Torts Flashcards

Question

Intentional Tort --> Conversion: Damages (Type 1/6 Factors; Type 2)

Answer 1

(1) FORCED SALE (Common) - price: FMV at time converted Justice of req'ing D to pay full value factors: (1) EXTENT/DURATION of D's exercise of DOMINION (2) D's INTENT to assert right inconsistent with other's right of control (3) D's GOOD FAITH (4) EXTENT/DURATION of resulting interference with P's right of CONTROL (5) HARM done to chattel (6) INCONVENIENCE/EXPENSE caused to P (2) REPLEVIN: action brought by P to get personal property back

Answer 2

D not liable for conduct that would ordinarily subject him to liability. May exist where: (1) person affected by D's conduct CONSENTS to the act (2) some important PERSONAL/PUBLIC INTEREST will be protected by D's conduct which JUSTIFIES HARM caused/threatened by D's conduct, or (3) D must act freely in order to perform an ESSENTIAL FUNCTION D has burden of proving existence of privilege and that privilege was exercised reasonably under circumstances.

Answer 3

Consent must be EFFECTIVE and D must not exceed the SCOPE of consent. - -> may be EXPRESS (P affirmatively communicates permission for D to act, D must act within scope) or IMPLIED (reasonable person would interpret P's conduct as evidencing permission to act). - -> may be found as matter of law where P CANNOT consent (emergency, reasonable person)

Answer 4

(1) MISTAKE: of fact/law as to nature of conseq of D's act and D is aware of mistake (2) FRAUD: induced by D's intentional deceit as to essential nature/conseq of act (3) DURESS: induced by threat of imminent harm to P or false assertion of lawful authority over P (4) INCAPACITY: young children/people with impaired mental capacities (mental disease, defect, intoxication) incapable of consent (5) VIOLATION of criminal statute: D's tortious conduct constitutes a crime (6) act outside of SCOPE

Answer 5

D HONESTLY and REASONABLY believes that D used reasonable force to prevent P from engaging in an IMMINENT and UNPRIVILEGED attack. - -> can only use degree of force necessary to avoid harm threatened by P. - -> Once threat is over, defense will not work; must be imminent existing threat. - -> no duty to retreat in most jdxs; never have to retreat from own home

Answer 6

D entitled to defend another from an attack by the P to same extent that 3rd person would be entitled to defend himself from P. - -> Reasonable mistake doctrine: even if 3rd person would not be permitted self defense, D relieved of liability if reasonable person would have believed defense of 3rd person was justified and that D's action was necessary to prevent harm to 3rd person. - However, D liable for unreasonable mistake

Answer 7

D entitled to use REASONABLE FORCE to prevent P from committing tort against D's property. - -> never deadly force - -> D must FIRST DEMAND that P return property/leave property - -> NO MISTAKE allowed, even if reasonable

Answer 8

D permitted to injure a P's property if reasonably necessary to avoid substantially greater harm to public at large (essentially, a disaster), himself, or property. - -> reasonable person under same circumstances (objective standard) - -> mistaken belief in necessity ok if reasonable - -> D may still be liable for actual damage to P's property but not technical torts like trespass

Answer 9

3 Types: (1) ARREST - PO can arrest if reasonably believes D committed felony. - PO can arrest for misdem if Ds action constituted breach of the peace. - Private person acts at his/her own peril - if wrong, liable for tort. (2) Shopkeeper's Privilege (SP) - Not liable for FI if had a RS that P stole. - Can only detain for a reasonable period and in a reasonable manner on the premises/immediate vicinity. (3) DISCIPLINE - Parent/teacher may use reasonable force to discipline a child.

Answer 10

Shopkeeper not liable for false imprisonment if he has REASONABLE SUSPICION that P has stolen goods, uses REASONABLE FORCE to detain the person, and detains the P for a REASONABLE PERIOD and in a REASONABLE MANNER (either on premises or immediate vicinity).

Answer 11

A legal obligation req'ing the D to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk. --> D has legal duty to act as an ordinary, prudent, reasonable person taking precaution against unreasonable risk of injury to others.

Answer 12

D owes duty only to foreseeable Ps: D owes duty only to those persons inside the geographic zone of danger at the time of D's neg. --> Rescuers (even nonprofessional rescuers) are per se foreseeable Ps: owed an independent duty (per se foreseeable Ps, even if neg)

Answer 13

When D's prior conduct (tortious or not) creates continuing risk of harm of a type characteristic to the conduct, the D has a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent/minimize the harm.

Answer 14

D undertakes to render services to P (rescuer) and knows/should know that services will reduce risk of physical harm to P --> cannot just stop rescuing

Answer 15

A person in a special relationship with another has affirmative duty of reasonable care with regard to risks arising within the scope of that relationship (position of power over P). --> Examples: employer-employee in scope of employment; common carrier and inkeeper-customer; school-pupil; parent-child; landlord-tenant (common areas within landlord's control); business-patron; and custodial relationships.

