Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Torts > Negligence > Flashcards

Negligence Flashcards

1
Q

Negligence elements

A
  1. Duty
  2. Breach
  3. Causation
  4. Harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Learned hand formula

A

B < (P x L)
B = burden of precaution
P = possibility of risk
L = loss value

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

When does duty exist in Learned Hand Formula?

A

When B < (P x L)

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

What is typical standard of care?

A

Reasonable prudent person (objective)

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

SOC for adult

A

Must act as a reasonable prudent person would in like circumstances (objective)

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

Is SOC objective or subjective?

A

Objective

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

What are the six additional factors for SOC?

A
  1. Customs
  2. Disability
  3. Child
  4. Professional
  5. Emergency situations
  6. Premises
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the acronym for SOC factors?

A

CDC

PEP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

When are customs not controlling on SOC?

A

When a reasonable person would not follow them

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

Does following customs preclude a finding of negligence?

A

No

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

Does not following customs preclude a finding of negligence

A

No

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

Sudden Emergency Doctrine

A

SOC for person facing sudden emergency not of his making = must act as a reasonable prudent person would have in an emergency

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

Old Age Rule

A
  • Old age by itself does not count as disability
  • Infirmities associated with old age may be considered by jury
  • Examples: osteoporosis, bad hearing, arthritis
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Physical disability SOC

A

Must act as a reasonable prudent person with that physical disability would act

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

Mental disability SOC

A

Must act as a reasonable prudent person would act,, regardless of capacity to comprehend actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Are mentally disabled persons liable for negligent torts?

A

Yes

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

Can employed caretakers sue incapacitated patients for negligence?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Sudden Mental Capacity - Majority View

A

No allowances, even in cases of sudden insanity or mental deficiency

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

Sudden Mental Capacity - Minority View

A

Allowances only when

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

SOC for Child

A

Child of like age, intelligence, and experience UNLESS

  1. engaged in adult activity
  2. engaged in dangerous activity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What are the exceptions for a child SOC?

A
  1. Engaged in adult activity

2. Engaged in dangerous activity

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

Is operating a motor vehicle considered an adult activity (re: Child SOC)?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Is hunting considered engaging in dangerous activity (re: Child SOC)?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What age is SOC applied for a child (majority view)?

A

Not applied = 3-

Applied = 7+

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

SOC for professional

A

Skill, training, and knowledge of ordinary reasonable member of profession (not average)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Is industry-wide standard probative of professional SOC?

A

Yes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

How is evidence of industry-wide standard presented?

A

By expert testimony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

TN’s legal malpractice SOC

A

Statewide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Legal malpractice elements

A
  1. Attorney’s employment
  2. Attorney’s neglect of reasonable duty
  3. Such negligence resulted in and was proximate cause of loss to client
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

SOC options for medical malpractice

A
  1. Locality
  2. National
  3. Similar community
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

TN’s medical malpractice SOC

A

Similar community

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Informed consent doctrine

A

Physician required to inform patient about

  1. Treatment protocol
  2. Available alternatives
  3. Collateral risk
  4. Personal, economic, or research interests that may affect medical judgment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Informed consent doctrine - Majority

A

Objective = what a reasonable prudent person in the patient’s position would have decided if adequately informed of all significant perils at time of decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Informed consent doctrine - Minority

A

Subjective = what the patient would have reasonably decided if adequately informed of all significant perils at time of decisions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Informed consent doctrine - Other

A

Modified objective = what a reasonable prudent person in the patient’s position would have decided

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Exceptions to ICD

A
  1. Common knowledge
  2. Therapeutic privilege
  3. Emergency
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Trespasser

A

Unlawfully on premise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

LO’s duty to trespasser

A
  • No duty to an undiscovered T
  • Limited duty to discovered T to exercise ordinary care
    1. to warn T of or make safe
    2. any dangerous condition
    3. known to LO
    4. that T is unlikely to discover
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Licensee

A

Enters with permission for own purpose (social guest)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

LO’s duty to licensee

A
  • Duty to exercise ordinary care
    2. to warn of or make safe
    3. any dangerous condition
    4. known to the LO
    5. that creates risk of harm and
    6. L is unlikely to discover
  • No duty to inspect for defects or repair known defects
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Invitee

A

Enters with permission in furtherance of LO’s business/purpose (business visitor)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

LO’s duty to invitee

A
  • Duty to exercise ordinary care
    1. to warn of or make safe
    2. any dangerous condition
    3. known to the LO
    4. that creates risk of harm and
    6. L is unlikely to discover
  • PLUS duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Is actual purchase required for visitor to be invitee?

