Torts Flashcards
What are the goals of tort law
(1) to compensate the innocent party
(2) to deter similar conduct by the same defendant or others
(sometimes by imposing punitive damages).
What are the 3 types of torts
-Intentional
-Negligence
-Strict Liability
What is Intentional Torts
Where one person intentionally injures another (occasionally, but not always, a crime).
What are Torts based upon Negligence
Most torts occur when one person acts in a careless manner, causing an injury to another person. A person is negligent if he or she breaches
a duty of care that results in harm to another person.
Strict Liability Torts
Certain torts where the fact of injury means that somebody has done something wrong
Tortfeasors are
defendants
Plaintiff-victim can file a case against multiple defendants.
Example: Plaintiff-victim files a case against one defendant, and then that defendant
joins/sues other defendants, claiming they contributed to the problem.
class actions are
-Multiple victims
-Large groups of injured persons, can all be plaintiffs in a single
lawsuit, rather than filing hundreds or even thousands of separate suits.
TORTS BY NEGLIGENCE
Violation of a statute (NEGLIGENCE PER SE: / a criminal or civil / finding is proof of negligence.)
Often, the government will place affirmative requirements on the producers of
products the
failure to comply with such requirements = negligence per se.
elements of a Lawsuit based on negligence
- That the Defendant owed a duty of care to the person injured
(plaintiff); Courts apply the “reasonable person” standard. - That the Defendant breached the duty of care through his or her unreasonable
conduct, - (1) ACTUAL AND (2) PROXIMATE CAUSE of the victim’s injury.
- That the injury justifies an award of damages (in other words, the victim has
demonstrated some real economic loss, or damage, that might include pain and
suffering), and that there is no social policy that should result in the defendant not
being liable.
Duty of Care
Every person must operate as a “reasonable person”, and use “ordinary care” in how we interact with others.
Duty of care test
Test: Did the defendant either
(1) do the act that was unreasonable,
under the circumstances; or
(2) not do an act which a reasonable person should have done under the
circumstances.
Causation
The defendant’s conduct must be both the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s
injuries.
Actual Cause test
Would the injury have occurred “BUT FOR” the defendant’s conduct.
Proximate Cause Test
Did the act actually cause the injury?
Proximate cause = the true cause which, in a natural, predictable, and
continuous sequence, caused the injuries.
Proximate cause will be found if the consequences were foreseeable, in
advance, that the harm or injury is a likely result of the acts or omissions.
Foreseeability
limits liability
Foreseeability only exists when
a reasonably prudent person would be able to reasonably
foresee their conduct as injuring others.
Social Policy
: We don’t hold people liable for unpredictable and unexpected consequences of
their actions.
“the thing speaks for itself”
This doctrine permits the jury to find the defendant liable in a tort case that:
1. The event at issue doesn’t usually happen without being negligent;
2. Parties other than the plaintiff have been ruled out as being negligent;
3. The negligence at issue is within the scope of defendants’ duty of care to the plaintiff.
THE INJURY REQUIREMENT
No injury= no tort
Why? Purpose of tort law is to compensate people for their injuries. If there is no injury, then
there is no tort.
there must not be a social policy (public policy) that says that the plaintiff is not entitled
to damages.
Example: workers compensation programs provide a comprehensive scheme to compensate
injured workers, and in return they may not sue the employer if they are injured on the job.
Defenses to Negligence
Assumption of risks and obvious dangers
If you voluntarily put yourself in a dangerous situation, and are injured, you can’t sue to
recover damages.
Contributory negligence
make it impossible for plaintiffs to recover
anything if they were even minimally at fault. Still, some states continue to operate under
this regime. Washington does not.
Comparitive negligence
(damages split by % each party is found to be at fault) and “modified comparative
negligence”, where the rule is that the defendant must be MORE negligent than the plaintiff,
or the plaintiff recovers nothing.
What type of Negligence state is Washington?
Pure comparative Negligence