Answer 16

D engages in neg conduct --> as a result, P suffers emotional distress w/ some sort of physical manifestation. P must: (1) have been in zone of danger (risk of being physically injured) (2) have suffered some accompanying manifestation of emotional distress. Exceptions: (1) If the D negligently communicates announcement of death to loved one (2) if D neg mishandles corpse

Answer 17

Physical harm occurs to loved one and P sues for emotional distress as result of injury to loved one. 3 Requirements: (1) P was located near scene of accident; (2) P suffered severe emotional distress resulting from sensory and contemporaneous observance of accident; and (3) had close relationship with victim (immediate family member).

Answer 18

Invitee: person who enters onto D's land at D's express/implied invitation and enters for purpose relating to D's interests/activities. - -> Business invitee: enters onto D's land for purpose related to D's business - -> Public invitee: enters onto D's land for purpose for which it is held open to public - -> Invitee may turn into licensee or trespasser if enter private area of property where invite does not extend Land possessor had duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries to invitees caused by activities conducted on land. --> also has duty to exercise reasonable care to discover dangerous artificial conditions that invitees would not reasonable by aware of, and to warn invitees of existence of such conditions or make conditions safe

Answer 19

Licensee: person who enters onto D's property with express/implied permission and does not enter for purpose benefitting D or D's activities, nor is the land held open to the public (IE social guests). Land possessor has duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them from injury arising from activities conducted by the land possessor or on the land possessor's behalf. - -> usually sufficient for land possessor to warn licensee - -> land possessor must use reasonable care to discover licensees whom he is not aware. - -> land possessor must exercise reasonable care to warn of any artificial condition of which he is aware which present unreasonable danger of which licensee is unaware and unlikely to discover (but no duty to inspect land for dangerous artificial conditions). - -> same standard of care for D to protect licensees from dangerous natural conditions to same extent as artificial conditions (should warn of known concealed dangers of all types)

Answer 20

Land possessor has no duty of care as to trespasser whose presence is unknown; no duty to inspect land to attempt to discover unknown trespassers. --> However, duty to avoid infliction of willful/wanton harm.

Answer 21

Most jdxs require land possessor to exercise reasonable care to protect known trespasser from injuries deriving from activities on the land; generally, LO must warn of known and concealed dangerous artificial conditions.

Answer 22

Where activities/natural conditions are involved, standard of care: same as adult trespassers. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine --> Where artificial conditions are involved, standard of care heightened (duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injury to children). 5 Reqs: (1) Child too young to appreciate the danger (2) D knows/has reason to know of the trespass (3) D knows of the dangerous condition (4) Condition is artificial and foreseeable that children will want to approach it (5) The risk of danger of the artificial condition outweighs its utility and burden to fix it

Answer 23

Land possessor must exercise reasonable care to prevent P not on his land from injury deriving from: (1) land possessor's activities or activities of others conducted on his land. (2) unreasonably dangerous artificial conditions that abut or protrude onto adjacent land Land possessor must exercise reasonable care to protect passerby on a public street from injury deriving from dangerous artificial conditions on his land.

Answer 24

Common areas in landlord's possession remain landlord's responsibility. Landlord liability for tenant areas - -> PATENT defects: dangerous natural or artificial conditions that are/should be reasonably apparent to tenant upon transfer of possession; NO duty to warn. - -> LATENT defects: dangerous natural/artificial conditions of which tenant is unaware and are not reasonably apparent to him, of which landlord is aware; duty to warn, but not to inspect. - -> NEGLIGENT REPAIR: no landlord duty where dangerous conditions arise after possession has transferred to tenant, unless landlord undertakes to repair such conditions

Answer 25

D breaches duty to P if he fails to conduct himself as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. - --> D's conduct fails to conform to applicable standard of care. - --> Takes into account minor's age unless child engaging in adult activity. - --> Professionals treated diff Objective test: D's conduct measured against expectation of conduct w/in community. --> person w/ diminished cognitive abilities assessed w/o such disabilities (mental ability, speed of reflexes, or mental health) However, law does consider: --> person w/ increased knowledge/expertise compared to reasonable person possessing same amount of increased knowledge/expertise --> in emergency not of Ds own making, must conduct themselves as reasonable person would behave in emergency --> physical conditions (blind, deaf, amputee): standard of RPP w/ that condition 3 Factors to Analyze Breach of RPP (Hand Formula) (1) What is the probability of harm occurring from D's conduct? (2) What is the likely magnitude of the harm going to be? (3) What is the burden on D to avoid the harm?

