Torts

Question 0

Tort Battery

Answer 0

The intentional harmful or offensive touching of another without consent or privilege.

Question 1

Tort Assault

Answer 1

The intentional placing of another in apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive touching without consent or privilege.

Question 2

Tort Conversion

Answer 2

The intentional exercise of wrongful dominion and control over the chattel of another without consent or privilege.

Question 3

False Imprisonment

Answer 3

The intentional physical or psychological confinement of another within fixed boundaries, for any period of time, without consent or privilege.

Question 4

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 4

Conduct of an extreme and outrageous nature, which is calculated to cause and which does cause severe emotional distress.

Question 5

Trespass to Land

Answer 5

The intentional entry upon the land in possession of another without consent or privilege.

Question 6

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 6

The intentional interference with the chattel in possession of another without consent or privilege.

Question 7

Crazy
Silly
Double
Dealing
Dirty
Dog
Leave
Right
Now
Never
Return
Ever

Answer 7

Consent
Self Defense
Defense of others
Defense of property
Discipline
Detention for Investigation
Legal Authority
Re-entry of land wrongfully withheld
Necessity public
Necessity private
Recapture of chattel
Entry to abate a nuisance

Question 8

Negligence

Answer 8

D may be liable to P for negligence if it can be determined that D owed a duty to P, that D breached that duty, and P suffered damages actually and proximately caused by D’s breach.

Question 9

General duty

Answer 9

It appears that when D did ACT he created a foreseeable risk of harm and fell below the reasonable standard of care for a BLANK.

Question 10

Creation of duty

Answer 10

CRAPS
Contract
special Relationship
Assumption of duty
creation of Peril
Statute

Question 12

Special Duty - VGOLD

Answer 12

Violation of statute
Guest statute
Omission to act
Landowner/occupier - licensee: warn of known, invitee: warn and make safe all found with reasonable inspection, known trespasser: warn. 
Duties owed by lessors of land

Question 13

Violation of statute - ICI+/-

Answer 13

Intent of legislature
Class intended to protect
type of Injury
evidentiary effect - violation = breach

Question 16

Strict Liability - Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 16

A person who brings something onto his land that involves a non-natural use of the land and is likely to cause substantial damage if it escapes will be strictly liable if it in fact escapes and causes harm.

Question 17

Strict Liability - 2nd Restatement

Answer 17

One who maintains an abnormally dangerous condition or activity on his premises may be liable for the harm it causes even with reasonable care.

Question 20

Tort General Damages

Answer 20

Past, present, future pain and suffering

Question 21

Tort Special Damages

Answer 21

Past, present, future economic losses, medical bills, loss of wages/profits.
Pure economic loss not supported.

Question 22

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 22

Duty owed not to subject others to a foreseeable risk of physical injury that might foreseeably result in emotional distress.

Question 23

Product Liability

Intentional approach

Answer 23

Knowledge
Substantially certain
Battery
Punitive $

Question 24

Products Liability

Negligence approach

Answer 24

Duty
Breach
Causation
Damages
Defenses

Question 25

NIED Bystander Rule

Answer 25

Dillon v Legg minority - close relationship and contemporaneous sensory observance.

Thing v La Chusa - limited to closely related and present at event.

Question 26

Products Liability

Warranty approach

Answer 26

Expressed
Implied warranty of merchantibility
Implied warranty of fitness for intended use
Causation
Damaged
Defenses

Question 27

Assumption of Risk

Answer 27

P assumes the risk when he has knowledge, comprehension, and appreciation of a danger and voluntarily chooses to encounter it.

Question 28

Survival Statute

Answer 28

Suit brought by estate subject to claims. Recover same as personal injury suit.

Question 29

Products Liability | Strict liability in tort approach

Answer 29

``` Memorized statement Stream of commerce Defect in existence Causation Damages Defenses Indemnity ```

Question 30

Wrongful Death

Answer 30

Suit brought by heirs. Recover loss of pecuniary support.

Question 31

Products Liability - Negligence - McPherson v Buick

Answer 31

McPherson v Buick discarded the privity requirement and maintained where the average reasonable man could foresee that the product would create a risk of harm, then the supplier was under a duty to all foreseeable users.

Question 33

Implied Warranty of Merchantability

Answer 33

A merchant selling goods warrants that they are of average and fair quality, ie., fit for normal use.

Question 34

Implied Warranty of Fitness for Intended Use

Answer 34

If seller knows of buyer's intended use, and buyer acting as an average reasonable person, relies upon seller's "special knowledge and skills" then seller has liability.

Question 35

Defamation approach

Answer 35

