaintiff into boundaries set by the defendant
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional disturbance to another
Intentional Torts Involving Interference with Property
Nuisance (annoyance)
Conversion (wrongfully taking over personal property of someone else)
Trespass (real property: intent to enter someone’s property without their permission and with personal property: intentional act by defendant that interferes with the personal property of a plaintiff)
Intentional Torts Involving Interference with Economic Interests
Interfering with contractual relationships where a valid contract existed, defendant had knowledge of the contract, defendant acted intentionally and improperly, and plaintiff was injured by defendant’s conduct
Commercial disparagement/ interference with prospective business advantage
Oral or written publication of a disparaging statement about a business where the statement is false, the publisher either intends publication to cause financial loss or reasonably should recognize the publication would result in financial loss, the financial loss does in fact result, and the publisher either knows the statement is false or acts in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity
Fraudulent misrepresentation
When a defendant says something is true (knowing it is false) to make the plaintiff rely on the fact, and the plaintiff actually did rely on it and shows damages from doing so.
Some defenses to intentional torts
Consent (express or implied)
Privilege (self defense or defense of others)
Defense of property (BUT human life > property)
Necessity (harm being threatened > harm caused)
Negligence
Not intended, but the defendant failed to act with reasonable care in conducting his or her actions
Requirements for negligence
Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages
Duty
Some responsibility or obligation for something that the defendant owed the plaintiff (like a contract) Duty if (one of these) 1. Defendant created risk which resulted in plaintiff's harm 2. Voluntary undertaking: The defendant volunteered to protect plaintiff from harm 3. Knowledge: Defendant knows/should know that his conduct will harm the plaintiff 4. Business/voluntary relationships: Business owner and customer; innkeeper and guest; land possessor who opens her land to the public; person who voluntarily takes custody of another person
Breach
Breach of the duty (failure to do the duty)
Use either:
1. Risk utility test: Risks foreseen by defendant vs. utility of their action, or
2. Learned hand test: Burden (B) of taking precautions against the probability (P) of and gravity of loss (L)
–> If B
Causation
Proof that the defendant’s breach caused the injury
Can use cause in fact (but for test) or legal causation (proximate cause, who’s held legally accountable)
In Fact: “But for” Test
If Y couldn’t have occurred without X, then X is a cause in fact of Y
Substitutes for but for test
Alternative cause–Multiple defendants, one of whom must have caused it, but impossible or impractical to determine which one caused the negligence
Concurrent cause–Actions of multiple defendants, combined, are viewed as the cause of the injury
Legal Causation/Proximate Cause
This test asks whether the defendant’s actions are closely enough related to the result to make the defendant responsible
Should be a more directly related to the injuries occurring
Should be a foreseeable victim, foreseeable harm, and possible superseding forces
Was the event foreseeable on our end? If so, then liable. If not, probably not.
Compare it to the reasonable, normal person
- Damages
There must be some injury to the plaintiff or property harm
Compensatory damages and restore to the state it was in before (reliance damages)
Negligence per se
When negligence arises from a law meant to protect the public (speed limit or building code)
Plaintiff doesn’t need to prove a reasonable person should have acted differently–automatically considered negligent and should therefore focus on how proximately it caused damage to the plaintiff
Res ipsa loquitur
The thing speaks for itself–allows plaintiffs to not fully prove something is negligence
Must prove:
1. The incident was of a type that doesn’t generally happen without negligence
2. It was caused by an instrument solely in defendant’s control (exclusive control)
3. Plaintiff didn’t contribute to the cause
Escola v. Coca Cola
A coke bottle exploded in the hands of a waitress who was moving the bottles into a refrigerator. Reasoning 1 states that Coke is liable under negligence. Reasoning 2 states that negligence is not necessary to be proven, as Res Ipsa Loquitur prevails
Contributory and Comparative Negligence
Contributory: If plaintiff has contributed even a little bit of harm, can’t recover (outdated as increased industry has led to more injuries)
Comparative: Whoever has caused more of the harm
Cohen v. Petty
Petty is not negligent for crashing a car, as his illness that caused the crash was unanticipated, and there was no reason to think he would have such an illness.
Lubitz v. Wells
Wells is not negligent for leaving a golf club lying around, as the golf club is not so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligent to just leave it in the yard
Strict Liability
When a defendant is liable based on the defendant having caused some harm to the plaintiff regardless of the defendant’s intention or lack of care–the thing happened, and they must be liable. Typically happens with wild animals and abnormally dangerous activities and products liability (see below)
Spano and Davis v. Perini
Spano and Davis are awarded damages from their garage and car being damaged by Perini’s blasting despite not showing the blaster was negligent. Instead, strict liability gives them the award
Products Liability
The liability of any or all parties when making the product (manufacturer of component parts, assembling manufacture, wholesaler, retain store owner
When product contains inherent defects causing harm to a consumer or someone the product was given
History of products liability
Used to be limited to the parties in the contract but now it expands to more people (see privity below)
Types of products liability claims (can claim multiple)
Negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability
Product Liability Negligence
Lack of ordinary care when making a product causing it to be defective. Anyone who contributed to product causing the injury can be liable under negligence, not just the seller (no privity)
Prove the following:
Duty (lack of a due care)
Usual negligence tests as shown above (duty, breach, causation, damages) and consider the standards of profession/skill
Product Liability Breach of Warranty
Violation of an agreement between a seller and a buyer as to the condition, quality, or title of the item sold
Express and implied warranty
Express warranty
Something that the seller promised the buyer and was part of why the buyer bought it
Implied warranty
Something the law imposes on the seller to include as part of the agreement
Implied warranty of merchantability: Product is implied to be of standard quality and fits the ordinary purposes for what the product is used for (car should come with a steering wheel)
Implied warranty of fitness of a particular purpose: If seller knows or has reason to know of a particular purpose for which the goods are required and the buyer is relying on seller’s skill or judgement to select or furnish suitable goods–> product is assumed to do the job for which it is intended
Limitations:
Requires prompt notice of the breach to the seller, requires buyer reliance, seller can limit or disclaim implied warranties
Privity
Breach of warranty requires privity between the injured person and the seller, meaning a legal relationship between the 2 parties must be there.
However, there are alternatives now that relax privity and allow for more people to sue for damages
Other problem with breach of warranty
Sellers can limit warranties in the fine print to restrict claims injured people make
Strict liability with products liability
Like negligence, injured party can seek compensation from whoever was responsible for product being defective, but injured person doesn’t need to discover who exactly failed to do their duty. Product must be defective and unreasonably dangerous
Any party can be liable
Strict liability with products applies when:
- One who sells the product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous condition to the user is subject to strict liability if:
a. The seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and
b. It is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold - The rule applies unless
a. the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of this product, and
b. the user or consumer has not bought the product from or entered into any contractual relation with the seller
Manufacturing defects, design defects, warning defects