Answer 26

Allows jury to infer D's breach (only breach) based on the nature of the accident and D's relationship to it (when P cannot identify precisely what D did wrong, but the sitch smells like neg) 3 reqs for res ipsa loquitur: (1) the event that caused the P's injury was one which would not ordinarily occur in the absence of neg (2) it is more likely than not that it was D's neg that was responsible for injury causing event because D had control over instrumentality of the harm; and (3) P was not responsible for event that caused injury --> Immaterial that P placed himself in situation of peril or that he did not take precautions to avoid injury. --> Professional malpractice application - common knowledge exception: when equipment is sewn into P you don't need an expert to est neg conduct

Answer 27

Majority: Negligence per se --> Where D's conduct also violates a statute that does not provide for civil liability (criminal statute), that statute can est the standard of conduct for breach of duty purposes. Conditions (must be type of person, type of harm): (1) injury caused by the D's conduct is type that statute was intended to prevent (2) P is a member of the class intended to be protected by statute; and (3) D's violation of statute is not excused (emergency not of D's own making or when it's more dangerous to comply with the law) Exception: Licensing statutes: not having a license does not create liability (IE expired DL not neg per se)

Answer 28

A D's conduct was the cause in fact of an event if that event would not have occurred but for existence of conduct. -As long as more than 50% at fault, D is liable for full extent of damages.

Answer 29

D's conduct was AC if conduct was substantial factor in bringing about injury. - -> For situations where two or more Ds conduct results in injury to P, but each D alone would have been enough to cause the entire harm. - -> Joint and several liability --> P can collect from any Ds, and Ds can sue each other for contribution

Answer 30

Where a Ps injury arises from neg conduct of two or more independently acting Ds, only one of whom can actually be responsible. --> each Ds conduct is considered cause in fact of injury unless D can prove he did not cause P's injury (burden of proof shifts from P to D) 3 Requirements: (1) All Ds are tortious/neg (2) All Ds are being sued together (can't use if one D is left out); and (3) Small number of Ds - ----> Burden shifts to Ds to show they were not the cause; if Ds cannot do so, they will be J/S liable

Answer 31

Actively operates in producing harm to another after the actor has already committed his negligent act/omission. --> D liable for foreseeable intervening force: rescuers neg; physician/nurse treatment; disease/subsequent injuries Unforeseeable Type of Harm Unforeseeable type of harm: Was the injury suffered within the risk created by D's negligent conduct? Unforeseeable ED owes duty of reasonable care only to foreseeable Ps. -->Does not matter that P suffered more harm than one would foresee; D is responsible for full extent of harm as long as the TYPE of harm is foreseeable. Eggshell Skull Rule --> Take your victims as you find them; does not matter if P is susceptible to greater harm because of unique susceptibility like eggshell skull.xtent of Harm

Answer 32

An unforeseeable, intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation between the initial wrongful act and the ultimate injury, and thus relieves original TF of any further liability. --> Ex: naturally occurring phenomena; criminal acts of 3rd persons; intentional torts of 3rd persons; extraordinary forms of neg conduct The more culpable the intervening force, the more likely it supersedes; typically, criminal conduct will be a superseding cause, if that conduct is not foreseeable. Subsequent neg conduct is generally not so unforeseeable that it cuts off liability. Tip: look for passage of time (at some point, liability is cut off)

Answer 33

A P must affirmatively prove actual damages (property damages and personal injury damages are recoverable); nominal damages not available; punitive damages not allowed generally. Collateral Source Rule Collateral benefits (payments made/benefits given to injured P from other sources) are not subtracted from P's recovery. --> Ex: insurance policies; employment benefits; gratuities; social legislative benefits. --> Payments made by TF or party acting for him (D insurance co) to injured party are credited against D's tort liability.

Answer 34

Amount over and above compensation needed to make P whole, intended to punish D for egregious conduct and act as deterrent; available in tort cases where there has been willful, wanton, or malicious conduct. --> test for whether punitive damages grossly excessive: (1) degree of reprehensibility; (2) ratio cannot be 10x higher; (3) diff between award and civil/criminal sanctions could be imposed for comparable misconduct.

Answer 35

P must exercise due care to protect himself from injury by D; P's own neg (contributory neg) may bar P's recovery (test: whether P acted as reasonable person under similar circumstances). - -> Contrib neg traditionally barred all recovery by P (CL) - ---------> Last clear chance doctrine (generally wrong answer): if D's neg occurs after Ps neg, so that D had last opp to avoid harm, P is entitled to full recovery. - -> Contrib neg not complete bar if P in intentional tort, recklessness, or strict liability.

Answer 36

Assume pure comparative fault w/ J/S liability unless told otherwise... - -> P can recover no matter how much P is at fault; recover is amount of damages minus the percentage that P is at fault. - -> J/S applies if mult neg Ds, and P is also at fault. SUbtract Ps percentage of fault and P can sue one or more Ds to get full remaining amount. If P sues only one D, D can seek contribution from other Ds. Also, modified comparative fault... --> P is barred from recovery if P is as much at fault or more at fault than D

Answer 37

A P assumes the risk of injury from D's neg if P expressly/impliedly consents to undergo risk created by D's conduct. - -> Express (3 reqs): (1) P must be aware of and understand the terms; (2) injury that occurs must be within risks of which P agreed to relieve the D; and (3) the agreement must not be contrary to pub pol - -> Implied (3 reqs): (1) P had knowledge of and appreciated nature of danger involved (subjective); (2) P appreciated specific danger that injured him; and (3) P voluntarily chose to subject himself to that danger. Firefighter Rule (Prof Rescuers): When P is a prof rescuer AND is injured due to inherent risk of job, P cannot recover in neg against person who created need for rescue. (diff from Good Samaritans, we want those to be able to sue to encourage ppl to rescue) Primary Assumption of the Risk --> In certain contexts, there is no duty to be non-neg. Often arises in context of sporting events.