``` Memorized statement Damages Defenses Truth Consent Absolute Qualified Constitutional privilege ```

Question 37

Products Liability - | Strict Liability In Tort

Answer 37

Courts have held a manufacturer/distributor/supplier liable by operation of law. Thus, if a defective product is placed in the stream of commerce the manufacturer will be held strictly liable in tort to all consumer-users for their injuries. P must establish that the product is defective in design, manufacture, or warning. Restatement 2nd 402a - Required that in order for a product to be defective it must be sold by a commercial seller and be unreasonably dangerous in its normal intended use (danger not contemplated by ordinary user and manufacturer must have been able to foresee). Consumer expectation test/cost/benefit analysis test. CA only requires that the product be defective and causes harm in its normal use. Foreseeability not an issue.

Question 38

Improper Litigation

Answer 38

Malicious prosecution, wrongful institution of civil proceedings, abuse of process.

Question 39

Nuisance

Answer 39

An act by D that constitutes a nontrespassory invasion of P's interest in the use and enjoyment of his land, causing P substantial and unreasonable harm. (Utility v Risk, $ damages or injunction)

Question 40

Invasion of privacy approach AFLIP

Answer 40

Appropriation of likeness False Light Intrusion upon seclusion Public disclosure of private fact Defenses Consent Truth - FL Newsworthy IIED?

Question 41

False Light

Answer 41

Unauthorized use of P's name or likeness attributing to P ideas which are false. Must be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Time v Hill - must demonstrate malice. Defense of truth, absolute and qualified privilege.

Question 42

Misrepresentation | Intentional/Negligent

Answer 42

A false representation of existing material fact which is made: Intentional - knowingly with intent to induce P's reliance, causing P to justifiably rely to his damage. Negligent - with lack of due care intending to induce reliance to which proximately causes P damage.

Question 43

Business Torts

Answer 43

Injurious Falsehood Interference with contract Interference with prospective advantage

Question 44

Public Disclosure of Private Fact

Answer 44

Highly offensive to reasonable person and not of public concern. Publicity enough to equate to public at large. Defense of newsworthy.

Question 45

Invitee

Answer 45

An invitee is one whose presence confers an economic benefit on the landholder.

Question 46

Pure Comparative Negligence

Answer 46

A plaintiff's recovery in a negligence action is diminished in proportion to the plaintiff's fault, but is not barred.

Question 47

Torts Main Checklist

Answer 47

``` Intentional Torts/Defenses Negligent Torts/Defenses Miscellaneous Torts Strict Liability Vicarious Liability Products Liability Crossover Torts Defamation Invasion of Privacy Remedies ```

Question 48

Products Liability Approach

Answer 48

Intent Negligence - McPherson v Buick Warranty Strict Liability in Tort - R 2nd 402a

Question 49

Attractive Nuisance | A Professor You Understand

Answer 49

Artificial Possessor knew or should have known Youth unable to recognize danger Utility of maintain condition v burden to eliminate.

Question 50

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 50

The thing speaks for itself. Breach may be applied in situations where 1) such things do not happen absent negligence 2) no one else could be responsible 3) the plaintiff did not contribute to his own injury.

Question 51

Crossover Torts - I Never Mix Business

Answer 51

Improper litigation Nuisance Misrepresentation Business Torts

Question 52

Miscellaneous Torts

Answer 52

Wrongful Death Survival Statute Statute of Limitations Immunities

Question 54

Defamation

Answer 54

P must prove that the matter was false and defamatory (lowers P's esteem in the community) published intentionally or negligently by D to a third person, that the third person understood the defamatory imputations applied to P and P suffered damage as a result of the defamation. When a public figure sues for libel related to a matter of public concern actual malice as defined in New York v Sullivan becomes part of P's prima facie case. Actual malice is knowing falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.

Question 55

Absolute Privilege

Answer 55

``` Judicial Legislative Government Spouse Broadcasters ```

Question 56

Qualified Privilege

Answer 56

``` Public proceedings Fair comment Self protection Protect others Common interest Prevent a crime ```

Question 57

Constitutional Privilege

Answer 57

Public figures absent malice

Question 59

Appropriation of Likeness

Answer 59

Unjust enrichment through the theft of goodwill.

Question 61

Intrusion upon Seclusion

Answer 61

Unreasonable invasion of another's reasonable expectation of privacy.

Question 73

Superseding Intervening Cause Statement

Answer 73

If negligence that is a cause of harm is followed by an intervening cause of harm that was unforeseeable, the intervention is regarded as a superseding cause that relieves the antecedent wrongdoer of liability.