Rule Statements Flashcards
Elements for Battery
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if:
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact, and
(b) a harmful or offensive (choose one) contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results
Elements for Assault
(a) unlawful intentional offer to touch another person in
(b) a rude and angry manner
(c) under circumstances that would insinuate and create in the mind of the party alleging the assault a well-founded fear of imminent battery
Elements for False Imprisonment
(a) intent to confine the other or a third person within boundaries fixed by the actor and,
(b) this act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement of the other, and
(c) the other is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it
Elements for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
(a) extreme and outrageous
(b) intentional or reckless conduct
(c) that causes
(d) severe emotional distress
Elements for Trespass to Land
(a) The defendant entered onto the land of another (intent)
(b) that belonged to another individual
(c) without consent and;
(d) caused damage
Elements Trespass to Chattel
A trespass to chattel may be committed by intentionally
(a) dispossessing another of the chattel, or
(b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.
One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel if, but only if,
(a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or
(b) the chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality, or value, or
(c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or
(d) bodily harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest.
Elements for Conversion
(a) intentionally exercising dominion or control over a chattel
(b) which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it
(c) that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel
Defense of Consent (Implied)
Type of consent in which a patient who is unable to give consent is given treatment under the legal assumption that he or she would want treatment
Defense of Medical Consent
(a) Plaintiff is unconscious or otherwise unable to consider the matter to grant/ withhold consent
(b) An immediate decision is necessary
(c) There is no reason to believe that the plaintiff would withhold consent if able to do so
(d) A reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would consent
Defense of Self Defense
(a) Reasonable Belief
(b) of an imminent threat of force
(c) with reasonable force
Defense of Others
(a) reasonable belief that the other person would have the right of self defense
Defense of Property
used in defending one’s property from theft, destruction, or trespass where the defendant has a reasonable belief that the property is in immediate danger.
Only reasonable non-deadly force can be used in defending one’s property
Necessity
(a) Acting for the public good (usually the choice is having to destroy private property
Authority of Law
Arrest
(a) certain public officials, including police officers, etc. are privileged to arrest with a warrant.
(b) Right to arrest, but does not mean you have the right to engage in excessive force
Discipline
(a) Parents are awarded the privilege of disciplining their children
(b) Privilege afforded to babysitters, teacher, and those temporarily responsible for them
(c) Corporal punishment is privileged if not excessive
(d) Use of physical restraint is used more often on students with disability
Justification
exempts the defendant from liability because the defendant’s actions were justified, or not wrong
Elements for Negligence
(a) Duty
(b) Breach
(c) Causation
(d) Proximate Cause
(e) Damages
Standard of Care (duty)
General standard of care is that of the ordinary, reasonable and prudent person under the circumstances. Jury decides what that means.
Restatement: A person acts negligently if the person does not exercise reasonable care under all circumstances
REMEMBER: superior skills
- Restatement Third, s. 12: If an actor has skills or knowledge that exceed those possessed by most others, these skills or knowledge are circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether the actor has behaved as a reasonably careful person
Breach
If the defendant’s conduct fails to meet the required standard of care, they are said to have breached that duty
Causation
cause and effect relationship between the defendant’s tortious conduct and the plaintiff’s injury or loss.
Thus, cause in fact deals with the ‘but for’ consequences of an act. The defendant’s conduct is a cause of the event if the event would not have occurred but for that conduct
Proximate Case
Concerns a determination of whether legal liability should be imposed where cause in fact has been established. Proximate or legal cause is a policy decision made by the legislature or the courts to deny liability for otherwise actionable conduct based on considerations of logic, common sense, policy, precedent and ‘our more or less inadequately expressed ideas of what justice demands or of what is administratively possible and convenient.
Courts will preclude recovery when causal relationship between dft’s conduct and plt’s injury is too attenuated, remote, or unusual to justify imposing liability on defendant
Damages
Plaintiff must suffer damages to recover for negligence; generally, may recover for physical harm to self or property
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Proof of breach due to nature of injury
Elements:
(a) Type of accident that does not typically occur without negligence.
(b) The thing or instrumentality which caused the accident was at the time of and prior there to under the exclusive control and management of the defendant
Restatement (Second) §328(D)(1)(b) language that “other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence” replaces the traditional “exclusive control” language
Causation: But-for Cause/ Causation in Fact
Tortious conduct must be a factual cause of plaintiff’s harm for liability to be imposed (Restatement)
Informed Consent (causation)
Would the patient have had the procedure if dft had informed them of material risk?
- Objective test: whether a prudent person in patient’s position would have chosen not to have procedure if provided with material information. You do not need plt’s own testimony
- Subjective test: whether plaintiff would have chosen not to have procedure if they had been provided with material information. Plt’s testimony could establish whether they would have had it.
Concurrent Causes
But-for test does not work, but dft still caused injury
Elements:
(a) Separate acts combine to cause injury where neither alone would have been sufficient and
(b) Conduct that combines to cause injury where either alone would have been sufficient.
Proof of breach through inference
You do not need to show dft’s actual knowledge of the dangerous condition, constructive notice will suffice
Negligence Per Se
(a) When a statute or municipal ordinance imposes upon a person with a specific duty to benefit or protect others, when they do not perform, has negligence taken place
(a)(1) Makes it to where the court can recognize that the standard of care is established by a statute
(b) There is a breach of legal duty when the statute was violated, the statute was designed to protect the people that purchased this specific product. Because the statute was violated, the statute steps in as the standard of care
Put with Duty
