Torts Flashcards
Three Negligence Hypos
(1) Regular Negligence: liability for damages
(2) Negligence per se: violation of a statute
(3) Res Ipsa Loquitor: one or both parties making a motion for summary judgment/directed verdict & whether a jury could infer/conclude negligence
Negligence
(1) Duty
(2) Breach
(3) Causation: Actual & Proximate Cause
(4) Damages
Lay Person Duty
Duty to act as a reasonably prudent person would. Duty owed only to foreseeable plaintiffs
Foreseeable Plaintiff
People in the zone of danger
Duty Owed to People Who Enter a Property
Unknown Trespasser – no duty
Known Trespasser – duty to warn of known dangers
Licensee – social guest/personal relationship; duty to warn of known latent dangers
Invitee – business/commercial (customer); duty to warn of known dangers, inspect, and make safe (clean banana peel/spill)
Parent/Child Duty
P has a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising C to prevent harm if the P knew or should have known they need to control C (devil child on leash)
Duty to Rescue
General Rule: No duty to rescue/provide
Exceptions –
(1) If come to person’s rescue, then owe them reasonable care;
(2) Special Relationship [common carriers (bus, airplane, trains)/passengers; teacher/student; employer/employee; hotel/guest]
Duty of a Child
Not objective; duty to act like other kids of same age and experience
Duty of a Professional
Not objective; duty to act like other professionals in the community with that experience, background, and training (community standard)
National (not community) standard of care applied to medical specialists
Breach
Didn’t comply with duty
Actual Causation
But for D’s actions, no harm would have occurred
majority rule if multiple causes – substantial factor in causing the harm
Proximate Cause
Whether it was foreseeable that D’s actions would have caused the harm
Subsequent Negligent Acts
E.g., ambulance driver mistake, hospital gives wrong medicine, doctor cuts off leg. Every SNA is an intervening cause (liable) except for a few instances where it’s a superseding cause (not liable).
Intervening Cause – everything is foreseeable, so D is liable for subsequent negligent acts
Superseding Cause – not foreseeable, so liability is cut off and D is only liable for initial harm. (1) Act of God (e.g., lightening); (2) Intentional Tort; (3) Crime; (4) Fact pattern tells you it’s unforeseeable
Intervening Cause
Everything is foreseeable, so D is liable for subsequent negligent acts
Superseding Cause
Not foreseeable, so liability is cut off and D is only liable for initial harm.
(1) Act of God (e.g., lightening)
(2) Intentional Tort
(3) Crime
(4) Fact pattern tells you it’s unforeseeable
Damages
Physical injury/harm is required
Negligence Per Se
(1) violation of a statute
(2) the person injured is part of the class of the people the statute was designed to prevent
(3) the injury is the type of injury the statute was designed to prevent. E.g., speeding in a school zone and hit a kid
exception (D’s physical disability, physical, incapacity, evidence that used reasonable care, or D is a child)
Res Ipsa Loquitor
(1) whatever occurred does not normally happen absent negligence
(2) D was in exclusive control of the instrumentality = raises inference that negligence occurred (jury). Shifts burden to D to establish that he was not negligent.
E.g., flowerpot falling from hotel window; surgeon leaving scalpel in body.
Exclusive Control – no one else could have done it
If multiple tortfeasors - evidence must be shown they jointly engaged in tortious conduct to meet exclusive control prong
Attractive Nuisance
Artificial condition on an owner’s land that causes kids to trespass [to play w it] (e.g., trampoline, treehouse)
Liable if –
(1) Owner knew or should have known that kids would trespass;
(2) the condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm;
(3) the kids, bc of their age or maturity, do not appreciate the risk;
(4) the utility of maintaining the condition is slight (aka cheaper) compared to the risk (damage) to the kids;
(5) the owner fails to make it safe.
Defenses to Negligence
(1) Pure Comparative Negligence;
(2) Modern/Modify Comparative Negligence;
(3) Contributory Negligence;
(4) Assumption of the Risk
Pure Comparative Negligence
DEFAULT
If P is negligent, P can still recover but their damages will be reduced by their % of fault.
Modern/Modify Comparative Negligence
If P is negligent, P can still recover. However, if P is more than 50% responsible for injury, recovery is cut off and P gets nothing.
Contributory Negligence
if P is negligent (even 1%), P cannot recover.
