Torts Flashcards

1
Q

Beginning of a negligence essay

A

In any negligence action, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to conform his conduct to a standard necessary to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm to others, that the defendant’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, and that the defendant’s conduct was both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Child’s duty of care:

A

A child owes the duty of care of a hypothetical child of similar age, intelligence, and experience, acting under similar circumstances.

Exception: if the child is engaged in adult activity then the child will be held to the same standard of care as a reasonably prudent adult engaged in such activity.

Some states recognize the tender years doctrine in which a child of less than seven years old cannot be found negligent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Duty to an undiscovered trespasser

A

(One who comes onto the land without permission or privilege who the premises owner does not know about)

Not owed any duty of care.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Duty to a discovered trespasser

A

(Trespasser that the premises possessor knows or should know of).

Possessor must warn or make safe any unreasonably dangerous concealed artificial conditions that the landowner knows of

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Attractive nuisance doctrine

A

The premises possessor is liable if (1) he knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, (2) the condition is one which he knows or should know involves an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm, (3) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved, (4) the burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared with the risk involved and the benefit to the possessor, and (5) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the children.

This doctrine applies only if the child is engaging in an activity appropriate for children (not adult activity).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Duty to a licensee

A

(Social guest who has permission to enter the land but does not confer an economic benefit on the possessor of land)

Landowner must warn or make safe all concealed dangers (artificial or not, unreasonably dangerous or not) that the landowner knows of.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Duty to an invitee

A

(Those that enter either to confer an economic benefit or enter land that is open to the public at large)

The premises possessor must warn or make safe all dangers that the landowner knows or should know of. The premises possessor has a duty to inspect!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Negligence per se

A

A plaintiff can sue under this theory when the plaintiff can show three elements: (1) the defendant violated a statute without excuse; (2) the plaintiff was in the class of persons that the statute was trying to protect; and (3) the plaintiff received the injury hat the statute was trying to prevent.

If a plaintiff establishes the above elements, he has offered conclusive proof of duty and breach (must still prove causation and harm).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Res ipsa loquitor

A

Allows the jury to infer negligence when the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, other responsible causes are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence, and the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant’s duty tot he plaintiff.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Eggshell-skull rule

A

A defendant takes his victim as he finds him. The plaintiff with an “eggshell skull” who suffers damages greatly in excess of those that a normal victim would suffer is entitled to recover fully for his injuries.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Negligent infliction of emotional distress

A

May be applicable when the defendant is negligent and the plaintiff has not sustained any actual physical trauma to his body.

Generally must be a physical manifestation of the emotional distress.

Some jurisdictions only allow recovery if the plaintiff was within the zone of danger. Others allow it when the plaintiff was closely related to the victim, was located near the scene of the accident, and suffered shock resulting from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.

In almost all jurisdictions, mere receipt of news relating to an accident does not suffice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Comparative negligence

A

Majority law.

The trier of fact (judge/jury) apportions fault among the parties. The amount of damages apportioned to the plaintiff because of the plaintiff’s negligence is subtracted from the total damages awarded by the jury. This is known as pure comparative negligence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Contributory negligence—common law

A

Common law doctrine that states if the jury finds that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his injuries to any degree, the plaintiff cannot recover.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Battery

A

An act with intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of the contact and a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

False imprisonment

A

An act with intent to confine or restrain a person to a bounded area, actual confinement occurs, and the plaintiff knows of the confinement or is hurt by the confinement.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Consent

A

Defense to an intentional tort—can be express or implied.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

An employer is vicariously liable for torts of its employees if

A

The torts are committed within the scope of employment (respondeat superior). Intentional torts are usually outside of the scope of employment unless they were done for the purpose of serving the employer or if they were foreseeable.

18
Q

The employer can be directly liable for his own negligence if

A

He fails to supervise employees or otherwise acts negligently in hiring, firing, or entrustment

19
Q

Indemnification

A

Full reimbursement for damages paid to the plaintiff. One defendant can seek 100% of the damages from the other defendant. Usually occurs when the paying defendant was not at fault in causing the plaintiff’s injuries, and the non-paying defendant was at fault.

20
Q

For strict products liability, the defendant must be a

A

Merchant, rather than a casual seller of goods.

21
Q

Under a manufacturing defect theory, the product must…

A

Be defective from the time it left the manufacturer’s hands.

