Rules Flashcards
Liability of a Tortfeasor
Tortfeasor (wrongdoer) is liable for ALL Injuries
- Take P as you find him (Eggshell Plaintiff)
Implied License
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)
Establishing Liability for a Battery Claim (and its Considerations)
hint(Not the Elements)
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.
Substantial Certainty
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.
Transferred Intent: Between Persons
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
Transferred Intent: Between Torts
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”
Intrusions of Noise
Mere intrusions of noise radiation, and the like, do not give rise to a cause of action, maybe NUISANCE
Consensual Defense
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
Mental Disability
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
Self Defense
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
Deadly Force re: Trespassers
- 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.)
Assault
- Intentional
- Act or gesture
- 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.)
IIED
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:
- Assault w/o imminent fear of contact
- Common carries & public interest (failure of courteous and respectful behavior)
- Fright cases
- Special Relationships (imbalance of power concerns)
- 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
Trespass
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)
Directness test
Causal Chain
Abnormally Dangerous Activities
Extent of Risk, Ability to Eliminate Risk, Abnormality, Location, Social Utility
Strict Liability - Machine
A person who uses a dangerous machine is strictly liable for harm occasioned by its use
Torts Rubric
Duty
Breach
Causation
Damage
Reasonableness Rubric
Manner
Mode
Time
Grounds
Assessing Negligence
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.
Children and Adult Activities
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
Trespass to Chattels
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:
- Extent & duration of dominion and control
- Intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent w/ the other’s right of control
- Actor’s bad/good faith (doesn’t negate the tort, but could lessen damages)
- Extent and duration of resulting interference
- Harm done to chattel
- Inconvenience & expense to the other party
Re: Statutes
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.
Re: Workplace Conditions
Dangerous conditions in workplace must be reported before work continues
Emergency Rule re: Contrib Neg
- PERSON FACED W/AN EMERGENCY who doesn’t have time to deliberate won’t be charged w/Contrib. neglg.
- IF he acts as a reasonable person wd under the circumstances, even if in hindsight his actions were not the most prudent one possible
- 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.
Re: Personal Care of Property (Negligence)
One must avoid injury to their property if possible
Seatbelt
FAILURE TO WEAR A SEAT BELT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONTRIB NEGLIG
WHY? P has no duty to mitigate damages that haven’t occurred yet.
