Torts

Question 1

Public Nuisance

Answer 1

An unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.

Action usually would be brought by AG. not person. BUT

Question 2

When can individual bring public nuisance claim?

Answer 2

When they are a private citizen suffering harm different in kind from general public

Question 3

In what categories of cases does strict liability apply?

Answer 3

DAD
(Dangerous activities,
Animals, and
Defective/dangerous products)

Elements
1. Absolute duty to make P’s person or property safe
2. Actual & proximate causation
3. Damages

Question 4

Abnormally Dangerous Activity - SL

Answer 4

D engaged in abnormally dangerous activity may be held SL even without evidence of negligence.

Abnormally dangerous if:
i) Creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and

ii) The activity is not commonly engaged in.

In deciding whether something is AD, look
to gravity of harm, inappropriateness of place, limited value of activity

Question 5

Common abnormally dangerous activities

Answer 5

Common abnormally dangerous activities include
mining, blasting, using explosives, fumigating, crop dusting, excavating, disposing of hazardous waste, storing gasoline in residential areas, storing toxic chemicals and gases, and storing large quantities of water and other liquids.

Jurisdictions are split as to whether fireworks displays constitute an abnormally dangerous activity.

Question 5

Causation note for Abnormally dangerous activiies

Answer 5

SL for AD exists if the harm that occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.

Ex. A defendant drops a heavy package of explosives on the plaintiff’s foot, severely injuring it. The injury did not result from the risk of an explosion, which is the risk that makes the use of explosives an abnormally dangerous activity.

Question 6

SL - Wild Animals

Answer 6

R2d of Torts - animals that are “not by custom devoted to the service of mankind at the time and in the place in which it is kept.”

R3d Torts - Animals that
i) Have not been generally domesticated in the United States; and

ii) Are likely, unless restrained, to cause personal injury.

doesn’t matter if they’ve been tamed

Question 7

SL for Wild Animals

Answer 7

The owner or possessor of wild animal is strictly liable for harm caused by the animal, in spite of any precautions the possessor has taken to confine the animal or prevent the harm, if the harm arises from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of such a wild animal or of which the owner has reason to know.

Question 8

Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn

Answer 8

Under products liability law, a commercial supplier is strictly liable for harm caused by its defective product. A product is defective due to inadequate warnings or instructions when:

1. the product poses a foreseeable risk of harm (eg, from improper maintenance) and
2. reasonable instructions or warnings by the commercial supplier could have reduced that risk.

However, a product is not defective for failing to warn or instruct about obvious risks (eg, the risk of cutting oneself with a sharp knife).

Question 11

SL for Plfs Fearful Reaction of Wild Animal

Answer 11

Strict liability applies to an injury caused by a plaintiff’s fearful reaction to the sight of an unrestrained wild animal, in addition to injuries caused directly by the wild animal’s dangerous propensity.

Question 12

Liability For Domesticated Animals

Answer 12

at common law, the owner of a domestic animal is generally liable only for negligence.

Question 13

If the Domesticated Animal Has Abnormally Dangerous Propensities

Answer 13

Owner or possessor of an animal is strictly liable for injuries caused by that animal if he knows or has reason to know that the animal has dangerous propensities abnormal for the animal’s category or species, and the harm results from those dangerous propensities.

traits typical of a certain animal likely wont count

dog bite statutes are another sL type staute

Question 14

Trespassing Animals

Answer 14

Owner/possessor S/L for reasonably foreseeable damage caused
by trespassing animal

(exception for household pets, unless the owner knows or has reason to know they are causing substantial harm)

general negligence standard applies if an animal strays onto a public road and contributes to an accident there.

Question 15

Products Liability

Answer 15

Can be brought under theory of NEGLIGENCE or Strict Products Liability
or breach of warranty

Question 16

Negligence - Products Liability

Answer 16

1. Duty—reasonable care owed to any foreseeable P by commercial manufacturer,
   distributor, retailer, or seller
2. Breach—failure to exercise reasonable care in inspection/sale of product (i.e., defect
   would have been discovered if D was not negligent)
3. Causation—factual & proximate
4. Damages—actual injury/property damage, not pure economic loss
5. Defenses—contributory/comparative negligence and Assumpt of risk

Question 17

Strict Products Liability Elements

Answer 17

1. Product was defective (in manufacture, design, or failure to warn)
2. Defect existed when it left D’s control
3. Defect caused P’s injury when the product was used in a reasonably foreseeable way

*harm must be personal injury or property, pure economic loss must be brought
under warranty action

Question 18

What kind of defects make a productive defective for SL?