Answer 38

D can be SL for injuries inflicted by animal w/ dangerous propensities; wild animals (not customarily devoted to service of man) are generally considered w/ dangerous propensities. - -> One bite rule: after one bite, known dangerous propensities - -> Trespassers: no liability most jdxs for trespassers injuries by animals w/ dangerous propensities (except for known, frequent, or child trespassers; must show D failed to due care to warn or protect from animal).

Answer 39

Is activity abnormally dangerous (3 reqs): (1) activity creates risk of serious injury as to P, his land, or chattels; (2) risk cannot be eliminated by exercise of due care; and (3) activity not usually conducted in that area/community. - -> Proximate cause: P must be injured by the risk that makes activity dangerous. - -> P can recover absent proof of fault as long as D was involved and activity caused the harm. - -> Superseding cause may relieve strict liability D of liability - -> Balance risk v. social value

Answer 40

Strict products liability invoked when a defective product (for which approp D is responsible) injures approp P. --> Generally, services alone are not enough. Need to Show: (1) Commercial supplier puts - --> Commercial suppliers at all levels of distribution, as well as commercial lessors, new home developers, and sellers of used goods (manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer). - --> Retailers and commercial lessors subject to strict liability for defects in new goods that they sell or lease. - --> Occasional/one-time sellers not proper Ds. (2) Defective product into stream of commerce - --> Manufacturing, design, warning (3) Causing (4) Damages - -> Any P injured while using defective product may recover damages from approp D. - -> No req of contract privity - -> Ex: purchasers and consumers; families; friends; guests; employees; bystanders physically injured

Answer 41

Product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous, easiest to show. Two Scenarios: (1) Product is more dangerous than a consumer would reasonably expect when using in its intended manner or it is in a condition not intended by manufacture; AND (2) Defect existed when leaving manufacturer's hands SL on manufacturer and everyone else in chain of distrib.

Answer 42

Product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous. ---> Hindsight-Negligence Test: Product is defective if reasonable person would not have placed it into the stream of commerce. Product manufactured as manufacturer intended, but presents a danger of personal injury/property damage. Two Tests: (1) Ordinary Consumer Expectation Test - -> Product is more dangerous than would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who possesses ordinary knowledge common to the community. (2) Risk-Utility Balancing Test - -> Jury determines whether the danger the design threatens (cost in human injury and property damage) outweighs its utility to society. - -> Product will be found defective if an alternative design could have reduced the danger at about the same cost.

Answer 43

A D's failure to warn a P that a product presents threat of personal injury/property damage may be considered a defect. Two Scenarios: (1) P is Asserting a Warning is Inadequate - -> Test : reasonableness - does the warning reasonably inform reader of risks of the product and how to reduce them? - -> Considers language, placement, size of font, clarity (2) P is Asserting There is no Warning - -> A manufacturer has to warn about risks of which it knows or should know. - -> Consider the gravity and probability of the harm: 1% risk of death - they should warn; 1% risk of tooth discoloration - probably not Some products so obviously dangerous no warning req (ex: knife)

Answer 44

P must show that defect that injured P was in existence at time it left D's control, and that defect was substantial factor in bringing about injury.

Answer 45

Same principles as neg, except where intervening conduct of 3rd person occurs: - -> Neg handling of product after it leaves D's control foreseeable and not superseding intervening force. - -> 3rd parties criminal or intentionally tortious conduct unforeseeable intervening force that supersedes D's wrongdoing, unless defect increased risk that 3rd party would engage in conduct. - -> Did P use/alter the product in an unforeseeable way? Learned Intermediary Doctrine --> If a manufacturer provides a warning to a dr, the manufacturer can expect the dr will pass the warning on to the patient; if the dr does not, the dr is a superseding cause of patient's harm.

Answer 46

Misuse If P uses product in manner neither intended nor foreseeable, no SPL. --> However, D may still be liable for foreseeable misuse. Alteration Liability reduced when product altered after leaving hands (must occur between time product leaves manufacturer and time of P's injury). --> Not applicable to design defect theory Contributory Negligence Originally, P's unreasonable conduct was not a defense to SPL unless P knew of defect, comprehended the risk, and voluntarily elected to expose himself to the risk (only defense to SL). Modern Law, contributory neg only applies as a defense to SPL if Ps conduct rises to the level of misuse, abnormal use, or independent neg (IE not where Ps wrongful conduct is a failure to discover the defect). - -> A Ps continued use of a product which the P knows to be defective is not voluntary and not ATR if there are no practicable alternatives to such use. - -> Where a D can show that his product was subsequently altered in an unforeseeable manner by someone in the chain of distribution or a third party, cts usually relieve D of liability.

Answer 47

Same as general neg.

