Rules Flashcards

1
Q

Liability of a Tortfeasor

A

Tortfeasor (wrongdoer) is liable for ALL Injuries

- Take P as you find him (Eggshell Plaintiff)

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

Implied License

A

When an act that may otherwise be considered tortious is committed in a context/situation where that act is acceptable and/or expected as a consenting participant.

May be defense to:

  • Battery (football, wife/husband)
  • Assault (haunted house, fan in a stadium & everyone giving high-5s after a TD?? [running out of steam here boys])
  • IIED (haunted house, law school)
  • False Imprisonment (escape rooms, standardized testing)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Establishing Liability for a Battery Claim (and its Considerations)
hint(Not the Elements)

A

Non-consent and situation matter.

Intention to do/not do harm = NOT an element
- Eggshell Plaintiff

Intention to do the thing/act = Element
- Insane person swinging baseball bat at “aliens”

As long as the tortfeasor INTENDED to commit the act, they’re liable for all injuries.

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

Substantial Certainty

A

If a tortfeasor knew, or should have known, their act would/could cause the damage claimed by the P, they are liable.

Thus, intent is established by proof of “purpose” (desire) or knowledge.

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

Transferred Intent: Between Persons

A

Unintentionally/accidentally transferring the touch/near touch to an unintended party
- Usually, still liable for damages to unintended party

i.e. A intends to throw an orange at B, but hits C

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

Transferred Intent: Between Torts

A

The tortfeasor intended to commit one act/tort but accidentally/unintentionally committed a different act/tort, causing damage(s).

i.e. B intends to assault A (near touch causing flinch) but goes too far and touches A. This is a battery even though B intended a “near miss”

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

Intrusions of Noise

A

Mere intrusions of noise radiation, and the like, do not give rise to a cause of action, maybe NUISANCE

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Consensual Defense

A

If both parties are willing and have received consent from the other, consent may be a defense.
- There is a large concern with the balance of power, respective to the parties, when obtaining consent. If one party holds significant, and sometimes even slight, power/leverage over the other party, consent is usually NOT a defense.

*Every unlawful or unauthorized touching of another constitutes a battery - even in the absence of negligence

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

Mental Disability

A

Insane person can be liable for his/her intentional torts so long as they are capable of intending to commit the act.

Proof that D suffers from a mental deficiency DOES NOT confer immunity from Tort liability

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

Self Defense

A

Usually, a person isn’t liable when using a reasonable amount of force when they reasonably believe/expect imminent danger/harm, AND their use of force was necessary to avoid that danger.

  • AMOUNT of force must be REASONABLE
  • EXPECTATION of danger must be REASONABLE
  • Force was NECESSARY to avoid danger
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Deadly Force re: Trespassers

A
  • Deadly force may not be used to defend property
  • Re: Traps, can’t do indirectly what forbidden to do directly
  • (Typically) Deadly force can only be used when a person has a reasonable fear for their safety/life. (i.e. Breaking in through bedroom window while you’re sleeping? Probably ok. Breaking into shed on other side of property? Not ok.)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Assault

A
  1. Intentional
  2. Act or gesture
  3. That causes immediate apprehension/fear of an imminent attack/touch.

Assault largely depends on whether the apprehensions experienced by the assaulted party were reasonable, not what may have been the be the secret (or public) intention of the person committing the assault
(i.e. Doesn’t matter if tortfeasor “intended” to assault [even if they announced their intention to assault]. It only matters if the assaulted person was reasonable in their perception and apprehension of an imminent threat.)

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

IIED

A

Definition: intentionally or recklessly causing another severe emotional distress through own’s extreme or outrageous acts. (Insulting language is NOT IIED)

  • “intolerable of a man to endure, exceeds all possible bounds of decency.”
  • Extreme/Outrageous Acts: conduct so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree to go beyond all decency and be regarded as intolerable in a civilized society.

Applies to:

  1. Assault w/o imminent fear of contact
  2. Common carries & public interest (failure of courteous and respectful behavior)
  3. Fright cases
  4. Special Relationships (imbalance of power concerns)
  5. Practical Joke cases

Allows for 3rd party recovery as long as the act was reckless.

  • i.e. A beats up B while C is present. C can recover for IIED
  • Reckless: deliberately disregarding a high degree of risk that the conduct would cause severe distress to a 3rd party, under the CL
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Trespass

A

Liability in trespass may be based on a voluntary act that produces an invasion of another’s land

  • to willingness break the close of another’s property
  • “bending of a blade of grass”

Honest mistake does not relieve wrongdoer of liability, but wrongdoer can get “grace” when assessing damages.
- Good-faith v. Bad-Faith Damages

Defenses:

  • Necessity (Think “boat in storm” case)
  • Self-Defense (e.g. Hiding on a neighbors’ property to avoid an attacker)
  • Consent (i.e. permission to use the land/chattels)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Directness test

A

Causal Chain

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

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

A

Extent of Risk, Ability to Eliminate Risk, Abnormality, Location, Social Utility

17
Q

Strict Liability - Machine

A

A person who uses a dangerous machine is strictly liable for harm occasioned by its use

18
Q

Torts Rubric

A

Duty
Breach
Causation
Damage

19
Q

Reasonableness Rubric

A

Manner
Mode
Time
Grounds

20
Q

Assessing Negligence

A

Risk of Harm is so slight & the expense of reducing it so great, that a reasonable person would not have taken any further precautions, a D’s conduct is NOT negligent.

21
Q

Children and Adult Activities

A

WHEN ENGAGING IN ADULT ACTIVITES, A MINOR MUST EXERCISE THE SAME CARE AS AN ADULT

*RST – Blanket rule for exemption for children UNDER 5 [no negligence], and perhaps puts additional duties on the children’s keepers

22
Q

Trespass to Chattels

A

The intentional exercise of dominion & control over a chattel, which so seriously interferes w/ rights of another to control it that the actor may have to pay full price for the chattel.

Assessing damages for trespass to chattels:

  1. Extent & duration of dominion and control
  2. Intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent w/ the other’s right of control
  3. Actor’s bad/good faith (doesn’t negate the tort, but could lessen damages)
  4. Extent and duration of resulting interference
  5. Harm done to chattel
  6. Inconvenience & expense to the other party
23
Q

Re: Statutes

A

Osborne Case

Where statute imposes duty, & D neglects duty = he is liable to those whom the law was made to protect (class) for injuries for which it was designed to prevent (type) & which were proximately caused.

violation of statute is rebuttable presumption of negl but can rebut w/viable excuse ie) USUALLY limited to Emergency or Necessity = greater risk of physical harm to comply w/statute then deviate.

24
Q

Re: Workplace Conditions

A

Dangerous conditions in workplace must be reported before work continues

25
Q

Emergency Rule re: Contrib Neg

A
  1. PERSON FACED W/AN EMERGENCY who doesn’t have time to deliberate won’t be charged w/Contrib. neglg.
  2. IF he acts as a reasonable person wd under the circumstances, even if in hindsight his actions were not the most prudent one possible
  3. Pl may NOT be charged w/contrib. if he acts as a reasonably prudent person wd act under the same emergency, even if later in hindsight it was not the safest course, BUT the emergency can’t be created by his own PRIOR negligence.
26
Q

Re: Personal Care of Property (Negligence)

A

One must avoid injury to their property if possible

27
Q

Seatbelt

A

FAILURE TO WEAR A SEAT BELT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONTRIB NEGLIG

WHY? P has no duty to mitigate damages that haven’t occurred yet.