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Fireman’s rule in TN

A

Precludes firefighters/police officers from recovering for injuries arising out of risk particular to their employment (job-related risks)
Exceptions: gross negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Landlord’s duty elements

A
  1. Landlord’s ability to exercise control
  2. Landlord’s advantageous position in exercising that control and minimizing risks and
  3. Landlord’s knowledge of risk for criminal behavior
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

RR Crossing Duty - Majority

A

Stop, look, listen is enough, no need to exit vehicle (TN view)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

RR Crossing Duty - Minority

A

Unyielding duty to stop, look, listen, no matter how clear crossing it (PA rule)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

RR Crossing Duty - TN

A

Stop, look, listen is enough, no need to exit vehicle (majority)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

Establishing duty by rule of law - Majority

A

Need for caution in framing standard of behavior that amounts to rules of law, should be for juries to decide (TN’s view)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

Establishing duty by rule of law - Minority

A

If standard is clear for all situations, court should lay it down and not leave it to jury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Establishing duty by rule of law - TN

A

Need for caution in framing standard of behavior that amounts to rule of law, should be for juries to decide (majority)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

When can a non-tort statute be used to establish duty?

A
  1. P is of a class of persons statute is designed to protect and
  2. P’s injury is of a class of injuries statute is designed to prevent and
  3. Injury was proximately caused by D’s violation of statute and
  4. Civil liability is appropriate (proportionate to criminal liability)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Effects of proof of negligence

A
  1. Negligence per se
  2. Only evidence of negligence
  3. Prima facie case of negligence with a rebuttable presumption of negligence based upon justified excuse
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Effects of proof of negligence - Majority

A

Negligence per se = conclusive evidence of negligence

- TN’s view

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Effects of proof of negligence - Minority

A

Only evidence of negligence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Effects of proof of negligence - Other (Michigan)

A

Prima facie case of negligence with rebuttable presumption based upon justified excuse = proof of duty and breach as a matter of law that may be rebutted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Excused violations for Michigan proof of negligence

A
  1. Actor’s incapacity
  2. Neither knows nor should know of occasion for compliance
  3. Unable after reasonable care to comply
  4. Confronted by emergency not due to his own misconduct
  5. Compliance would involve greater risk of harm to self or others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

Examples of tort-specific statute establishing duty/breach

A
  1. Good Samaritan Law

2. Dram Shop Laws

59
Q

Good Samaritan Law (use)

A

Protects any person who provides emergency rescue from liability if they meet elements

60
Q

Good Samaritan Law (elements)

A
  1. D did not create P’s dangerous condition
  2. D acts in good faith
  3. On a voluntary basis (no legal duty)
  4. In a life-saving, emergency situation
  5. Without committing gross negligence (deliberately acting to add serious harm)
61
Q

Duty to Act - Majority

A

No affirmative duty to act (rescue) unless

  1. D caused P’s dangerous condition
  2. D assumes responsibility to act, thereby increasing risk of harm or reliance by P to her detriment or
  3. Special relationship between D and either
    - Person whose conduct needs to be controlled or
    - Foreseeable victim of that conduct
62
Q

Duty to Act - Minority

A

Must act to save another from peril

63
Q

States with Duty to Act laws

A
  1. Minnesota

2. Vermont

64
Q

Dram Shop Laws (use)

A

Govern civil liability of commercial establishments that serve alcohol

65
Q

TN’s Dram Shop Laws (elements)

A
  • In general, sellers of alcohol have immunity to patrons who subsequently cause injuries to 3P
  • Exceptions
    1. Seller sold alcohol to either minor or visibly intoxicated person
    2. And such person caused injury
    3. As direct result of consumption of alcohol so sold
66
Q

Breach

A

Non-conformity to SOC

67
Q

Gross negligence

A

Failure to exercise even slight care or even care that a careless person would exercise

68
Q

Causation

A

Requires BOTH

  1. CIF
  2. Legal/proximate cause
69
Q

Causation-in-fact

A
  1. Substantial factor in bringing about P’s harm

2. More probable than not that harm was caused by D’s tortious conduct

70
Q

Sine qua non

A

without which (but-for test)

71
Q

Substantial factor

A

P’s evidence must show that it is more probable than not that the harm was caused by D’s tortious conduct

72
Q

CIF BOP

A
  • P bears burden

- Must prove causal link on CIF issue

73
Q

Is possibility insufficient for CIF?

A

No, must be probable, not simply possible

74
Q

Is the possibility that P’s injury may have happened without D’s negligence sufficient to break causal link for CIF?

