T Overview Flashcards
IN BRIEF
A tort is a civil wrong committed against another.
A tort may arise from the defendant’s intentional conduct, negligent conduct, or conduct that creates liability in the absence of fault (strict liability torts).
A typical Torts essay question will involve multiple torts committed by and against multiple parties.
For each potential tort, first identify the prima facie case elements of the tort and apply the elements to the facts provided.
For those torts for which the prima facie case is established, consider any defenses that are supported by the facts.
Finally, consider any supplemental rules that may apply, typically involving multiple parties (e.g., vicarious liability and joint tortfeasor rules).
A Torts MBE question may test on any of the above issues.
II. INTENTIONAL TORTS
A. Identify the Tort
- Battery
- Assault
- False imprisonment
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Trespass to land
- Trespass to chattels
- Conversion
- Battery
- Battery
a. Defined: A harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person intentionally caused by the defendant
b. “Person” includes things connected to the person
c. Contact is deemed “offensive” if the plaintiff has not expressly or impliedly consented to it
- Assault
- Assault
a. Defined: Intentional creation by the defendant of a reasonable apprehension of IMMEDIATE harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person
b. “Apprehension” need not be fear
c. Words alone generally are not enough
- False imprisonment
- False imprisonment
a. Defined: An intentional act or omission by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area
b. Confinement or restraint includes threats of force, false arrests, and failure to provide a means of escape when under a duty to do so
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
a. Defined: Intentional extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress
b. Physical injuries are not required, only severe emotional distress
- Trespass to land
- Trespass to land
a. Defined: An intentional act by the defendant that causes a physical
invasion of the plaintiff’s real property
b. The defendant need not have intended to commit a trespass, only to do the act of entering onto land
- Trespass to chattels
- Trespass to chattels
a. Defined: An intentional act by the defendant that causes an
interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel,
resulting in damages
b. The tort typically involves damage to or dispossession of the
plaintiff’s chattel
c. The defendant need not have intended to commit a trespass to the
chattels, only to do the act that causes interference with chattel
d. If the damage to the chattel is serious, conversion may be more
appropriate
- Conversion
- Conversion
a. Defined: An intentional act by the defendant that causes a serious interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel
b. The defendant need not have intended a conversion, only to do the act that constitutes a conversion
c. The interference with the chattel is so serious as to require the defendant to pay the full value of the chattel (in effect, a forced sale of the chattel)
Considered Transferred Intent.
Applies to?
- Intent will transfer from the intended tort to the committed tort, or from the intended victim to the actual victim
- Both the tort intended and the tort committed must be battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespass to chattels
Does NOT apply to: Conversion, IIED.
C. Relevant Defenses
- Consent
- Self defense, defense of others, defense of property.
- Necessity
- Consent
Requires?
- Consent
a. Consent may be either express or implied (apparent or implied by law)
b. The plaintiff must have capacity to consent and the defendant must not exceed the bounds of the consent
- Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property
- Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property
a. The defendant must reasonably believe that a tort is being or about to be committed against himself, a third person, or his property
b. Only reasonable force may be used
1) Deadly force is permitted if reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent serious bodily injury
2) Deadly force is never permitted to defend only property
c. The shopkeeper’s privilege permits the reasonable detention of someone the shopkeeper reasonably believes has shoplifted goods
- Necessity
- Necessity
a. A defendant whose property tort was justified by a public necessity has an absolute defense
b. If justified only by a private necessity, the defense is qualified (the defendant must pay for any damage caused)
c. This privilege trumps a property owner’s right to defend his property
III. NEGLIGENCE
.
Negligence:
A. Elements of the Prima Facie Case
- The defendant owes a duty of care to conform to a specific standard of conduct
- The defendant breached that duty
- The breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury
- The plaintiff suffered damages to person or property
Negligence: Standards of Care
Professionals
Children
Landowners
Criminal statute
NIED
Standards of Care
1. The general standard of care is a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances (average mental ability but the same physical characteristics as the defendant if relevant)
