torts Flashcards
trespass
what is the difference b/w trespass to chattels and conversion (incl. remedy)?
trespass to chattels
* MINOR, INTENTIONAL interference w P’s right to control chattel
* liable for ACTUAL damages – repairs, cost of use, etc.
conversion
* SUBSTANTIAL, INTENTIONAL interference w P’s right to control chattel
* P can recover fair mkt value of chattel at time of conversion
IIED
what are some examples of conduct that would qualify as extreme and outrageous (for the purposes of IIED)?
- abusing a position of authority
- exploiting a KNOWN spl vulnerability
- repeated or prolonged conduct
- going beyond the bounds of human decency
common carriers
what are the common law & modern approaches to common carrier duty? which is the majority rule?
- COMMON LAW (MAJORITY): common carriers can be liable for even slight negligence because they owe the highest duty of care to their passengers that is consistent with practical business operation
- MODERN RULE (MINORITY): common carriers are negligent only if they fail to use reasonable care to protect passengers from harm that arises within the scope of that relationship.
P’s fault
what must a D prove for their defense of P’s contributory negligence to be successful (in a contributory negligence jxdn)?
- P was negligent – i.e. P failed to use reasonable care for their own safety
- P’s negligence was the PROXIMATE cause of P’s harm
res ipsa loquitor
what are the traditional and 3d restatement approaches to res ipsa loquitor? which is the majority approach?
TRADITIONAL (MAJORITY):
* P’s harm would not occur UNLESS someone was negligent,
* D had exclusive control over (or was responsible for all others who had control) over the thing that caused harm, AND
* P did nothing to cause harm (this element is loosely applied in comparative negligence jxdns bc conflicts w approach that P’s comparative negligence isn’t a total bar to recovery)
3D RESTATEMENT (MINORITY):
* Accident that caused P’s injury is a type that ordinarily happens due to the negligence of a class of actors
* D is a member of that class
when to use contributory negligence vs. assumption of risk as a defense?
assumption of risk is a slightly higher bar.
contributory negligence (traditional rule): P’s failure to exercise reasonable care for their own safety is a COMPLETE bar to recovery
assumption of risk: P voluntarily accepts a KNOWN risk of harm – i.e. they had to have known about the risk that ulimately caused their injury
liability
what is the practical difference, for P, b/w “joint and several liability” and “several liability”
- joint and several liability: P can recover from any D the total amt of damages (minus the P’s share of comparative fault). That D can then sue the other(s) for contribution
- several liability: P is limited to recovering from each D the portion of damages that corresponds to that D’s proportionate share of fault.
what is a landowner’s duty to trespassers?
a landowner owes a duty to KNOWN or ANTICIPATED trespassers to
(1) warn them about hidden, artificial dangers that are known to the land possessor but unlikely to be discovered by trespassers, and (2) use reasonable care in activities conducted on the land
when may a P hold a D liable for IIED if P was NOT the intended target of D’s extreme and outrageous conduct?
- if P contemporaneously perceived D’s extreme and outrageous conduct,
- if P was closely related to the 3d party (intended victim)
- if D knew of P’s presence and that relationship
what is the result, in a pure comparative fault jxdn, when the P and D are both at fault and both entitled to recover dmgs?
In a pure comparative-fault jurisdiction, when the P and the D are both entitled to recover damages, the P’s recovery is reduced (i.e., offset) by the D’s recovery (and vice versa).
when does proximate cause occur?
Proximate cause occurs when the plaintiff’s harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
what is a guest statute wrt driving?
a guest statute is designed to prevent a NON-PAYING passenger of a vehicle for suing the driver for injuries resulting from the driver’s negligence.
the passenger can normally only sue the driver if the driver’s actions constitute GROSS negligence or WILFUL and WANTON misconduct.
e.g. - drunk driving, playing “chicken”, driving a car knowing the brakes are faulty, or continuing to drive dangerously after the passenger has asked to be let out or that the car be stopped
when is the commercial seller of a component that is integrated into a defective product subject to liability?
the commercial seller of a component that is integrated into a defective product is subject to liability if:
1. the component is defective OR
2. the supplier / seller subsantially participated in the process of integrating the component into the product’s design AND the component’s integration caused the product to be defective
when is a commercial seller subject to strict products liability?
a commercial seller is subject to strict products liability when
1. the defective product harms a foreseeable plaintiff when it was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way AND
2. the defect existed at the time the product left the commercial seller’s control
what are the elements a P must est to make a prima facie case for intentional interference w/ K?
- a valid K existed b/w P and 3d party
- D knew of the contractual relationship
- D intentionally interfered w the K, causing a breach
- the breach caused dmgs to P