- Confined/bounded area - Knowledge/awareness - Reasonableness of escape

Accident implies negligence Exclusive control of D Would not normally occur without negligence

The Final, Final Review Cards!! Flashcards by Dhara Shah

Purposes of Tort Law

1 - Peaceful means so they don’t take law into their own hands
2 - Deter wrongful conduct
3 - Encourage socially responsible behavior
4 - Restore injured parties to OG condition
5 - Clear a wrong

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Battery - Rule Statement

Harmful or offensive contact intentionally made by the D to the P’s person

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Assault - Rule Statement

Intentional infliction of an apprehension of an imminent contact by the D

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Does there need to be physical harm for assault?

No. Can be held liable without it. Also can be assault without battery.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

FI - Rule Statement

Direct restraint of one person of the physical liberty of another without adequate legal justification.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

FI - Requirements

Confined/bounded area
Knowledge/awareness
Reasonableness of escape

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

IIED - Rule Statement

Intentional extreme or dangerous conduct by the D that cause severe ED to P

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Can there be nominal damages for IIED?

No.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Bystander IIED - Requirements

Close family

- Intent to batter you AND intent to cause me ED from it

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

T2L - Rule Statement

An intentional act by D that causes a physical invasion on P’s real property

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Is T2L maintain intent even if the D thought it was their own land?

Yes.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

T2Ch - Rule Statement

An intentional act by the D that causes an interference with P’s right of possession in a chattel, resulting in damages

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Conversion - Rule Statement

Intentional act of control over a chattel which seriously interfered with P’s right of possession, resulting in full value of chattel.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Damages: nominal

token

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Damages: actual

put them back in position moment before

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Damages: punitive

to punish

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Negligence - General Rule Statement

Omission to do something a reasonably prudent person would do.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Negligence - 4 Elements

Duty
Breach of duty
Breach of duty was actual and proximate cause of injury
Damage to person/property

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Can there be nominal damages for negligence?

No, only actual.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Precaution Equation

If burden < harm, do precautionary measure.

*Check cost of precaution, probability of harm, seriousness of harm

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Negligence Per Se

Violation of statute
1 - Member of class to be protected intended by legislature
2 - Hazard that caused injury is one meant to be protected by legislature

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Accident implies negligence

Exclusive control of D
Would not normally occur without negligence

Actual Cause/Causation in Fact

Substantial factor in bringing about harm

Duty + breach -> damages

Concurrent Causes: Joint v Several Liability

Joint: 30% could pay ALL
Several: pay what you are responsible for

Market Share Theory

Can recover for injury by a drug of unknown source against known manufacturers of the drug (held liable for their share of market)

Proximate/Legal Cause

Immediate + foreseeable * But-for Test * Substantial Cause Test * Double Test

Rescue Doctrine

Allows an injured rescuer to sue the party (D) who caused the rescue to occur

Defenses (Negl) - Contributory Negligence v. Comparative Negligence

Contributory: even if P is a little negl, cannot recover at all Comparative: P negl < D negl, can recover

Defenses (Negl) - Assumption of Risk

If within terms of contract + not void for public policy reasons

Defenses (Negl) - Immunities

- Parent/Child - Charities - Gov't. - U.S.

Wrongful Death

- Brought by family/estate for loss of support/society/love/care/funeral charges/etc. - Meets negligent requirements but harm = death, and D's conduct must be cause of death

Survival Statute

- Time b/w harm + death | - Remedy to P (loss of wages/pain + suffering)

Vicarious Liability - Respondeat Superior

Hold someone responsible by stating they are my employer/etc. and they should respond to my tortious act (if done in scope of work)

Vicarious Liability - Independent Contractors

D not held liable for ind. contractor's actions

Vicarious Liability - Joint Enterprise

- If 2 are in JV/Ent. may be able to get the other on the hook - Accident has to happen in scope of their business/both have to be equals in their positions

Vicarious Liability - Bailments

bailor: has title/ownership bailee: trusted with property (usually younger) - Bailor could be held liable for actions of bailee

Strict Liability - Rule Statement

Is A's conduct toward B maybe not intentional or negligent, sufficient to SL for public policy reasons?

SL - Animals - Fencing Out v. Fencing In

Fencing Out: P put up fence, if animal goes through, D liable Fencing In: D fences animal in, if gets out, D liable

SL - Abnormally Dangerous Activities

SL even if lawful Factors: - High risk of some harm - Harm could be great - Cannot eliminate risk - Not common usage - More dangerous than valuable

Product Liability - Definition

Liability of manufacturer/seller/supplier of chattels to one who suffers physical harm caused by the chattel

PL - Negligence

They did not act like a reasonably prudent manufacturer/etc.

PL - Warranty - Express v. Implied

Express: label/ad/brochure Implied: dishwasher that does not load dishes

PL - Strict Liability in Tort

When they place an article on market, knowing it was not inspected for defects, has defect that causes harm

PL - Restatement (3rd)

Engaged in selling/distributing it

Three Types of Defects

Manufacturing: mishap (10 chips stuck together, rare) Design: only on hook if you breach duty (every chip is too big) Warnings: only on hook if you breach duty **Follow negligence for Design/Warnings

Int Torts - Privilege - Necessity

Public: greater good Private: just pay damages

Int Torts - Privilege - Authority of Law

Arrest

Int Torts - Privilege -Discipline

Parent/Child

Int Torts - Privilege - Justification

Bus driver

Int Torts - Privilege - Consent (Express v. Implied)

Express: signs/orally Implied **Can be negated if under false pretenses (fraud/minor/intoxicated/etc.)

Int Torts - Privilege - Self Defense

- NOT for retaliation | - Provocation does not warrant self defense

Int Torts - Privilege - Defense of Others

Usually family members

Int Torts - Privilege - Defense of Property

- Only if trespasser is committing felony of violence is force justified - Life is always > property

Int Torts - Privilege - Recovery of Property

- Demand it back first (some) - Has to be immediate - Reasonable amount of force "Shopkeeper's Privilege"