PATorts

Question 1

False Imprisonment: PA Shopkeeper Privilege

Answer 1

If PC, may restrain for rsnble time, in rsnble manner on or off premises, for purpose of: (i) obtaining + verifying ID; (ii) learning if unpurchased goods in possession; or (iii) instituting criminal proceedings

Question 2

PA Mutual Consent to Combat

Answer 2

May recover actual damages from each other, but not punitive

Question 3

PA Self Defense Same for Crim + Torts

Answer 3

• No duty to retreat from home/work unless initial aggressor or attacked by co-worker (R2 = duty to retreat prior to use of deadly force if can do so safely)
• Can stand ground + use deadly force outside home/work if: not engaged in illegal activity, had a rt to be there, other person displays deadly weapon

Question 4

PA Good Samaritan Statute

Answer 4

No action for *ordinary* negligence v. person providing emergency medical care in good faith (gross negligence/recklessness); extends to vets giving emergency care unless animal’s owner present

Question 5

PA Negligence of Children

Answer 5

< 7 conclusively incapable of negligence

7 <> 14 rebuttably presumed incapable

> 14 presumed capable

Question 6

Negligence of Physician in PA

Answer 6

GPs judged according to custom of GPs in “same or similar locale,” but medical specialists held to nat’l standard

Question 7

PA: Duty of Dr to Obtain Informed Consent

Answer 7

• Operating on patient w/out informed consent = battery, not negligence
• Dr. must disclose risks reasonable person would need in order to decide whether to undergo procedure

Question 8

PA Duty of Landpossessor to Trespasser

Answer 8

Refrain from misconduct that is willful (desired or substantially certain) or wanton (reckless disregard of risk)

Question 9

PA: Duty to Invitees

Answer 9

Duty to protect from any foreseeable harm, including duty to ensure premises free from known dangers + those could be discovered w/ reasonable care

Question 10

PA: Landowner’s Duty to Off-Premise Victims for Tree Damage

Answer 10

Liable if: (i) condition of tree + risk could be discovered by rsnble care; and (ii) condition could have been made safe

Question 11

PA Res Ipsa

Answer 11

PA dn require D had exclusive control of the agent or instrumentality that caused harm, only that evidence sufficiently eliminates other possible causes

Question 12

PA But-For Causation in Med Mal Actions

Answer 12

If P unable to prove causal connection to reasonable degree of medical certainty, P can submit question of causation to jury so long as evidence that dr’s negligence increased risk of injury

Question 13

PA Collateral-Source Rule in Negligence Actions

Answer 13

Payments to P from outside sources (ie: insurance) not credited against liability of any tortfeasor, nor is evidence of any such payments admissible at trial

Question 14

PA Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (4 Theories)

Answer 14

1. impact standard (D caused physical impact)
2. close relative from beyond zone of danger)
3. zone of danger standard (P was in personal danger of physical impact + actually feared it)
4. preexisting fiduciary or K’ual relationship if foreseeable

Question 15

PA Wrongful Death + Survival Actions

Answer 15

• Must be brought in same action to avoid double recovery
• Child can recover for loss of companionship of dead parent, but not vv

Question 16

PA Wrongful Life/Birth

Answer 16

Both prohibited, but does allow “wrongful pregnancy” action

Question 17

PA Vicarious Liability Rules

Answer 17

• Dn recognize family purpose doctrine; car owner only liable if master-servant relationship (ie: rt to control driver’s actions)
• Parents liable for tortious acts of minor kids up to $1K per person, capped at $2.5K; no right of indemnity

Question 18

PA Dram Shop/Social Host Liability

Answer 18

• Bar owners who sell to “visibly intoxicated persons” liable to 3d party in negligence, not SL
• Adult social host who knowingly serves minor liable for injuries caused, but if over 14, defense of comp neg available

Question 19

PA Contribution among Tortfeasors

Answer 19

• Settling tortfeasor has no right of contribution from non-settling tortfeasor
• Even if settlor pays more than his fair share, non-settlor must still pay his whole share