A

No

75
Q

What do courts consider in determining CIF?

A

Natural and ordinary course of events

76
Q

Eggshell Skull Plaintiff Rule (CIF)

A

D takes victim as he finds him = D is responsible for all natural and probable consequences of his tortious conduct

77
Q

Lost Chance Doctrine - Majority

A
  • Accepts lost chance doctrine
  • Where P claims that D’s conduct has not caused P’s injury itself but has created increased risk or hazard of compensable injury
  • P can recover
78
Q

Recoverable Examples of Lost Chance Doctrine

A
  1. Misdiagnosis
  2. Inappropriate treatment
  3. Delayed treatment
79
Q

Lost Chance Doctrine - Minority

A
  • Rejects lost chance doctrine
  • Where P claims that D’s conduct has not caused P’s injury itself but has created increased risk or hazard of compensable injury
  • P cannot recover
  • TN’s view
80
Q

Lost Chance Doctrine - TN

A
  • Rejects lost chance doctrine
  • Where P claims that D’s conduct has not caused P’s injury itself but has created increased risk or hazard of compensable injury
  • P cannot recover unless shows that more probable than not (greater than 50% chance) that D’s negligence was proximate cause P did not recover or survive
  • Minority view
81
Q

Problems proving CIF

A
  1. Concurrent causes
  2. Alternative liability
  3. Concert of action
  4. Market share liability
  5. Enterprise liability
82
Q

Concurrent causes (problem/solution)

A

Problem:

  • Two independent, concurrent causes combine to cause damages
  • Either alone would have caused damages (substantial factor)

Solution:

  • Both Ds are liable
  • When event other than negligence appears predominant, negligence is not considered substantial factor
83
Q

Alternative liability (problem/solution)

A

Problem:

  • P can establish that both D’s breached duty of care
  • But negligence of only one could have caused injury

Solution
- BOP for causation shifts to Ds to absolve themselves

84
Q

When an event other than D’s alleged negligence appears predominant, what happens to alleged negligence?

A

Not considered a substantial factor

85
Q

Concert of action (problem/solution)

A

Problem:
- Ds working pursuant to agreed upon plan, encouraging one another, substantially assist one another

Solution:
- All Ds are CIF

86
Q

Market share (problem/solution)

A

Problem:

  • Several manufacturers produce identical product that injure P
  • Impossible to know which manufacturer produced specific product that caused P’s injury

Solution:
- D’s liability is proportionate to their substantial share of overall market

87
Q

In market share liability, what options do Ds have?

A
  1. Opt-out if manufacturer can prove its product could not have caused P’s injuries
  2. Cross-complaint permitted against other possible Ds
88
Q

Suicide in TN (proximate cause)

A
  1. In general, suicide is
    - not a superseding, intervening cause of death as a matter of law
    - a question of fact to be resolved at trial
  2. Crucial Q: whether D’s negligent conduct led to or made it reasonably foreseeable that deceased would commit suicide
    - if yes, suicide is not independent intervening cause = does not break chain of legal causation
89
Q

Social Host Liability in TN

A
  • By statute
  • No legal claim against person who furnished alcohol to person who subsequently caused injury to 3P
  • Distinction between individuals who sells alcohol and individuals who furnish alcohol
  • Exception to no liability for social host = minors
  • Minor exception applies to both host who furnished alcohol and host who merely permits minor to drink at their home
90
Q

In TN, if a person is injured by an intoxicated person, is there a legal claim against the person who furnished the alcohol?

A

No, unless intoxicated person is a minor

91
Q

In TN, is there liability for a social host who furnishes or permits alcohol in their home? What is the exception?

A

No, unless social host either furnished alcohol to minor (who then injured 3P) or permitted minor to drink in home

92
Q

Social Host Liability - Minority

A

Liability for social host who serves alcohol to adult social guest if
1. Knows guest was intoxicated and
2. Knows guest would be subsequently operating a motor vehicle
= social host is responsible to harm caused by guest to 3P

93
Q

Public Policy of Proximate/Legal Cause

A

May be used to cut off D’s liability when court/jury decided it would be unjust under circumstances to hold D liable, even if D’s conduct was CIF of P’s injury

94
Q

Proximate Cause - Majority

A 
Foreseeability doctrine (risk principle/foreseeable risk rule)
- TN's view
95
Q