Answer 18

1. Manufacturing
2. Design
3. Failure to warn

Question 19

Manufacturing Defect

Answer 19

product does not conform to D’s own specifications

Question 20

Design Defect

Answer 20

Two tests exist, depend on jdx:

1. Consumer expectation test—dangerous beyond expectation of ordinary consumer? something they would have contemplated???
2. Risk-utility test (maj)—risks greater than benefits and reasonable alternative design (economically
   feasible) available; failure to use that design rendered product unreasonably unsafe

Question 21

Failure to warn

Answer 21

Exists if there were foreseeable risks of harm, not obvious to an ordinary user of the product, which could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings.

Question 22

Learned Intermediary Rule

Answer 22

Under this rule, the manufacturer of a prescription drug or medical device typically satisfies its duty to warn the consumer by informing the prescribing physician, rather than the patient, of problems with the drug or device.

Several exceptions, most important:
1. if manufacturer knows the drug/device will be administred with doctor/healthcare provider intervention

2. As a result of a federal statute, in the case of birth control pills.

Question 23

Can Res Ipsa Loquitur apply to SPL?

Answer 23

A plaintiff is entitled to a res ipsa loquitur–like inference that a product defect existed if the harm suffered by the plaintiff:

i) Was of a kind that ordinarily occurs as a result of a product defect; and

ii) Was not solely the result of causes other than a product defect existing at the time of sale or distribution.

Question 24

Proper Plf in Strict PL case?

Answer 24

Anyone foreseeably injured by a defective product or whose property is harmed by the product may bring a strict-liability action

Purchasers, users, even bystanders

Question 25

Proper D in Strict PL case

Answer 25

Must be in the business of selling or otherwise distributing products of the type that harmed the plaintiff.:

Manufacturer, distributor, retailer

Question 26

Defenses to SPL

Answer 26

• Comparative fault—P’s negligence reduces recovery as will A/R (majority)
• Contributory negligence—P’s negligence not a defense if P misused product in
  reasonably foreseeable way or negligently failed to discover defect

A/R—complete bar to recovery in contributory-negligence jurisdictions; in most
comparative-fault jurisdictions A/R only reduces recovery

Also, unforeseeable misuse, compliance with govt safety standards (not conclusive)

Question 27

Warranties

Answer 27

Against seller, manufacturer, and distributor of product.

Implied and Express

Question 28

Implied Warranties

Answer 28

• Merchantability—product is generally acceptable and reasonably fit for ordinary
  purpose
• Fitness—product fit for particular purpose; seller must know purpose and buyer must
  rely on seller’s skill or judgment in supplying product
• Privity requirements
  o Alternative A (majority)—allows a member of the buyer’s family/household to
  recover for personal injury (not property damage or pure economic loss)

o Alternative B—anyone reasonably expected to use, consume, or be affected by the
product may recover for personal injury only
o Alternative C—Alternative B + recovery for property damage and economic loss
* Damages—personal injury; property damage; pure economic loss

Question 29

Express

Answer 29

Express warranties
* Affirmation of fact or a promise about product; part of the basis of bargain
* Seller liable for any breach of express warranty, regardless of fault

Question 30

Negligence Elements & Basic Rule

Answer 30

1. Duty (obligation to protect another against unreasonable risk of injury)
2. Breach (failure to meet that obligation)
3. Causation (close causal connection between action and injury)
4. Damages (harm suffered)

failure to exercise care a reasonable person would exercise; breach of the duty to
prevent foreseeable risk of harm to anyone in P’s position; breach must be the cause of P’s injurie

Question 31

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 31

3 ways to recover on this generally:

1. In Zone of Danger:
2. Bystander Recover
3. Special Relationship

Generally, the distress must exhibit some physical symptoms.