Question 20

PA Several (Not Joint) Liability

Answer 20

General rule = D only responsible for proportion of damages in ratio to his liability; exceptions: (i) intentional torts/misrep; (ii) D > 60% liable

Question 21

PA “Sudden Emergency” Defense in Negligence Action

Answer 21

No “last clear chance” doctrine, but does allow D to claim defense of “sudden emergency,” meaning he had limited time to react + exhibited honest exercise of judgment under circs (not available if D driving carelessly or recklessly at time)

Question 22

PA Partial Comparative Fault

Answer 22

P may only recover if own negligence 50% or less or where D engaged in wanton or willful misconduct

Question 23

PA Assumption of Risk as Defense to Negligence Action

Answer 23

• Largely superseded by partial comparative neg statute, but still complete bar for off road vehicles + skiing
• Exculpatory clauses allowed if express provision concerning negligence
• No duty to spectators at sporting events w/r/t inherent dangers that are common, frequent + expected

Question 24

PA Strict Liability

Answer 24

• Adopts R2 factors in determining whether activity inherently dangerous
• No SL for domestic animals, even if knows/SHK of dangerous propensities

Question 25

PA LL Liability for Tenant’s Dog

Answer 25

If LL knew T had a dangerous animal and had ability to control or remove animal, can be sued for negligence

Question 26

PA Tests for Design Defect

Answer 26

PA allows risk-utility test or consumer expectation test; under r-u, P may show reasonable alternative design available, but NOT req’d

Question 27

PA Assumption of Risk Defense in Strict Product Liability Action

Answer 27

• Bar to recovery if P aware of danger + knowingly exposed himself to it
• PA also has affirmative defense of highly reckless conduct if sole or superseding cause

Question 28

PA No “State of Art” Defense in Strict Products Liability Action

Answer 28

Compliance w/ state of art at time of distribution never a defense in SPL action (negligence defense only)

Question 29

PA Breach of Warranty Liability

Answer 29

Extends express or implied warranty protection to buyer’s family, HH, + guests if reasonable to expect person may use goods + PI results

Question 30

PA Defamation

Answer 30

Requires fault in ALL cases; actual malice for public officials/figures/concern; negligence for private individuals no public concern

Question 31

PA Slander Per Se

Answer 31

(i) criminal conduct punishable by imprisonment; (ii) loathsome disease; (iii) unfit to practice profession; (iv) sexual misconduct; (v) financial embarrassment, insolvency, or unworthiness of credit; and (vi) communism

Question 32

PA Misappropriation of Right to Publicity

Answer 32

Survives death

Question 33

PA Intentional Misrepresentation

Answer 33

• Representation material to transaction, made w/ knowledge that false or reckless disregard, w/ intent to mislead person relying
• P’s reliance must have been justifiable + cn blindly rely on misrep disproved upon cursory examination

Question 34

PA Negligent Misrepresentation

Answer 34

• Tort based on duty to supply correct info; often arises w/ accountants + other suppliers of commercial info
• Must be misrep of material fact, made in situation in which actor SHK false, w/ an intent to persuade other to act on misrep; P must have justifiably relied + been injured

Question 35

PA Intentional Interference w/ Prospective K

Answer 35

1. prospective K’ual relationship beyond mere hope (but-for wrongful act of D, reasonable prob K); 2. D intended to harm P by preventing transaction from occurring; 3. absence of privilege or justification (ie: D acting w/ improper purpose); and 4. actual harm or damages

Question 36

PA Malicious Prosecution

Answer 36

Civil and criminal actions began w/out PC or w/ gross negligence + filed for improper purpose + loses

Question 37

Intentional Interference w/ Prospective Biz Relationship/Economic Benefit

Answer 37

(1) Prospective contractual relationship;
(2) Intent to harm P by preventing relationship/benefit from occurring;
(3) Absence of privilege or justification; +
(4) Actual harm
- cts often require D’s act be independently tortious (ie: fraud/defamation) if biz competitor