22
Q

Who is liable for manufacturing defects?

A

All commercial sellers, including the store that sold the product.

23
Q

Standard of care for doctors (malpractice)

A

Most courts will apply a national standard of care to evaluate their conduct.

24
Q

Doctrine of apparent agency

A

A third party can be vicariously liable under this doctrine when claims of direct negligence and other types of vicarious liability (like respondeat superior) are not available.

There must be some reasonable basis for the plaintiff’s belief that the defendant was an agent of the third party, and the plaintiff must have relied on that belief.

25
Q

An activity may be characterized as abnormally dangerous if (two requirements)

A
  1. The activity creates a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and
  2. The activity must not be a matter of common usage in the community.

Note: in most states, the defendant is only liable to foreseeable plaintiffs; harm must result from the kind of danger to be anticipated from the abnormally dangerous activity.

26
Q

Scope of liability in a negligent hiring claim:

A

When an employer fails to act with reasonable care in hiring an individual, the employer opens itself up to potential liability if the employee subsequently causes harm of a type related to the negligence in hiring.

Employers are NOT liable for all possible activities or actions in which the employee might engage (ex: activities the employee undertakes when not working).

27
Q

Theories of products liability:

A
  1. Intent
  2. Negligence
  3. Strict liability
  4. Implied warranties
  5. Express warranties
28
Q

Prima facie case for a products liability claim based in strict liability:

A

(1) commercial supplier of a product (2) producing or selling a defective product (3) actual and proximate cause (4) damages.

Plaintiff must prove that the defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control. For liability to attach, the product must also reach the plaintiff without substantial alteration.

29
Q

Is ordinary contributory negligence a defense in a strict products liability action where the plaintiff failed to discover the defect or guard against its existence, or where plaintiff’s misuse was reasonably foreseeable?

A

No.

30
Q

Is assumption of risk a defense to strict products liability?

A

It may be a defense where the plaintiff engaged in voluntary and unreasonable conduct and used the product despite discovering the defect and being aware of the danger.

31
Q

Land possessor duty to licensee:

A

Make safe any known, concealed, dangerous conditions on the property—whether man made or natural.

32
Q

Tortfeasors acting in concert

A

Under joint and several liability, when two defendants act in concert (together and by agreement) and cause harm to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can recover the full amount of plaintiff’s claim from either defendant.

(Ex: two defendants engaging in an illegal street race and driving over the speed limit).

33
Q

Liability for invasion of privacy elements

A

(1) details are so personal that its disclosure would offend a reasonable person even if the information is true; (2) the details are not generally known to the public; (3) the details are not newsworthy; and (4) the details are widely communicated.

Newsworthiness factors: social value of facts published and intrusion into private affairs.

34
Q

When can a nuisance claim be brought?

A

When there has been a substantial, unreasonable interference with another private individual’s use or enjoyment of a property he actually possessed or to which he has a right of immediate possession.

35
Q

“Coming to the nuisance”

A

A defense to nuisance that will bring down the plaintiff’s recovery chances.

36
Q

IIED

A

Intentional or reckless infliction, by extreme and outrageous conduct, of severe emotional or mental distress (even in the absence of physical harm).

37
Q

Bystander IIED

A

Plaintiff must prove she (1) is in a close relationship with the person injured by the defendant; (2) she was present at the scene of the injury; and (3) she personally observed or perceived the event.

Physical symptoms not usually required when all three elements are present.

38
Q

Partial/modified comparative negligence

A

Some jurisdictions: apportionment is not available unless the jury concludes that the plaintiff is less than 50% at fault. In these “partial” or “modified” comparative negligence jurisdictions, if the jury concludes that the plaintiff was 50% or more at fault, he cannot recover.

39
Q

An activity may be characterized as abnormally dangerous if:

A

It involves substantial risk of serious harm to person or property even when reasonable care is exercised.

40
Q

Whether an activity is an abnormally dangerous one is a question of:

A

Law that the court can decide on a motion for directed verdict.

41
Q

The courts generally impose two requirements for finding an activity to be abnormally dangerous:

A

(1) the activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors; and (2) the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community.

42
Q

Is a principal vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its agent if the latter is an independent contractor?

A

Generally, no.

One broad exception is when the contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities—an activity where there are special dangers to others inherent in or normal to the activity.