tort Flashcards
Intent for battery exists when the defendant
(1) intends to cause contact with the plaintiff’s person,
(2) intends to cause contact with a third party but instead causes contact with the plaintiff, or
(3) intends to commit an assault but instead commits a battery.
Apparent consent is a defense to battery when
consent can be reasonably implied from the plaintiff’s conduct or from custom.
consent is only a defense where
the defendant’s conduct falls within the scope of the plaintiff’s consent.
A defendant who has permission to use the plaintiff’s chattel commits conversion when he/she
(1) intentionally uses the chattel in a way that exceeds the scope of permission and
(2) seriously violates the plaintiff’s right to control the chattel.
The defendant is liable for the fair market value of the chattel at the time of
the conversion.
For intentional infliction of emotional distress, conduct is considered extreme and outrageous if
it exceeds the possible limits of human decency, so as to be entirely intolerable in a civilized society.
In most jurisdictions, an innkeeper owes a duty to
use ordinary care to protect its guests while they are on the premises.
Evidence that the innkeeper complied with (or deviated from) community or industry custom is
relevant to—but not conclusive on—the issue of negligence.
Under the common-law approach to common-carrier liability, common carriers owe
the highest duty of care to their passengers and can be liable for slight negligence.
Under the modern approach, common carriers only owe a duty to use
reasonable care to protect passengers from harm that arises within the scope of that relationship.
In traditional contributory negligence jurisdictions, a plaintiff’s failure to use reasonable care for his/her own safety is
a complete defense to negligence.
The defendant can establish the plaintiff’s negligence under the doctrine of negligence per se, but still must prove that
the plaintiff’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s harm.
A land possessor owes a duty to known or anticipated trespassers to
(1) warn them about hidden, artificial dangers that are known to the land possessor but unlikely to be discovered by trespassers and
(2) use reasonable care in active operations.
Under the traditional standard for res ipsa loquitur, negligence is inferred if
(1) the plaintiff’s harm would not normally occur unless someone was negligent,
2) the defendant had exclusive control over the thing that caused the harm, and
(3) the plaintiff did nothing to cause the harm.
Where multiple forces combined to cause the plaintiff’s harm and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the harm, the test for actual causation is
whether the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Strict products liability claims can be brought against
commercial suppliers or sellers—i.e., those in the business of manufacturing, selling, or otherwise distributing products of the type that harmed the plaintiff.
service providers are not subject to
strict products liability.
Strict products liability is imposed on any commercial seller in the chain of distribution if
(1) the commercial seller’s product contained a defect when it left the commercial seller’s control and
(2) that defect caused the plaintiff harm.
The owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for harm that is caused by
a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal or directly results from the wild animal’s abnormally dangerous characteristics.
Under pure comparative negligence, a negligent plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by
his/her proportionate share of fault.
Under pure comparative negligence, if multiple defendants cause the plaintiff indivisible harm:
several liability limits the plaintiff to recovering from each defendant the portion of damages that corresponds to his/her proportionate share of fault.
Under modified (or partial) comparative negligence, recovery is reduced by
the plaintiff’s percentage of fault and barred if it exceeds 50%.
A plaintiff who is public figure or official can recover for defamation only if
the plaintiff proves that the defendant made a false statement about the plaintiff with actual malice—i.e., with knowledge or reckless disregard of the statement’s falsity.
A commercial seller owes a duty of reasonable care to
any foreseeable plaintiff (i.e., purchaser, user, bystander).