Exception: Last Clear Chance – if D had last clear chance to avoid injury/accident, then P can recover damages.
Assumption of the Risk
P must have
(1) the knowledge of and
(2) appreciates the danger and
(3) P does it anyways
Joint and Several Liability
Two or more co-Ds caused injury but do not know who did what. One D can be liable for all of damages. P can recover damages from one or all co-Ds.
Vicarious Liability
Employer is liable for negligent acts & intentional torts of employees if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment
Scope of Employment– Employee’s conduct is inherent in the employment position or furthers employer’s business
Independent Contractor – Employer is NOT liable for negligence of independent contractor.
Exception: Non-delegable duty - Duty that cannot be assigned to another to avoid liability. (1) Maintain safe conditions to premises open to public (e.g., store, restaurant), (2) Safely perform activities that are (a) abnormally dangerous; (b) infringe on private property right (e.g., nuisance, trespass); (c) are regulated by law; or (d) are conducted in public place. Includes – land possessor’s duty to safely conduct activities on the land that pose foreseeable risks of harm to others (e.g., construction, repairs)
Agency Relationships – employer/employee; non-delegable duty; parent/child; business partner; automobile owner; Dram shop & social host
Apparent Agency - vicarious liability can be imposed if (1) the P reasonably believed that the 3rd party was acting within the scope of the agency relationship w the D AND (2) the belief was traceable to the D’s manifestations (words or conduct)
Contribution
Joint & Several Liability. Party writing check to P did something wrong. Contribution = the suit where one co-D goes after another co-D to help pay damages to P.
Indemnification
Vicarious Liability. Party writing check to P did not do something wrong. Indemnification = the suit the employer goes after employee to pay damages to P.
Strict Liability
(1) Wild animals and (2) Abnormally Dangerous Activity (3) Intrusion by Livestock
(a) Wild Animals – possessing non-domesticated animals (e.g., lion, tiger, bear). Any direct or indirect (fear/reaction to seeing animal & trip trying to get away) injury caused by wild animal = SL (except: trip over wild animal itself and break leg).
Domesticated Animals – SL for domesticated animals only if known dangerous propensity (rabid dog).
(b) Abnormally Dangerous Activity – Blasting/explosives/dynamites or toxic/flammable/nuclear/glow in the dark chemicals. If injury is directly foreseeable from interacting w one of the above = SL. Fireworks are not considered abnormally dangerous.
Exception – When dangerous activity is so far removed from P (e.g., boulder flies 40 miles from blown building and hits P)
(c) Livestock - SL if livestock foreseeably enter onto another’s land & cause physical harm (bodily/property). No SL if livestock intrusion caused by an unforeseeable act or force (e.g., unprecedented earthquake)
(d) Defense to SL: Assumption of the Risk – P must have (1) the knowledge of and (2) appreciates the danger and (3) P does it anyways.
Products Liability
Product broke and consumer is injured. No pure economic damage
Three hypos about why product broke and theory to sue under:
(1) Negligence – someone in the chain acted negligently and that’s why product broke –> no pure economic damages
(2) Warranty/Promise – company gives a guarantee about product (e.g., sticker, pamphlet, etc.). –> pure economic damages
Misrepresentation (PL) - (1) Commercial Seller (2) Misrepresents a material fact about product (3) consumer justifiable relied (4) product caused harm
(3) Strict Product Liability (or sometimes “Strict Liability in Tort”) – (1) D was commercial supplier in the chain of distribution (manufacturer, distributor, retailer, etc.); (2) Product defective* at time left D’s control; (manu defect, design defect, inadequate warning); (3) Defect caused P physical harm (bodily harm or property damage) –> no pure economic damages
*Defective – if defective product poses a foreseeable risk of harm & risk could have been reduced by a feasible alternative design (i.e., risk-utility test: comparing risks & benefits of OG design to those of an alt design)
P is a Foreseeable User – purchaser or purchaser’s friend, fam, coworkers. But not purchaser’s thief
(4) Defenses to PL – (1) Consumer’s Misuse; (2) Assumption of Risk
Product poses a foreseeable risk of harm? no = no defect; yes = –> Feasible alternative design could reduce that risk? yes = design defect; no = –> reasonable warnings/instructions could reduce that risk? No = no defect; Yes = inadequate warnings/ instructions
Battery
(1) intent to cause H/O C
and
(2) harmful or offensive contact to another person OR anything physically connected to them.