In virtually all jurisdictions, emotional distress must result from sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident itself, not the receipt of news relating to the accident

Question 32

NIED - not w/i Zone of Danger

Answer 32

Bystander Recover:

In order for a person who is not within the zone of danger to recover under a theory of negligent infliction of emotional distress, she must

(i) be closely related to the person injured by the defendant,

(ii) be present at the scene of the injury, and

(iii) personally observe (or otherwise perceive) the injury.

Question 33

NIED - In Zone of Danger

Answer 33

In Zone of Danger:

(a) The defendant negligently caused a threat of physical impact;

(b) The plaintiff was within the “zone of danger” of the threatened physical
impact (feared for safety); AND

(c) The threat of physical impact caused emotional distress.
-most jdx say it must manifest in physical symptoms

Question 34

NIED - special relationship? not sure when this applies tbh

Answer 34

c. Special relationship

The duty to avoid negligent infliction of emotional distress exists without any threat of physical impact or physical symptoms in cases in which there is a special relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The most common examples are a mortician mishandling a corpse or a common carrier mistakenly reporting the death of a relative.

Example: A physician negligently misdiagnoses a patient with a terminal illness that the patient does not have, and the patient goes into shock as a result.

Question 35

Wrongful Death

Answer 35

A decedent’s spouse, next of kin, or personal representative may bring suit to recover losses suffered as a result of a decedent’s death

recoverable damages include loss of support, companionship, society,
and affection, but not pain/suffering of P; recovery limited to what decedent could have recovered

Question 36

Contributory Fault/Negligence

Answer 36

Tradition rule. Only apply if it tells you. P’s fault is complete bar to recovery (common law/traditional rule)

• Not a defense to an intentional tort, gross negligence, or recklessness
• Last clear chance rule—abolished in most jurisdictions; P may mitigate legal effect of
  own fault if D had last clear chance to avoid injuring P; D’s actual knowledge of P’s
  inattention required for liability to inattentive P; D liable to helpless P if knew or should
  have known of P’s helpless peril

Question 37

Attractive Nuisance

Answer 37

A landowner owes a duty to child trespassers to warn of (or make safe) artificial
conditions on the land, provided that:

(1) The artificial condition exists in a place where the landowner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass;

(2) The landowner knows or has reason to know that the artificial condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm;

(3) The children, due to their age, do NOT appreciate the danger involved;

AND

(4) The risk of harm outweighs the expense of making the condition safe.
—burden of eliminating danger is slight compared to risk of harm

5) the landowner fails to exercise reasonable care to protect children from the harm.

Question 38

False Imprisonment

Answer 38

Requires that
(i) a person intend to confine the plaintiff within a limited area,

(ii) the person’s conduct causes the plaintiff’s confinement or the defendant fails to release the plaintiff from confinement despite owing a duty to do so, and

(iii) the plaintiff is conscious of the confinement.

confinement may be physical, may be accomplished through use of threats, by failure to provide a means of escape, or by invalid use of legal authority.

A plaintiff is not imprisoned if he submitted willingly to confinement. A plaintiff is not confined if he knows of a reasonable means of safe escape.

Question 39

Vicarious Liability

Answer 39

An employer is liable for an employee’s torts if the employer has the right to control the employee’s acts and the tortious conduct is committed within the scope of employment.

Question 40

Invitee

Answer 40

Invited to enter premises for the very purposes for which the land is held open or for business purposes

OR

Someone invited to enter or remain on the land for a purpose connected to business dealings with the land possessor.

Question 41

Duty of Care Owed to Invitee

Answer 41

A duty to use reasonable care to conduct reasonable inspections of the property, discover dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from them.

Duty does not extend beyond scope of the invitation

Question 42

Breach - general duty

Answer 42

A breach of duty occurs when the defendant departs from the required standard of care, such as failure to act as a reasonable person, an unexcused violation of a statute, or, if there is no direct evidence, through res ipsa loquitur.

