Torts Flashcards
Transferred intent
D’s intent to commit an intentional tort against one person can be transferred if D actually committed 1) different intentional tort against same person, 2) intended tort against different person, or 3) different tort against different person. Transferred intent applies to all intentional torts except IIED and nuisance.
Battery
D intended to cause contact w/ P (or w/ something connected to P), D causes such contact, and contact harms or offends P.
Assault
D intends to cause P to anticipate imminent harmful offensive contact, and D’s conduct causes P to anticipate such contact.
IIED
1) D intentionally or recklessly 2) engaged in extreme/outrageous conduct 3) that causes P severe emotional distress.
IIED bystander rule
Under the bystander theory of recovery for IIED, P must show 1) D’s intentional extreme & outrageous conduct harmed P’s close relative, and 2) P contemporaneously perceived D’s conduct.
Do IIED damages include P’s hypersensitivity
includes P’s hypersensitivity only if D is aware
False imprisonment
1) D intends to confine P in a limited area, 2) D’s conduct causes such confinement or D failed to release P despite duty, and 3) P is conscious of confinement.
Shopkeeper’s privilege
Applies if 1) reasonable suspect of P stealing, 2) can detain P For reasonable time and manner, and 3) on or in immediate vicinity of premises.
Damages for false imprisonment
P can recover nominal or actual damages
Defenses to intentional torts
Consent
Self defense
Defense of others/property
Self-defense to intentional torts
D may use reasonable force, proportionate to threat, to defend against offensive contact or bodily harm.
Initial aggressor exception to self defense
Self defense applicable to initial aggressor unless the other party responded to the initial aggressor’s nondeadly force with deadly force
Type of force for defense of others/property
Reasonable force only
Trespass to chattel
Intentional interference w/ P’s right to possess personal property either by 1) dispossessing P of the chattel, 2) using/intermeddling with it, or 3) damaging it.
Damages for trespass to chattel
Actual damages, loss of use, nominal (only if dispossessed), cost of repair
Conversion
Intentionally interfering w/ P’s chattel in a way that deprives P entirely of use
Damages for conversion
full value of chattel
Trespass to land
D intentionally causes physical invasion of P’s land
Private necessity defense to trespass to land
Partial defense for D to enter or remain on P’s land to protect themselves for serious harm, D is still liable for actual damages
Public necessity defense to trespass to land
Full defense to avert imminent public disaster, no liability for damages
Private nuisance
Private nuisance is the substantial & unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of their land. Unreasonableness is measured objectively
Public nuisance
Public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public. Private individuals cannot bring a public nuisance action unless their harm is uniquely different from the general public.
Partial defenses to nuisance
Regulatory compliance
Coming to the nuisance
Negligence elements
1) duty, 2) breach, 3) causation, 4) damages
Negligence - duty
Legal obligation to act a certain way. Includes 2 questions: whether a duty exists and what the standard of care is.
Cardozo approach under whether a duty exists
Under the Cardozo majority approach, a duty is owed to P if P is foreseeably harmed by D’s conduct.
Andrews approach under whether a duty exists
Under the Andrews minority approach, a duty is owed to any foreseeable P.
Do foreseeable Ps include nonprofessional rescuers?
YES
Negligence - standard of care
Objective standard of reasonably prudent person (RPP) under the circumstances
Negligence - traditional tripartite approach of landowner standard of care
Under the tripartite approach, standard of care depends on the status of the entrant.
Landowner standard of care owed to trespassers
Trespassers are entitled to the lowest care and the landowner must only refrain from intentional misconduct. Landowners must warn of hidden dangers to discovered trespassers.
Attractive nuisance
Landowners are liable for attractive nuisance if 1) artificial conditions exists where children are likely to trespass, 2) owner knows that condition poses death or serious risk of harm, 3) children can’t appreciate the danger due to their age, 4) utility of maintaining the condition is less than the risk of injury, and 5) owner fails to exercise reasonable care.
Landowner standard of care owed to licensees
Licensees enter the land with permission. Landowners must make the property safe for them and warn them of hidden dangers.
Landowner standard of care owed to invitees
Invitees enter the land for an economic purpose. Landowners must discover dangerous conditions and protect the invitee.
CA approach to landowner standard of care
Reasonable care, although status of entrant is considered as a factor
Landlord is liable for injuries in common areas if?
Landlords are liable for injuries in common areas if they fail to warn.
Negligence - breach
A violation of the standard of care under the RPP standard.
Negligence breach - custom evidence
Evidence of majority practice within an industry or profession in the same community can be dispositive of breach.
Patient’s informed consent is required unless
1) risk commonly known, 2) patient unconscious, 3) patient waives, 4) patient incompetent, or 5) patient harmed by disclosure.
Negligence Duty - Negligence per se
When law establishes standard of care, violation constitutes breach if 1) P is in the class meant to be protected, and 2) P’s harm is the type of harm intended to be prevented
Negligence Duty - Cost benefit approach
Breach is more likely to be found if the likelihood and severity of harm is higher than D’s costs/burdens in avoiding the harm
Negligence Duty - Res ipsa loquitur
Circumstantial evidence of negligence can be used to infer negligence if 1) the accident wouldn’t occur in the absence of negligence, 2) caused by something within D’s exclusive control, and 3) P didn’t contribute.
Negligence - Causation
D’s conduct actually and proximately caused P’s harm.
