Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Torts > Rules > Flashcards

Rules Flashcards

1
Q

Battery

A
  1. Intent
    • single intent (simply to contact)
    • dual intent (contact + harm or offense)
    • subject to transferred intent
  2. Contact
    • actual touching
    • intimately connected
    • by setting in motion
  3. Harm or offense
    • Reasonable victim standard
    • informed subjective-ness
    • bodily injury
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Assault

A
  1. An act
  2. Intent to cause or threaten harmful contact
  3. Apprehension of imminent contact
  • cannot be done by words alone, words must be accompanied by some act.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

False Imprisonment

A
  1. Intent to confine
  2. Confining of another to a limited area for an appreciable time
    • –thru threat (implied or express)
    • –assertion of false authority
    • –duress
  3. Without lawful privilege
  4. Against the other’s consent
  5. With awareness by the other or actual harm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A
  1. Extreme and outrageous conduct (beyond all bounds of decency)
    • repeated
    • position of power
    • directed at vulnerable person
  2. Intent or reckless causing
  3. Severe emotional distress
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Trespass to Land

A
  1. P has ownership or possessory interest in land
  2. Tangible invasion or intrusion onto land
  3. That is intentional
    • –whether or not the trespasser knows they are trespassing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Conversion of Chattels

A
  1. Intentionally
  2. exercising substantial dominion over a chattel
    • Assertion of rights
    • Harm done
    • Expense or inconvenience caused
    • Duration of dominion
    • Good faith acts
    • Extent of dominion
  3. of another
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Trespass to Chattel

A
  1. Intent
  2. No justification or consent
  3. Physically interference of use of property
  4. Harm to plaintiff
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Self Defense

A
  1. Actual or reasonable threat to safety.
    • provocation not applicable,
    • Mistake not applicable to defense of others in
      some jx;s
  2. Force employed proportional to threat.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Self Defense Initial Aggressor

A
  1. Withdrawal and effectively communicate intent to
    withdrawal
  2. Actual or reasonable threat to safety.
    • provocation not applicable,
    • Mistake not applicable to defense of others in
      some jx;s
  3. Force employed proportional to threat.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Defense of Property

A
  1. ONLY the force reasonably necessary to overcome
    resistance and expel the intruder
  2. NEVER to use any force calculated to cause death or
    serious bodily injury where only property is
    threatened
  3. BUT can use self-defense if threat of death or
    serious bodily injury to self or others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Arrest and Detention

A
  1. Misdemeanors that breach the peace (but only if
    actually occurred, not just mistaken belief
  2. Felonies that actually occurred or the defendant
    reasonably believed occurred
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Shopkeeper’s Right to Detain

A
  1. Reasonable cause that the plaintiff has taken goods
    without paying, BUT ONLY IF;
  2. Limited to questioning or summoning police; and

3 Carried out in a reasonable manner and for a
reasonable length of time.
- Proportionality applies here. Cheap item less force
allowed.

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

Consent

A

ELEMENTS
implied or express manifestation of assent to another’s conduct.
very fact specific.
Generally, would a reasonable person think that the P consented?
(verbal/nonverbal communication, revocation, asymmetry of info, power imbalance, coercion, etc.)
Bright line rules
1. Position of power
2. Mental competency
3. Age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Duty

A

Reasonably prudent ___ in the same or similar circumstances.

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

Breach

A 
Conduct
- direct evidence
- circumstantial evidence
- lay opinion
- expert opinion
Risk foreseeable
- notice and opportunity to cure
- internal policies
- custom
How a reasonable person would act different.
- notice and opportunity to cure
- internal policies
- custom
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Hand Formula

A

B< P x L
Burden< Probability x Extent of injury

i) Circumstances (Indiana Consolidated)
ii) Potential risks (Indiana Consolidated)
iii) Knowledge of actor (Stinnett)
iv) Knowledge of victim (Stinnett)
v) Obviousness of risk to victim (Stinnett)
vi) Seriousness of potential injuries (Bernier)
vii) Likelihood of risk (Bernier)