Answer 48

Liability arises from fact that product is not as represented (breaches warranty either expressly/impliedly, or there is a misrepresentation). --> P must est that a warranty existed as to product and that product does not conform to warranty.

Answer 49

An express warranty exists where D made representation as to nature/quality of product (can occur via advertising, during negotiations for purchase, or as provision of contract of sale) that becomes a basis of the bargain. - -> (UCC) Express warranty may be created by D's promise, by affirmation of fact, by description, or by use of sample or model. - -> Any seller can make this warranty (manufacturer, distributor, or seller

Answer 50

Two Types: (1) Merchantability: where merchant deals in goods of particular kind, the sale of such goods constitutes an implied warranty that those goods will be merchantable (average quality for goods of that kind and generally fit for purpose for which such goods normally used). (2) Fitness for a Particular Purpose: where a D knows/has reason to know that P is purchasing goods for a particular purpose, and the P is relying on D's skill or judgment to furnish approp goods (sale of goods will constitute implied warranty that goods will be fit for P's purpose). - -> Requirements of privity and notice - -> Can be disclaimed by K

Answer 51

Disclaimer (UCC) D allowed to disclaim/limit applicability of warranties by sufficiently conspicuous writing. --> it is prima facie unconscionable for seller to attempt to limit remedies available for breach of warranty to exclude recovery for personal injuries where consumer goods are involved. --> where goods sold as is, often implied that seller is disclaiming warranties Failure to Notify Sender (UCC) P-buyer must notify D-seller of breach of warranty within reasonable time after buyer discovers or should have discovered it. Contributory and Comparative Neg With respect to personal injury or injury to property, contrib/compar fault defenses are available where warranty is the theory on a similar basis to SL in tort. AoR Similar in application to SPL; if P voluntarily and unreasonably continues to use product after he discovers that it is not fit for purpose purchased or not of merchantable quality, D is exonerated from liability for personal injuries or property damage suffered by P.

Answer 52

S/L CoA Neg CoA Warranty CoA Intent-Based CoA

Answer 53

An unreasonable interference w/ a right common to general public (health, safety, morals of community); P must have suffered harm of different kind from other members of public. Typically brought by govt actor (ex: AG). Unreasonable factors: (1) whether the conduct involves a sig interference w/ public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience; (2) whether conduct is proscribed by statute, etc.; (3) whether conduct is of a continuing nature or has produces permanent/long-lasting effect, and as the actor knows/has reason to know, has sig effect on public right. For Public Nuisance, P must (3 scenarios): (1) have right to recover damages (2) have authority as public official or public agency to represent state or political subdivision in the matter; or (3) have standing to sue as representative of general public, citizen in citizen's action, or member of class in class action.

Answer 54

Thing/activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes w/ P's use and enjoyment of his land. - -> Interference must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to an average person in the community; P cannot devote his land to unusually sensitive use and complain of nuisance based on otherwise relatively harmless conduct. - -> P must be a possessor, owner of easement/profit, or owner of nonpossessory estate Private Nuisance Reqs: A D is subject to liability only if his conduct is a legal cause of an invasion of another's interest in private use and enjoyment of land, and the invasion is either: (1) intentional and unreasonable; or (2) unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for neg or reckless conduct Ct will weigh gravity of harm done to P against utility of D's activity. - -> Factors: (1) compliance w/ applicable zoning ord; (2) whether there are alternatives (3) frequency and extent of interference/injury; (4) utility and social value of D's activity; (5) who was there first (once a defense, now just a factor)

Answer 55

Contributory Neg - Same as neg; when harm is intentional/reckless, contrib neg not defense; when nuisance is abnormally dangerous activity, contrib neg is defense only if P has voluntarily and unreasonably subjected himself to risk of harm. Assumption of Risk - same as neg Coming to the Nuisance - fact that P has acquired/improved land after nuisance will not by itself bar action, but is a factor to consider in determining whether nuisance is actionable. Compliance with Statute - same as neg

Answer 56

Usual remedy is damages; where damages are inadequate, ct may grant injunctive relief (balancing of equities: economic hardship to parties and public interest in D's activity continuing). ---> Injunction is a ct order directed to a person/entity, usually to refrain from doing particular act (prohibitory) or do a particular act (mandatory). P must show (3 elements): (1) he is about to suffer/will continue to suffer irreparable injury for which money damages are inadequate. (2) the balance of hardships between P and D support equitable remedy. (3) public interest would not be f by grant of injunction P has privilege to enter D's land and personally abate nuisance after notice to D and D refusal to act; extends to use of reasonable action necessary to terminate nuisance.

Answer 57

Prelim relief available (4 factors): (1) P likely to succeed on the merits of underlying claim (2) complaint shows P entitled to relief demanded either for limited period or perpetually (3) denial of injunctive relief would produce waste, or great/irreparable injury to the P (4) public interest as well as balancing of hardships favors grant of injunction Notice required for prelim injunct; between notice and hearing on prelim injunct, party may seek TRO (14 days).