Proximate Cause - Minority

A

Direct consequences rule

- not TN’s view

96
Q

Proximate Cause - TN

A
  • Majority view
  • Foreseeability doctrine
  • Looks to foreseeability as integral part of duty determination
  • Factors
    1. P’s Harm - Foreseeability
    2. P’s Harm - Magnitude
    3. D’s Conduct - Social value
    4. D’s Conduct - Usefulness
    5. Alt. Conduct - Feasibility
    6. Alt. Conduct - Usefulness
    7. Alt.Conduct - Relative Safety
    6. Alt. Conduct - Relative Cost/Burden
97
Q

Direct consequences rule

A
  • Minority view
  • Not TN’s view
  • If D’s negligence’s is direct cause of P’s injury = legal/proximate cause
  • Foreseeable extent of damages is irrelevant
98
Q

Foreseeability doctrine

A
  • Majority view
  • TN’s view
  • Foresight of reasonable man determines responsibility
  • Type of harm must be reasonably foreseeable
  • D is not liable for unforeseeable consequences, even if direct
99
Q

TN’s Duty Determination Factors (8)

A
  1. Foreseeability of harm
  2. Magnitude of harm
  3. Social value of D’s activity
  4. Usefulness of D’s conduct
  5. Feasibility of alternative conduct
  6. Relative costs and burden
  7. Usefulness of safer conduct
  8. Relative safety of alternative conduct
100
Q

Zone of danger

A

Negligence is legal/proximate cause if

  1. Harm is general type that made conduct unreasonable in first place
  2. P was within zone of danger
101
Q

Harm (in negligence torts)

A

Actual loss

102
Q

Proof of harm

A
  1. Direct evidence
  2. Circumstantial evidence
  3. Res ipsa loquitur
103
Q

Direct evidence

A

Evidence sought to be proved

104
Q

Circumstantial evidence

A

Evidence from which fact sought to be proved may be inferred

105
Q

Slip and Fall elements

A
  1. Owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of condition on premises
  2. Condition posed unreasonable risk of harm
  3. Owner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk and
  4. Owner’s failure to use such care proximately caused P’s injuries
106
Q

Circumstantial evidence in Slip and Fall

A

Must establish it is more likely than not that dangerous condition existed long enough to give owner reasonable opportunity to discover condition

107
Q

Actual or Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall

A
  1. Store employee was present in immediate area or
  2. Substance had been on floor for such a time that it would have been discovered and removed had proprietor exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises
108
Q

Res ipsa loquitur (meaning)

A

The thing speaks for itself

109
Q

When should RIL be considered?

A

Whenever desperate P is having difficulty showing how injury happened/exact nature of D’s negligence

110
Q

Res ipsa loquitur (elements)

A
  1. Accident is one that does not ordinarily occur without negligence
  2. Accident was caused by instrumentality within D’s exclusive control and
  3. Accident was not due to an involuntary action of contribution by P
111
Q

Res ipsa loquitur effect - Majority

A

Permissive inference of negligence

- from which reasonable jury may conclude negligence but does not require finding of negligence

112
Q

Res ipsa loquitur effect - Minority

A

Rebuttable presumption of negligence

- entitles P to win if D does not rebut claim

113
Q

Effects of RIL

A
  1. Permissive inference of negligence (majority)

2. Rebuttable presumption of negligence (minority)

114
Q

Wrongful death and survival statutes

A

Legislation to deal with death of either P or D regarding causes for personal injuries

115
Q

Wrongful death

A
  1. Brought by defined beneficiaries of deceased to recover for injuries caused by death
  2. Damages go to beneficiaries
  3. Not subject to creditors of deceased’s estate
116
Q

Defined beneficiaries for wrongful death

A
  1. Spouses
  2. Parents
  3. Children
117
Q

Survival

A
  1. Brought by decedent’s estate
  2. Damages go to decedent’s estate
  3. Subject to creditors of decedent’s estate
118
Q

What duty does a LO owe children in Attractive Nuisance Doctrine?

A

LO owes children a duty of ordinary care

  1. to avoid reasonably foreseeable
  2. risk of harm to children
  3. caused by artificial conditions
  4. on his property
119
Q

Attractive Nuisance Elements

A
  1. Dangerous condition present on land of which owner is or should be aware
  2. Owner knows or should know that young persons frequent the vicinity of this dangerous condition
  3. Condition is likely to cause injury (dangerous) because of child’s inability to appreciate risk
  4. Expense of remedying the situation is slight compared to magnitude of risk
120
Q

What are examples of Attractive Nuisance?

A
  1. Abandoned automobiles
  2. Lumber piles
  3. Sand bins
  4. Elevators
121
Q

What is typically not an Attractive Nuisance?