17
Q

Cause in Fact

A

traditional
- but for [breach] P’s injury would not occur
lost chance
- but for [breach] P would not have lost % of survival
relaxed causation
- was D’s negligence and substantial factor in causing
duty to try
- must try even if zero chance to save (ship captain going back for sailor)

18
Q

Damages

A 
Physical Harm
- Property
- Bodily
Lost Wages
Pain and Suffering
Emotional
19
Q

Negligence Per Se

A

established when D violates a statute if:

  1. statute defines conduct expected.
  2. statute intended to prevent this type of harm
  3. plaintiff is class of people statute intended to protect
  4. violation of statute was proximate cause of injury

yes to all 4 = negligence per se

20
Q

Res Ipsa Loquitur

A

the things speaks for itself.

  1. accident is one that does not typically happen absent negligence
  2. other possible causes sufficiently eliminated
21
Q

Elements of Negligence

A

Duty, breach, damage, cause in fact, proximate causation

22
Q

Proximate Cause

A 
Liability is limited to physical harms that result from the risk that make the conduct tortious. or was the risk of injury part of the reason the defendants act/omission was negligent
Type of plaintiff- Y - foreseeable class of people (palsgraff)
Type of Harm- Y - foreseeable general type of harm (lamp next to sewer case)
Manner of Harm- X - preceise manner of harm not needed (lamp next to sewer case vs molten metal case)
Extent of Harm- X - extent of harm need not be foreseeable (diabetic blister results in amputation case)
23
Q

Separate Injuries

A

Separate actors separate injuries (two bike rides hypo, one breaks Ethel’s hip other her knee)

24
Q

Divisible Injuries

A

One actor and negligent Dr. resulting in extended injury

25
Q

Single Indivisible Injury

A

Separate actors one indivisible injury (bush covering sidewalk case)

26
Q

Preemptive Causation

A

Separate actors, one causes harm the other would have. But for does not work, use substantial factor. (trucker drops cargo case, 5 previous accidents case)

27
Q

Duplicative Causation

A

Two actors, simultaneous causation (texas salt water case, merging fires case)

28
Q

Alternative Causation

A

Two actors, cant identify who caused injury (quail hunting case)

29
Q

Intervening Acts: Criminal

A

Traditional
- A willful criminal act breaks the causal chain and is superseding and destroys proximate cause.

Modern Rule (majority)
- If a criminal act is a foreseeable outcome of the defendant's negligent act it will not break the causal chain. Courts differ on if the criminal act or harm must be foreseeable.
30
Q

Intervening Acts: Suicide

A 
Traditional Rule (majority)
- Intervening suicide breaks the causal chain except: (1) defendants acts caused mental illness or uncontrollable impulse; (2) special knowledge of suicide risk

Modern View
- Risk of suicide was within the scope of risk that made defendants conduct negligent.

31
Q

Intervening Acts: Negligence

A

Basic
-Was the intervening negligent act a foreseeable risk the made the defendants act negligent?

Intervening Negligence is Superseding

  • Extraordinary under circumstances not foreseeable
  • Independent of or far removed from ∆ conduct.
  • Situation created by defendants negligence had stabilized, plaintiff had reached apparent safety

Intervening Negligence is Not Superseding

  • Normal or foreseeable consequence of situation created by ∆
  • Independent intervening acts which operate on but do not flow from original negligence
  • Subsequent medical negligence in treatment caused by defendants negligence
32
Q

Respondeat Superior

A

Company liable for negligent actions of their employees while at work

33
Q

Comparative negligence

A

Negligent acts by the P that contribute to the injury don’t bar recovery but amount of damages are reduced on P’s share of the fault for the accident. (Majority) Modern rule in many sates including CA.

34
Q

Modified comparative negligence

A

a P whose fault is more than a certain percentage (normally 50%) responsible for the accident cannot recover anything. A plaintiff whose fault is less than this percentage can recover but the damages are reduced based on the P’s share of the fault. Modern rule followed in many states (minority)

35
Q

Pure Contributory negligence

A

Any negligence by the P that contributed to the injury barred all recovery against D. Traditional rule still followed in only a few states.

Torts (3 decks)

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