Answer 58

P must establish D published defamatory material concerning the P that caused reputational damage. Prima facie case (elements) 1) Defamatory statement (harmful to P reputation) 2) Of/concerning P 3) Statement published to third party

Answer 59

Message that holds a P up to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or scorn, causing reputational harm. - -> Statements of fact: defamatory (would reasonably prudent person interpret statement as fact); statements of opinion: not defamatory. - -> Message defamatory per se if apparent on face of message that it will injure P's reputation. - -> Defamatory message must be understood by person who receives it. - -> Defamatory message must be one that can be believed as truthful and reputation harming.

Answer 60

Spoken/written statement communicated to third person (besides D and P). P must prove reasonable third person who received defamatory message understood it to refer to P. P must show D either intentionally published the information or was neg in publishing the information --> Republication Rule: in addition to D, who originates defamatory message, other persons who repeat the defamatory message are potentially liable as well.

Answer 61

Libel: defamatory message embodied in any relative permanent form. --> Reputational harm presumed, but damages have to be proven. Libel per quod: libel not apparent on its face to be defamatory. --> P must plead and est extrinsic facts to est libel was defamatory and referred to P.

Answer 62

(1) Truth P must prove falsity as part of prima facie case. --> Exception: P is a private (not public) figure, and the matter is a private concern. (2) Absolute Privilege D may not be held liable for an otherwise defamatory message as a matter of law (no matter how bad the D is). D has burden to prove absolute privilege. Types: (1) Legislator not liable for defam message while on floor of legislature/during hearing/committee proceedings. (2) Participant in judicial proceedings not liable for defam message reasonably related to proceedings. (3) Policy-making officials of the executive branches of state/federal govts, so long as defam utterance made in course of duties and relevant to those duties. (4) Defam message communicated by one spouse to another. --> Privilege ends if someone repeats in a non-privileged situation (3) Qualified Privilege Qual Privilege scenarios for defam message (D bears burden of proving Qual Privilege): (1) Made in communication that appears reasonably nec to protect or advance the D's own legitimate interests (2) that were communicated on a matter of interest to recipient of the communication or 3rd person (3) that were communicated concerning matter of public interest (4) that contained in a criticism of a matter of public interest and (5) that are republished in a report of public hearings or meetings, so long as D's report is fair/accurate. P bears burden of est qual privilege lost; D loses qualified privilege if (3 scenarios): (1) he acts out of malice or is reckless as to the statement's truth/falsity (2) he exceeds scope of privilege (3) he does not believe the truth of the defam communication (4) Consent - --> Generally applicable principles relating to consent apply to defamation.

Answer 63

Where a P is a public official or public figure, the P must est that the D acted with malice before recovery. Public official: govt official who has/appears to have substantial responsibility over govt operations. --> If defamation is related to capacity as public official, P must prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence (D knew it was false/recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity). Public figure: person who has either achieved pervasive fame/notoriety (celebrity); or voluntarily injected himself or allowed himself to be drawn into particular public controversy such that he becomes a public figure. --> Treated same as public official, clear and convincing evidence for malice Private Figure: look at subject matter and determine whether it is of public/private concern. - -> Public concern: D must be shown to have exhibited some degree of fault higher than SL (negligence); presumed/punitive damages require actual malice - -> Private concern: P does not have to prove actual malice to get presumed/punitive damages Malice: knowing falsity/recklessness as to truth or falsity; D must have actually known that the message was false or actually entertained serious doubts about its truth (reckless disregard).

Answer 64

Defamation in spoken form. To recover, P must prove special damages (specific economic losses that flow from the slander). --> P can also receive reputational damages Libel v. Slander Factors to distinguish libel v. slander (more of these: libel): (1) permanence of form (2) area of dissemination (3) extent to which message was planned rather than spontaneous

Answer 65

Type of slander so harmful that it is presumed that P suffered damage. Four types: (1) slander that imputed to P the commission of crime involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment. (2) allegations of the P having a loathsome disease (3) slander which imputes to the P behavior or characteristics that are incompatible w/ the proper conduct of his business, profession, or office; and (4) falsely impute unchastity to a woman

Answer 66

D unreasonably intrudes into P's seclusion (zone of privacy). Seclusion refers to a P's right to physical solitude or to the privacy of personal affairs/concerns. --> P must have reasonable expectation of solitude/privacy. Present when a D unreasonably intrudes into P's seclusion; D's intrusion must be highly objectionable to a reasonable person. --> including physical and nonphysical intrusions Damages include compensatory damages (eg mental distress) and if bad enough, punitive damages

Answer 67

Appropriation is an unauthorized use of P's identity/likeness for the D's commercial advantage. - -> Newsworthy purpose of P's likeness/identity exempt - -> P bears burden of proving he did not consent to D's use - -> Use present where D uses any object/characteristic sufficient to identify P - -> Use must be connected to promotion of product/service

Answer 68

Definition: A D unreasonably discloses private facts about a P to the public. - -> Actionable if highly offensive to reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern (not newsworthy). - -> Look for passage of time - 20 years pass and less relevant - -> Injunction possible because the information is true (unlike defamation) - -> If D gets info from public records, D cannot be liable for sharing that information

Answer 69

Definition: D publishes matters attributing to P views he does not hold/attributing actions to him he did not take; must be such that a reasonable person would find it highly offensive. - -> D must communicate material to substantial number of people. - -> Where P portrayed in false light as to matter of public interest, P must prove that D acted with malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity).

