torts Flashcards
intentional torts
- battery
- assault
- false imprisonment
- intentional infliction of emotional distress
- trespass to land
- trespass to chattels
- conversion
battery
- harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person intentionally caused by the defendant
- person includes things connected to the person
- contact is deemed offensive if the plaintiff has not expressly or impliedly consented to it
assault
- intentional creation by the defendant of a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person
- apprehension need not be fear
- words alone generally not enough
false imprisonment
- an intentional act or omission by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area
- confinement or restraint includes threats of force, false arrests, and failure to provide a means of escape when under a duty to do so
intentional infliction of emotional distress
- intentional extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress
- physical injuries are not required
trespass to land
- an intentional act by the defendant that causes a physical invasion of the plaintiff’s real property
- the defendant need not have intended to commit a trespass, only to do the act
trespass to chattels
- an intentional act by the defendant that causes an interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel, resulting in damages
- involves damage o dispossession of the chattel
- defendant need not have intended to commit a trespass to the chattels only to do the act that causes interference
- if damage is serious, conversion may be appropriate
conversion
- an intentional act by the defendant that causes a serious interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel
- the defendant need not have intended a conversion, only to do the act that constitutes a conversion.
- the interference with the chattel is so serious as to require the defendant to pay the full value of the chattel
transferred intent
- intent will transfer from the intended tort to the committed tort or from the intended victim to the actual victim
- both the tort intended and the tort committed must be battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land/chattels
defenses to intentional torts
- consent
- self defense
- defense of other
- defense of property
- necessity
consent defense
- consent may be either express or implied
- the plaintiff must have capacity to consent and the defendant must not exceed the bounds of the consent
self defense/ defense of others/ defense of prop
- the defendant must reasonably believe that a tort is being or about to be committed against himself, a third person, or his property
- only reasonable force may be used
- deadly force permitted if reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent serious bodily injury
- deadly force never permitted to defend only property
- the shopkeeper’s privilege permits the reasonable detention of someone the shopkeeper reasonably believes has shoplifted goods
necessity defense
- a defendant whose property tort wa justified by a public necessity has an absolute defense
- if justified only by a private necessity, the defense is qualified (the defendant must pay for the damage caused)
- this privilege trumps a property owner’s right to defend his property
elements of the prima facie negligence case
- the defendant owes a duty of care to conform to a specific standard of conduct
- the defendant breached that duty
- the breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury
- the plaintiff suffered damages to person or property
general standard of care
a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstance
(average mental ability but the same physical characteristics as the defendant if relevant)
professionals standard of care
professionals must exercise the knowledge and skill of a member of the profession in good standing
children standard of care
children must conform to the standard of care of a child of like age, intelligence, and experience (except the adult standard applies if the child is engaged in an adult activity)
landowners standard of care to trespassers
- the landowner owes not duty to undiscovered trespassers
- for discovered and anticipated trespassers, the landowner owes a duty to warn or make safe known highly dangerous artificial conditions if not obvious to the trespasser
landowners standard of care to licensees
- licensees are those who come onto the land with express of implied permission but for their own purpose (includes social guest)
- duty is the same as for discovered trespassers except that it applied to all dangerous artificial and natural conditions
landowners standard of care to invitees
- invitees are those entering as members of the public or for a purpose connected to the business of the landowner
- the landowner’s duty is the same as for licensees but with the additional duty to reasonably inspect for dangerous conditions
negligent infliction of emotional distress liability
the defendant breaches a duty to the plaintiff by creating a risk of physical injury and the plaintiff suffers emotional distress as a result
- plaintiff must be in the zone of danger and ordinarily must suffer physical symptoms from the distress
- exception: the defendant breaches a duty to a bystander not in the zone of danger who (1) is closely related to the injured person (2) was present at scene of injury (3) personally observed or perceived the event
- exception: relationship exists between the defendant and the plaintiff under which the defendant’s negligence has great potential to directly cause emotional distress (ex: hospital erroneously reports death of plaintiff’s family member)
breach of duty
- whether the defendant breached the applicable duty of care is a question for the trier of fact
- under res ipsa loquitur the fact that an injury occurred may create an inference that the defendant breached his duty, requirements:
- the accident causing the injury is a type that would not have occurred absent negligence
- the negligence is attributable to the defendant (usually because the defendant is in exclusive control of the instrumentality causing the injury)
actual cause
- usually “but for” test - an actual cause of an injury when it would have occurred but for the act
- merged causes - when two acts bring about an injury and either one alone would have sufficed, either of the acts is an actual cause of the injury if it was a “substantial factor” in bringing it about
- unascertainable causes - when two acts were negligent but it is not clear which was the actual cause of the injury, the burden shifts to each of the negligent actors to show that his negligent act was not the actual cause
proximate cause
- limits liability for unforeseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions
- the defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk from the defendant’s actions
- indirect cause cases: an intervening force occurs after the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury (foreseeable intervening forces such as a negligent rescue do no cut off the defendant’s liability for the consequences of his negligent act