2. Professionals must exercise the knowledge and skill of a member of the profession in good standing.
- Children must conform to the standard of care of a child of like age, intelligence, and experience (except the adult standard applies if the child is engaged in an adult activity)
- A landowner’s standard of care under traditional rules usually depends on the status of the person injured on the property
a. Trespassers
1) The landowner owes no duty to undiscovered trespassers
2) For discovered and anticipated trespassers, the landowner owes a duty to warn of or make safe known highly dangerous artificial conditions if not obvious to the trespasser
b. Licensees
1) Licensees are those who come onto the land with express or implied permission but for their own purpose (includes social guests)
2) The landowner’s duty is the same as for discovered trespassers except that it applies to all dangerous artificial and natural conditions
c. Invitees
1) Invitees are those entering as members of the public or for a purpose connected to the business of the landowner
2) The landowner’s duty is the same as for licensees but with the additional duty to reasonably inspect for dangerous conditions
d. Note that the ordinary reasonable care standard applies for active operations on the property and for conditions on the land that injure children (the “attractive nuisance” doctrine) - A criminal statute may serve to establish a specific standard of care in place of the general standard of ordinary care if:
a. The plaintiff is within the class that the statute was intended to protect
b. The statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered - Negligent infliction of emotional distress
a. General basis of liability: The defendant breaches a duty to the plaintiff by creating a risk of physical injury and the plaintiff suffers emotional distress as a result
1) The plaintiff must be within the “zone of danger” and ordinarily must suffer physical symptoms from the distress
2) Exception: The defendant breaches a duty to a bystander not in the zone of danger who (i) is closely related to the injured person, (ii) was present at the scene of the injury, and (iii) personally observed or perceived the event
3) Exception: A relationship exists between the defendant and the plaintiff under which the defendant’s negligence has great potential to directly cause emotional distress (e.g., hospital erroneously reports death of plaintiff’s family member)
Negligence: Breach of Duty
Res ipsa
- Whether the defendant breached the applicable duty of care is a question for the trier of fact
- Under res ipsa loquitur, the fact that an injury occurred may create an inference that the defendant breached his duty.
Two requirements:
a. The accident causing the injury is a type that would not have occurred absent negligence
b. The negligence is attributable to the defendant (usually because the defendant is in exclusive control of the instrumentality causing the injury).
Negligence: Causation
Causation
1. Actual cause
a. Usually established by the “but for” test—an act is the actual cause of an injury when it would not have occurred but for the act.
b. Merged causes—when two acts bring about an injury and either one alone would have sufficed, either of the acts is an actual cause of the injury if it was a “substantial factor” in bringing it about
c. Unascertainable causes—when two acts were negligent but it is not clear which was the actual cause of the injury, the burden shifts to each of the negligent actors to show that his negligent act was not the actual cause
- Proximate cause
a. Limits liability for unforeseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions
b. The defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk from the defendant’s actions
c. Indirect cause cases: An intervening force occurs after the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury
1) Foreseeable intervening forces (such as a negligent rescue) do
not cut off the defendant’s liability for the consequences of his negligent act
Negligence: Damages
Damages
1. The plaintiff must show actual harm or injury to complete the prima facie case
2. The plaintiff can recover economic damages (e.g., medical expenses) and noneconomic damages (e.g., pain and suffering)
3. The extent or severity of the harm need not have been foreseen (the tortfeasor takes his victim as he find him)
Defenses to Negligence
Defenses to Negligence
- Contributory negligence—the standard of care required of a plaintiff to avoid injury is judged using a reasonable person standard
- Comparative negligence—almost all states have rejected the rule that a plaintiff’s contributory negligence will totally bar her recovery
a. In a pure comparative negligence state, a negligent plaintiff can recover damages reduced by the percentage of her fault even if she was primarily at fault
b. In a partial comparative negligence state, a negligent plaintiff can recover reduced damages as long as her fault is not above a certain level (usually 50%); if it is, she is barred from recovering - Assumption of risk—arises when the plaintiff is aware of a risk and voluntarily assumes it (either expressly or impliedly)
a. In comparative negligence states, most implied assumption of risk situations are analyzed under comparative negligence rules
IV. STRICT LIABILITY
A. Situations Where Strict Liability Is Imposed
1. On the owner of a wild animal or an abnormally dangerous domestic animal for injuries caused by the animal
2. On one engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity—an activity that creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors
B. Extent of Liability
1. The harm must result from the kind of danger that makes the animal or activity abnormally dangerous
2. Many states apply their comparative fault rules to strict liability cases
V. PRODUCTS LIABILITY:
A. General Principles
B. Products Liability: Liability Based on Negligence
C. Products Liability: Liability Based on Strict Liability
Products liability
A. General Principles
Liability theories?
- Liability for defective products may be brought under various theories of liability: intent, negligence, strict liability, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and representation theories
- Liability arises when a commercial supplier supplies a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to users
a. A product has a manufacturing defect when it varies from the other products in the manufacturing process and is dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer
b. A product has a design defect when all products of the line have dangerous characteristics because of mechanical features, packaging, or an information defect when users are given inadequate warnings and instructions, and a less dangerous modification or alternative was economically feasible.