Question 43

Analyzing Breach

Answer 43

2 approaches:
1. Trad - compare D’s conduct with that of a reasonably prudent person under the cirumstances - objective

2. Cost Benefit analysis - modern approach
   Courts consider
   (i) the foreseeable likelihood that the person’s conduct will result in harm (even a small risk can be forseeable)

(ii) the foreseeable severity of any harm that may result, and

(iii) the burden of the precautions that would eliminate or reduce the risk of harm

Question 44

For Negligence Damages, can you recover for purely economic loss?

Answer 44

NO
Must prove actual injury (bodily harm or property damage), not
just economic loss; nominal damages and attorney’s fees not permitted in negligence
actions

Question 45

Can you get punitive damages for negligece?

Answer 45

only if clear/convincing evidence of malicious, willful & wanton, or reckless behavior

Question 46

Can you get punitive damages for intentional torts?

Answer 46

Yes for malicious, willful, wanton conduct

Question 47

Negligent Entrustment

Answer 47

Entrusting person with car or other object with potential for harm (if D knows/should
know of driver’s or user’s negligent propensities)

Question 48

Negligent entrustment

Answer 48

Owner of car or other potentially dangerous thing may be held liable for entrusting car to a person that the owner knows or has reason to know of users negligent propensities

Question 49

Negligent entrustment statutes

Answer 49

Family purpose

Owner liability - these statutes hold owner liable for torts or ANY user who had permission. Not just those they knew to be negligent

Question 50

Invasion of Privacy Torts

Answer 50

I FLAP
Intrusion Upon Seclusion

False Light

Appropriation

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Question 51

Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Answer 51

D’s
1. intentional intrusion, physically or otherwise,
2. into the plaintiff’s private affairs, solitude, or seclusion,
3. if the intrusion is highly offensive to a reasonable person establishes liability.

no publication req

Question 52

False Light

Answer 52

Must prove that the defendant
(i) made public facts about the plaintiff that
(ii) placed the plaintiff in a false light, (iii) which false light would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Most jurisdictions require that the plaintiff prove actual malice by the defendant.

*False light does not necessarily require absolute falsity - may be true statement presented in misleading way

Question 53

Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Answer 53

To recover, the plaintiff must show that:

i) The defendant gave publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another; and

ii) The matter publicized is of a kind that:

a) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and

b) Is not of legitimate concern to the public.

*Publication = much broader than Defamation!!

Question 54

Damages for Privacy Torts

Answer 54

The plaintiff need not prove special damages for any of the invasion of privacy torts. Emotional distress and mental distress are sufficient.

Question 54

Misappropriation of the Right to Publicity

Answer 54

i) The defendant’s unauthorized appropriation of the plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity

ii) For the defendant’s advantage, commercial or otherwise;

iii) Lack of consent; and

iv) Resulting injury.

Question 55

Libel

Answer 55

Libel is defamation that appears in written or other physical form. To prevail in a suit for libel, the plaintiff must prove all of the following:

1. The defendant knowingly made a false statement about the plaintiff OR negligently failed to determine its falsity (ie, failed to use reasonable care).
2. That type of statement would tend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
3. The defendant intentionally or negligently communicated that statement to a third party.

Question 56

Defamation, generally

Answer 56

Elements to prove:

1. A false defamatory statement (that would tend to harm reputation )
2. of and concerning the P made by the D

3.Publication/communication by D to a third party

AND

4. damages

Public office or public –> must prove actual malice, as well as falsity (recklessness or knowledge)

Private Figure speaking about matter of public concern –> must also prove negligence, as well as falsity

Question 57

Slander

Answer 57

SPOKEN defamation

Requires special damages UNLESS slander per se

Special damages = pecuinary loss/ actual harm like loss of customers, being fired, or some other financial harm

Question 58

Slander per se

Answer 58

Some spoken statements are slanderous per se because they are so harmful to the plaintiff’s reputation that damages are presumed.

Therefore, proof of special damage is unnecessary when a statement falsely accused the plaintiff of any of the following:

-committing a serious crime (eg, arson, murder, rape, theft)

-engaging in conduct that adversely affects the plaintiff’s occupation (eg, butcher sells rotten meats)

-committing serious sexual misconduct (eg, adultery)

-having a loathsome disease (eg, sexually transmitted infection)

Question 59

Slander elements

Answer 59

The defendant knowingly made a false statement about the plaintiff (or negligently failed to determine its falsity).

That type of statement would tend to harm the plaintiff’s reputation.

The defendant intentionally or negligently communicated that statement to a third party.

That statement caused the plaintiff special damage (ie, pecuniary/monetary loss). (unless slander per se)

Question 60

Assault

Answer 60

(i) the defendant intends to cause the plaintiff to anticipate an imminent, and harmful or offensive, contact with the plaintiff’s person

and

(ii) the defendant’s affirmative conduct causes the plaintiff to anticipate such contact with the plaintiff’s person.

*A plaintiff must be aware of or have knowledge of the defendant’s act.

Question 61

Negligence Per Se

Answer 61

*presumes that duty and breach elements are met**

When a statute imposes upon any person a specific duty for the benefit or protection
of others, a violation of the statute will constitute negligence per se if the plaintiff:

(1) Is in the class of people meant to be protected by the statute; AND

(2) Suffers the type of harm the statute was designed to protect against.

• The defendant will only be liable under negligence per se if his violation of the statute
  was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

SO, their violation of the statute must be the proximate cause.

NOTE. If a statute is given to you in the fact pattern of a torts essay question, you MUST
discuss negligence per se as the applicable standard of care

Question 62

Procedural effect of res ipsa loquitur

Answer 62

Allows an inference of negligence sufficient to avoid dismissal. whe

Enough to avoid a directed verdict for the D so tht P’s case can go to the jury.

Question 63

Battery tort

Answer 63

A battery occurs when the defendant:
(1) Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
(2) Harmful or offensive contact;

(3) To the plaintiff’s person; AND
(a) The plaintiff’s person includes anything connected to the plaintiff (e.g.,
kicking someone’s cane out from under them)

4) Has specific or general intent
—need not intend that the contact harm, but must have intended the contact

Question 64

Dram Shop

Question 65

Multiple Tortfeasors - substantial factor

Answer 65

If traditional “but for” (or multiple but-fors) causation cannot be shown, most courts are willing to implement a “substantial factor” test.

Under a substantial factor test, actual cause can be established if the defendant’s breach
was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm.

Question 66

Private Necessity

Answer 66

Defense to Trespass.

Private necessity is a qualified privilege to protect an interest of the defendant or a limited number of other persons from serious harm when the interference is reasonably necessary to prevent such harm

​​​​​​​ defendant may generally use reasonable force (e.g., battery) to stop a trespass. However, force cannot be used to stop a trespass committed out of private necessity—i.e., an intrusion that is, or reasonably appears to be, necessary to protect oneself, third parties, or property.

Question 67

Can child be liable for intentional tort?

Answer 67

Yes. In most jurisdictions, a minor child can be held liable for an intentional tort if the child acts with the requisite mental state—i.e., (i) with the purpose of causing the consequences of the child’s act or (ii) knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result

Question 68

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 68

D, by extreme and outrageous conduct, intentionally/recklessly causes P severe
emotional distress

1. Extreme and outrageous conduct by D (beyond human decency, outrageous)

-Causation (factual-cause test)

• Damages—severe emotional distress (beyond reasonable person’s endurance or D knows
  of P’s heightened sensitivity). if bodily harm too, D may be liable for that.

Question 69

IIED - public figures

Answer 69

public figures and public officials may not recover for the tort IIED by reason of publication w/o showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact that was made with “actual malice,” i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to its truth.

also, In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has suggested that private plaintiffs cannot recover for IIED if the conduct at issue was speech on a matter of public concern because that conduct may be protected by the First Amendment.

Question 70

IIED - Emotional harm to a 3rd party

Answer 70

D may be liable when his intentional or reckless conduct also causes severe emotional distress to
1. close family member of the individual who

2. contemporaneously perceives the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct.

This “bystander” rule does not require the close family member to suffer bodily harm.

Question 71

IIED - 3rd party who is not relatived to victim

Answer 71

If the defendant’s purpose in harming an individual is to cause severe emotional distress to a third party, the third party need not have contemporaneously perceived the conduct nor be a close family member of the harmed individual.

Question 72

Duties owed by Mental Health Professionals

Answer 72

Mental-health professionals owe their patients a duty to use reasonable care. And because they have a special relationship with their patients, mental-health professionals also owe others a duty to use reasonable care to:

-identify patients who pose a foreseeable risk of physical harm to othersand
-take steps to mitigate that risk.

Question 73

Private Nuisance

Answer 73

A substantial, and unreasonable interferences with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of property.

substantial = ​​​​​​​
offensive, annoying or intolerable to a normal person in the community

Unreasonable - severity of harm outweights utility of interferences based on several factors

Question 74

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 74

Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the trier of fact may infer the existence of the defendant’s negligent conduct in the absence of direct evidence of negligence. The plaintiff must prove that: (1) the accident is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the harm was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the harm was not due to any action on the part of the plaintiff.

Question 75

What does malice mean in context of defamation claim by public official/figure

Answer 75

Malice means that the defendant knew that the statement or language was false, or he recklessly disregarded its truthfulness.

To establish a reckless disregard for the truthfulness of a statement, the defendant must have entertained serious doubts about its truthfulness; mere failure to check facts is not sufficient

Question 76

Joint and several liability

Answer 76

Under the doctrine of joint and several liability, each of two or more defendants who is found liable for a single and indivisible harm is subject to liability to the plaintiff for the entire harm. The plaintiff can choose to collect the entire judgment from one defendant or portions of the judgment from various defendants, as long as the entire recovery does not exceed the full amount of the judgment.

Question 77

Negligence: what are general categories of breach of duty

Answer 77

A breach of duty occurs when the defendant departs from the required standard of care, such as failure to act as a reasonable person, an unexcused violation of a statute, or, if there is no direct evidence, through res ipsa loquitur.

Question 78

Breach - standard for professionals

Answer 78

Most professionals are required to demonstrate the same knowledge, skill, and care as a normal member of the profession in a similar community.

But medical specialists (eg, orthopedists) are held to a national standard.

Question 79

Negligence theory for products liability

Answer 79

Under a negligence theory, failure to exercise reasonable care in the inspection or sale of a product constitutes breach of duty. The plaintiff must establish not only that the defect exists, but that had the defendant exercised reasonable care in the inspection or sale of the product, the defect would have been discovered, and the plaintiff would not have been harmed.

Question 80

NIED exception for SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP

Answer 80

Generally, a plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress only if the defendant’s action causes a threat of physical impact that results in some kind of bodily harm (e.g., a heart attack). However, there is an exception to the physical-injury requirement in cases of misinforming someone that a family member has died.

Question 81

Privilege as defense when defending a 3rd party

Answer 81

a privilege to use reasonable force in the defense of third parties exists when the defendant reasonably believes that (i) the circumstances are such that the third party has a privilege of self-defense and (ii) the defendant’s action is immediately necessary to protect the third party

Question 82

physician informed consent

Answer 82

Physicians are under a special obligation to explain all material risks of a medical procedure to a patient in advance of a patient’s decision to consent to treatment. Failure of a physician to secure informed consent from the patient constitutes a breach of the physician’s duty toward the patient and is actionable as medical malpractice. Doctors are not under an obligation to disclose when the risk is a commonly known risk, the patient waives or refuses the information, the patient is incompetent (although the physician must make a reasonable attempt to secure informed consent from a guardian), or disclosure would be detrimental to the patient (e.g., it would upset the patient enough to cause extreme illness, such as a heart attack).

Question 83

Misappropriation of the right to publicity

Answer 83

Misappropriation of the right to publicity is based upon the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his own identity. The plaintiff must prove (i) the defendant’s unauthorized appropriation of the plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity, (ii) for the defendant’s advantage, commercial or otherwise, (iii) lack of consent, and (iv) resulting injury.

Question 84

Conversion

Answer 84

defendant is liable for conversion if he intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff’s chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel. The defendant must have intended to exercise control over the particular chattel. The defendant need only intend to commit the act that interferes; intent to cause damage is not necessary. But accidentally damaging the plaintiff’s chattel is not conversion if the defendant had permission to use the property. I