Answer 70

Definition: Institution of criminal proceedings by a D for improper purpose and w/o PC, that terminate favorably for the P (P is not convicted) and yet still causes P damages. (exs: persuading pros to bring charges against P, signing affidavit for warrant, giving false info to authorities w/ knowledge of falsity). - -> D must act for primary purpose other than bring a guilty person to justice. - -> D lacks probable cause when either (two scenarios): (1) a reasonable person possessing same facts as D would not have believed that the P was guilty; or (2) D did not actually believe that P was guilty.

Answer 71

Privilege: judges and prosecutors absolute; law enforcement more limited (not protected from malicious pros if particular conduct complained of consisted of acts outside scope of officer's official duties/authority). Truth: D can establish by prep of evidence that P was actually guilty of crime for which P was pros.

Answer 72

Exists where a D intentionally misuses a judicial process (civil or criminal) for purpose other than that intended. --> P need not show D's lack of PC; proof of D's improper purpose serves same function.

Answer 73

An intentional misrepresentation by a D, made with scienter, which is material and justifiably relied upon by P and which causes damages to P. --> Scienter present when D knew statement was false or is reckless as to veracity. Can consist of (3 scenarios): (1) false, affirmative assertion; (2) active concealment; or (3) an omission of fact (failure to disclose)

Answer 74

4 Elements P Must Prove: (1) Intentional material misrepresentation by D (2) Of past or present fact (3) Made with knowledge and (4) On which the P justifiably relied to P's economic detriment Mental State: D must intend P (or class of persons which P belongs) to RELY (will act or fail to act in reliance on Ds misrepresentation). Failure to disclose not enough unless: (1) D is fiduciary for the P (2) D makes assertion believing to be true, subsequently discovers falsity or changed circumstances, and fails to disclose truth (3) where D makes incomplete/ambiguous assertion, omitting additional facts that render his assertion misleading (4) where D makes false assertion not intending anyone rely on it, subsequently discovers P intends to act in reliance, and fails to disclosure (5) where the P reasonably expects disclosure

Answer 75

Traditionally, D has no duty to avoid neg infliction of pure economic loss. Many jdxs impose liability only in certain situations where: (1) special relationship exists between D and P (like fiduciary duty), and the nature of D's activity justifies holding D liable for failure to exercise due care (ex: accountants, lawyers, etc.). (2) if D knows they are acting for the benefit of a 3rd party and the 3rd party relies and suffers economic loss D liable only to Ps (2 possibilities): (1) the person to whom misrepresentation was made; and (2) to any other specific persons/identifiable group of persons that the D knew would rely on misrepresentation

Answer 76

Contract must (3 elements): (1) be in force and effect; (2) be legal; and (3) not be opposed to public policy P must prove: (1) D knew that there is a K between P and 3rd party; not enough that he has merely reaped the advantages of the broken K after the contracting party has withdrawn from it (2) D acted with purpose of having the K breached or making it harder to perform Exception: Ks to marry receive special treatment; almost without exception, cts have refused to hold it is a tort to induce parties to break them.

Answer 77

Protects probable expectancy interests of future contractual relations of a party (ex: obtaining employment, opportunity to gain customers); D liable where conduct unlawful in itself or malevolent (evincing desire to do harm to P for its own sake). P must show that D: (1) Knew of prospective economic advantage; and (2) Acted to interfere with it for improper motives - -> BUT D can act to protected their own competitive interests Defense: privilege of competition - not a tort to beat a business rival to prospective customers.

Answer 78

Definition: false statement made to 3rd party by the D that causes economic injury to P. - -> need not be defamatory, personally relate to P, or cause others to shun the P's company - -> P bears burden of proving falsity - -> D must intend to cause others not to do business w/ P - -> Recovery: only for pecuniary losses that P proves have been realized/liquidated P must prove: (1) False statement (2) actual malice or D knew statement was false or recklessly disregarded veracity (3) made to another or published; and (4) causing specific economic injury to P (not reputational harm, economic loss only)

Answer 79

Describes liability imposed on D because of his relationship w/ actual wrongdoer that directly caused injury to P.

Answer 80

Employer liable for injuries caused by neg / strict liability of employee if tortious act occurred w/in scope of employment. - -> Did acts occur in frolic (major deviation, outside of scope) or in detour (small deviation from employer's directions, within scope)? - -> An act is within scope of employment if it is so closely connected w/ what employee was hired to do and so fairly and reasonably incidental to it that they may be regarded as methods of carrying out objective of employment. - -> Employer can be directly liable if neg hiring - -----------> Intentional torts generally not repondeat superior, even if committed during working hours (unless force used to further employer's purpose).