A

Bodies of water, unless contains elements of unusual danger to children (sticks/logs, path of scum looks walkable)

122
Q

Legal/proximate cause BOP

A
  1. BOP is on P to prove all actors engaged in tortious conduct as factual cause of P’s harm
  2. Once P proves that, BOP shift to Ds to prove they were not cause/other D was cause
123
Q

Intervening force

A

One which actively operates in producing harm to another after the actor’s negligent act or omission has been committed

124
Q

Superseding act

A

Act of a third person or other force which by its intervention prevents the actor from being liable for harm to another which his antecedent negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about

125
Q

What must a superseding act be?

A
  1. Extraordinary
  2. Unforeseeable
  3. Independent from D’s conduct
  4. Intentional or criminal acts (malicious or wanton)
126
Q

Does an intervening act of a 3P severe the causal connection between D’s negligence and P’s injury?

A

No, only if it’s a superseding case

127
Q

When does an intervening act of 3P severe the causal connection between D’s negligence and P’s injury?

A

When the intervening act is a superseding cause

128
Q

When are intentional or criminal acts not superseding causes?

A

Where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk which renders the actor negligent

129
Q

NIED Physical Impact Rule

A

No recovery for pure mental injuries without physical impact unless

  1. objective, definite physical injury results and
  2. P’s emotional reaction is within normal reactions
130
Q

What are the exceptions to the Physical Impact Rule?

A
  1. Death telegraphs

2. Mishandling corpses

131
Q

NIED Thing Rule

A

No recovery unless P

  1. Establishes close familial relationship with victim
  2. Contemporaneous perception (aware that it is causing injury and present at scene) and
  3. Serious emotional distress results
132
Q

What are the three types of possible NIED claims in TN?

A

Claim arises when

  1. Person suffers purely emotional injury as a result of the negligence of another
  2. P witnesses injury-producing event
  3. P does not witness injury-producing event
133
Q

NIED elements when P witnesses injury-producing event

A
  1. P’s sensory observation of event (sufficiently near to allow it)
  2. P’s close relationship with injured/deceased
  3. 3P’s injury was (or reasonably perceived to be) serious or fatal and
  4. Expert medical or scientific evidence that P has suffered a severe emotional injury
134
Q

NIED elements when P does not witness injury-producing event

A
  1. P’s observation of actual or apparent death/serious injury at the scene of accident before scene has been materially altered
  2. P’s close relationship with injured/deceased
  3. 3P’s injury was (or reasonably perceived to be) serious or fatal and
  4. Expert medical or scientific evidence that P has suffered a severe emotional injury
135
Q

NIED elements when P suffers purely emotional injury

A

Evidence of

  1. Physiological manifestations of emotional distress
  2. Psychological manifestations of emotional distress
  3. Seeking medical treatment, diagnosis of medical/psychiatric disorder, and/or prescription for medication
  4. Duration and intensity of P’s physiological symptoms, and medical treatment
  5. Significant impairment in his or her daily functioning and
  6. Extreme and outrageous character of D’s conduct
136
Q

What are examples of evidence of physiological manifestations of emotional distress?

A
  1. Nausea
  2. Vomiting
  3. Headaches
  4. Severe weight changes
137
Q

What are examples of evidence of psychological manifestations of emotional distress?

A
  1. Sleeplessness
  2. Depression
  3. Anxiety
  4. Crying spells or emotional outbursts
  5. Nightmares
  6. Drug and/or alcohol abuse
  7. Unpleasant mental reactions such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliations, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry
138
Q

When is D’s intentional invasion unreasonable?

A
  1. Gravity of harm outweighs the utility of actor’s conduct or
  2. Harm caused by conduct is serious and financial burden of compensation would not make continuance unfeasible
139
Q

Gravity of D’s Harm Factors

A
  1. Harm: Extent
  2. Harm: Character
  3. Use/enjoyment Invaded: Social value that law attaches to type of use or enjoyment invaded
  4. Use/enjoyment Invaded: Suitability to character of locality
  5. Victim: Burden on person harmed of avoiding harm
140
Q

Utility of D’s Conduct Factors

A
  1. Conduct: Social value law attaches to its primary purpose
  2. Conduct: Suitability of it to locality’s character
  3. Conduct: Maliciousness or indecency to community
  4. Prevention: Impracticability of preventing or avoiding the invasion
141
Q

TN’s view on premises liability

A

TN is only liable to trespassers for willful or wanton behavior (minority view)

142
Q

ICD duty/breach (majority)

A

Reasonable physician would disclose

143
Q

ICD duty/breach (minority)

A

Reasonable patient would want to know

144
Q

TN’s view on RIL

A

Permissive inference of negligence (majority)

Torts (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions