MEE TORTS RULES Flashcards
Intentional Torts Requirements
In order to establish a prima facie case for an intentional tort, the plaintiff must prove the following three elements:
1) Voluntary Act. The defendant’s actions must be voluntary
2) Intent. The defendant must have specific or general intent.
Specific Intent. An actor has a specific intent when the actor acts with the purpose of causing the consequence.
General Intent. An actor has general intent when the actor knows that the consequence is substantially certain to occur.
3) Causation. Causation is satisfied if the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
Transferred Intent
The transferred intent doctrine allows the defendant t obe held liable when the defendant intends to commit an intentional tort against one person but instead commits:
1) A different intentional tort against the same person.
2) The same intentional tort against a different person; or
3) A different intentional tort against a different person.
The transferred intent doctrine applies to intentional torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.
Battery
A battery occurs when the defendant:
1) causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
2) harmful or offensive contact;
a) Harmful contact. Contact is harmful when it causes injury, pain, or illness.
b) Offensive Contact. Contact is offensive when a person of ordinary sensibility would find the contact offensive.
3) To the plaintiff’s person; AND
a) The plaintiff’s person includes anything connected to the plaintiff.
4) Has the specific or general intent.
Assault
1) causes/substantial factor
2) reasonable apprehension
3) of imminent harmful or offensive bodily contact to the plaintiff’s person; and
4) general/specific intent
False Imprisonment
1) causes/substantial factor
2) the confinement of the plaintiff within fixed boundaries; and
3) specific/general intent
Shopkeeper’s privilege: shopkeeper can detain a suspected shoplifter so long as the detainment is reasonable in both time & manner.
IIED
1) extreme or outrageous conduct
2) causes/substantial factor
3) severe emotional distress; and
4) intent to cause severe emotional distress or acts with recklessness
Consent
the plaintiff’s consent to the defendant’s conduct is a defense to intentional torts (not crimes,) provided that:
1) the consent was valid; and
2) the defendant’s conduct remained within the boundaries of the plaintiff’s consent.
3) consent may be express or implied.
Self Defense / Defense of Others
D is not liable for harm to the P if:
1) D reasonably believed P would harm;
2) D used only the amount that was reasonably necessary/proportionate
* D can’t claim self defense if D was the initial aggressor, unless the other party responded to nondeadly force with deadly force.
* D may use reasonable force that is reasonably necessary to prevent tortious harm to property. Deadly force not ok.
Necessity
Private necessity. Defense is private when the D’s act is done to benefit a limited number of people. D must pay for actual damages.
Public necessity. Done for the public good. D is not liable for property damages.
Negligence.
The elements of a prima facie case for negligence are as follows:
1) The D owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a specific standard of care;
2) The defendant breached that duty
3) The breach was the actual and proximate cause of the P’s injuries; and
4) The P sustained actual damages or loss.
Duty - to whom it is owed.
to all foreseeable plaintiff.
Majority (Cardozo). D is liable to those within the zone of danger.
Minority (Andrews). The D owes a duty to everyone harmed.
Affirmative Duty to Act
No affirmative duty to help others unless:
1) D places the P in danger
2) special relationship (innkeeper/guest, family members, etc.)
3) duty imposed by law; or
4) begins to administer aid or attempt to rescue the P.
The Reasonable Person Standard.
Standard of care owed by the D to the P is that of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances as measured by an objective standard. Average mental abilities/knowledge
RBP Standard - Physical Disabilities
Particular physical disabilities may be taken into account.
Intoxication
Intoxicated people are held to the same standard as sober people unless intoxication was involuntary.
Children
- standard of care as a RP child of similar age, experience, and intelligence under the circumstances.
- IF adult activity, age won’t matter.
Trespassers
Traditional approach: three types of trespassers:
discovered/anticipated: owes a duty to discovered/anticipated to warn of hidden dangers on the land that pose a risk of death or serious bodily harm.
undiscovered: no duty
licensee: warn of hidden dangers on the land that pose an unreasonable risk of harm.
invitees. reasonably inspect the land for hidden dangers that pose an unreasonable risk of harm.
rejection of traditional approach: RP standard to landowners for licensee/invitees
Negligence Per Se
statute imposes specific duty for the benefit or protection of others, a violation of the statute will constitute negligence per se if P is:
1) in the class or people statute is meant to protect; and
2) suffers the type of harm the statute was designed to protect against
Res ipsa loquitur
The thing speaks for itself. element of negligence is difficult to prove but the circumstances make it obvious. P must show:
- kind of harm does not occur in the absence of negligence; and
- caused by agent/instrumentality within the exclusive control of the D.
actual + proximate cause
actual. injury would not have occurred BUT FOR defendant’s breach. // if can’t show but for test, substantial factor test is fine.
proximate cause. P must show that her injury was a foreseeable result of the D’s conduct.
intervening cause is an outside force or action that contributes to the P’s harm. If it’s unforeseeable it is a superseding cause.
Fireman’s rule
bars lawsuits by firemen/police officers for collecting on damages that occur in the course of their duties.
Eggshell Rule
Take your victim as you find him rule. D is liable for all harm suffered by the P, even if the P suffers from an unforeseeable, preexisting mental or physical condition that aggravates the harm.
Respondeat Superior
an employer may be liable for torts committed by an employee if:
1) an employee/employer relationship exists; and
2) the employer’s commission of the tort occurs within the scope of employment.
Employer remains liable during employer’s detour but not for a frolic (major deviation)
Are employers liable for employee’s intentional torts?
No unless, intentional tort was authorized by employer; or
force is within the scope of employment in the employee’s work (ex. security guard)