Answer 81

D generally not liable for torts committed by someone he has engaged as an independent contractor. --> Employee v. IC status depends on whether employer who hired dictates the means, method and manner of ICs work; more control: more likely to be employee not IC Exceptions (2): (1) The contractor undertakes a duty the law does not permit to be delegated to another; and (2) a contractor engages in inherently dangerous activities (any activity to which there is high degree of risk in relation to surroundings, recognizable in advance as requiring special precautions.

Answer 82

Partners and joint venturers vicariously liable for each other's torts if those torts were committed in the course and scope of the partnership / joint venture. - -> Partnership: legal relationship arising from agreement between two or more persons to operate a business for profit. - -> Joint venture: more limited scope/duration than partnership; present when two or more people engage in concerted activity for common business purpose and each has mutual right to control activity.

Answer 83

Cts generally recognize liability for neg entrust, whereby a D will be held liable for negligently permitting 3rd party to use thing/engage in activity. P must prove that: (5 elements) (1) the entrustee was incompetent, unfit, inexperienced, or reckless (2) the entrustor knew, should have known, or had reason to know of the entrustee's condition (3) there was an entrustment (express or implied) of the chattel (4) the entrustment created an appreciable risk of harm to others; and (5) the harm to the injury victim

Answer 84

Owner of motor vehicle liable for neg operation by any person granted permission to use/operate it. Family purpose doctrine: family member driver of family car, in pursuit of recreation/pleasure, considered to be engaged in owner's business and viewed as agent or servant of owner. --> P must show (4 elements): (1) D owned/had interest in/control over vehicle; (2) D made vehicle available for family use; (3) driver was member of D's immediate household; and (4) driver drove the vehicle with the D's permission.

Answer 85

Parent normally not vicariously liable for tort committed by his child. --> Parents can be liable for their own neg, neg supervision, or entrustment.

Answer 86

Where two or more Ds acting in concert or independently injure P, and damages cannot be allocated amongst Ds, all Ds are liable for entire P injury; P can execute against any D. --> In compar neg, any D compelled to pay damages to P greater than percentage of responsibility may obtain contribution for pro rata shares of other Ds.

Answer 87

One of several Ds responsible for neg injuring P may compel others to contribute an equal share toward any judgment satisfied by P against one of them. --> In compar neg, amount payable by each D equal to share of P's injuries for which D responsible.

Answer 88

Where one D only vicariously liable for the tort of another directly liable D, the first D may recover entire amount of any damages paid to P from second D actually responsible for injury. --> A D who injures a P may be liable when another D subsequently injures the P and aggravates the injuries the P suffered from first D; Cts permit first D to obtain indemnity from second for portion of additional damages imposed on first D attributable to aggravating injury.

Answer 89

Survival statutes provide that the death of the victim or TF no longer abates tort action. --> Majority: survival of actions allowed only where P suffered personal injuries; minority: survival of action only where injury suffered is property damage. Wrongful death: action by which either the heirs of decesased victim or personal rep of the victim's estate may bring action against TF responsible for victim's death. --> recovery: pecuniary losses resulting from death (ex: wages the victim might have earned over his lifetime) and damages (ex: victi medical expenses or loss of wages) Loss of Consortium: where a spouse is killed, the surviving spouse may bring a claim for intangible injuries of loss, comfort, companionship, etc

Answer 90

Hospitals liable for indep contractor physician's medical malpractice. - -> Apparent agency context: hospital liable because they are employing indep contrac to perform services accepted by another in the reasonable belief that services were being rendered by hospital/servants. - -> Agency by estoppel context: hospital liable because they represent to the patient that physician is their employee/agent and cause patient to justifiably rely on care and skill of apparent agent. 2 Factors for liability: (1) the existence of conduct by hospital that would cause a reasonable person to believe that physician was agent of hospital; and (2) reliance on that apparent agency relationship by P Other factors: (1) whether hospital actively advertised medical services and/or qualifications, availability, or affiliation of certain physicians w/ the hospital (2) the control that the hospital has over the indep contrac (3) whether physician is on call (4) whether the forms signed by patient are printed on hospital letterhead (5) the existence of a prior/ongoing treatment history between patient and physician (6) whether hospital has attempted to notify the patient of the physician's indep contrac status through signs, communications, and/or consent forms; and (7) the P patient's testimony regarding how they understood and perceived the physician's status with regard to hospital

Answer 91

Generally, return P to pre-injury position. 3 Elements Reqd: (1) Type of damage must be foreseeable (no the extent, but the type of damage) (2) Must be reasonably certain (not speculative); and (3) Not avoidable - -------> Avoidable Consequences Rule: P must take reasonably steps after injury to not increase/exacerbate (mitigate) the injury. 2 Categories (1) Special Damages: pecuniary medical costs, lost wages, and cost of repair. - -> Can recover past, present, and future damages; however, future damages will be reduced to present value. - -> Collateral Source Rule: the fact that P has insurance to cover some/all damages does not mean that D does not need to pay. (2) General Damages: more controversial because damages are intangible and difficult to measure. - -> pain and suffering