Torts Flashcards
Intentional Torts Burden of Proof
Plaintiff must establish:
- Act
- Intent
- Causation
Battery
Harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiffs person intentionally caused by the defendant
“offensive” = if P has not expressly or impliedly consented to it / objectionable to a reasonable person
Person of another = persons and their items
Assault
Intentionally places P in a reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person
- words alone generally not enough
- apprehension = awareness not fear
- immediate contact = no significant delay
False Imprisonment
Intentional act or omission by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area
Confinement/restraint includes: threats of force, false arrests, failure to provide means of escape, physical barriers
*no reasonable means of escape known to the P
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant that causes the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress
(physical injuries NOT required)
outrageous conduct = exceeds all bounds of decency
- mere insults NOT outrageous
- if D has knowledge about known sensitivity of P –> can rise to outrageous
*reckless conduct is sufficient to prove intent requirement
*Transferred intent doesn’t apply
Trespass to Land
Act done with intent to enter the land and results in invasion of the land of another
- D need not have intended to commit a trespass, only deliberate act required
- D doesn’t have to know the land belonged to another
- Intent doesn’t have to be for it to be someone else’s land
- physical invasion = any invasion of land by a person or object is sufficient
- Land = surface above, space above and ground beneath
Trespass to Chattels = SMALL harm
Intentional act by the defendant that causes an interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel
- Damages (physical damage or lost use) chattel/dispossession/deprives P of their lawful right of the chattel
- Intent to do act of interference is all that’s needed
Conversion = BIG Harm
Intentional act that causes a substantial interference with the plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel
- D need not intended the conversion, just that the act constitutes a conversion
- P entitled to recover full FMV of the item (at time of conversion) or possession
Transferred Intent Doctrine
Intent will transfer from the intended tor to the committed tort or from the intended victim to the actual victim
Both intended tort and tort committed must be: battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels
*often tested with battery and assault
*Does NOT apply to IIED
Defenses to Intentional Torts
- Consent
- Self-Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of property
- Necessity
Consent
- Can be express or implied
- Plaintiff must have capacity to consent and the defendant must not exceed bounds of consent
(drunk people/children cannot consent)
Implied consent: that which a reasonable person would infer from custom and usage or P’s conduct (looks specifically to the facts)
Exceeding consent: if D exceeds scope of consent by committing a more intrusive invasion or by invading a different interest than the one P referenced –> D can be liable
Self Defense
When person reasonably believes they are being or about to be attacked –> may use force as reasonably necessary to protect against injury
Majority = no duty to retreat
Modern = imposes duty to retreat before using deadly force
person not required to retreat from their own home
Deadly force permitted if reasonably believed to be necessary to prevent serious bodily injury
Defense of Others
May use reasonably force to defend another when reasonably believes that the other person could have used force to defend themselves
May use as much force as they could have used in self-defense if they were the one threatened with injury
Defense of Property
May use reasonable force (NOT DEADLY FORCE) to prevent commission of tort against real/personal property
Shopkeepers Privilege
Shopkeepers entitled to reasonable detention of someone shopkeeper reasonably believes has shoplifted goods
- Detention must be conducted in reasonable manner and only non-deadly force can be used
- Detention must be for a reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation
Necessity
Person may interfere with real or personal property of another when it’s reasonably and apparently necessary in an emergency to avoid injury from a natural or other force and when the threatened injury is substantially more serious than invasion that is taken to avert it
*need to bring up trespass to land, trespass to chattels, or conversion first; then the defense
Public Necessity
D can raise public necessity as defense if they acted to avert an imminent public disaster
- If public defense, D not liable for any tort (complete defense)
- Doesn’t have to pay for damages
Private Necessity
Can be a defense when the action was to prevent serious harm to a limited number of people (small group)
- Actor must pay for any injury they cause (damages caused to P’s property)
- Can remain as long as emergency continues
*much more likely to be tested than public necessity
Negligence - Prima Facie Case
- Defendant owes a duty of care to conform to a specific standard of conduct
- Defendant breached that duty
- The breach of duty was actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury
- Plaintiff suffered damages to person or property
General Standard of Care
To act as a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances (average mental abilities, and defendants physical characteristics taken into account).
- Superior skill/mental abilities taken into account
- Superior physical characteristics taken into account
*No special standard of care for mental disability BUT there is a special disability for persons with major physical activity (blindness)
Special Standards of Care
- Persons w/ major physical disability (blindness)
- Children
- Professionals
- Trespassers to Land
Professionals Standard of Care
Exercise the knowledge and skill of an ordinary member of the profession in good standing
When professional is a doctor, they also have a duty to warn a patient of all serious risks in medical procedures
Child Standard of Care
Children must conform to the standard of care of a child of like age, intelligence, and experience unless engaged in an adult-oriented activity
Landowners’s Standard of Care to Trespassers
- No duty to undiscovered trespassers
- For discovered/anticipated trespassers –> landowner owes a duty to warn of or make safe known highly dangerous artificial conditions if not obvious to the trespasser
Landowner’s Standard of Care to Licensees
Those who come onto the land with express or implied permission but for their own purpose = social guests and solicitors
Duty to warn or make safe all dangerous artificial and natural conditions (concealed dangerous conditions known to owner)
Landowner’s Standard of Care to Invitees
Invitees: those entering as members of the public or for a purpose connected to the business/owner (customers/their children regardless of if they buy anything)
(1) Duty to warn of or make safe all dangerous artificial and natural conditions that land owner knows of or should know of; and (2) reasonably inspect for dangerous conditions
Landowners Duty to Trespassing Children - Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by dangerous artificial conditions on their property
P must show:
1. Dangerous condition on land that owner is or should be aware of;
2. Owner knows or should know that children might trespass on land;
3. Condition is likely to cause injury;
4. Expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with magnitude of risk
*child trespasser who is injured by a dangerous artificial condition need not have been attracted onto the property by said condition
Negligence Per Se – will change the general standard of ordinary care
When a criminal statute establishes a specific standard of care, replacing the general standard of ordinary care IF:
(1) plaintiff is within the class that the statute was intended to protect;
(2) statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered
EXCEPTIONS:
If above requirements are met, but compliance with statute would have been MORE dangerous or IMPOSSIBLE –> will not arise to negligence per se.
*If statute NOT designed to protect against specific harm or if the plaintiff is not within the class protected:
- Statute will not replace general standard of care
- P may still be able to establish a breach of the general standard of care
Duty to Act
Generally, no duty to act/rescue unless special relationship
- Parent/child
- Innkeeper/guest
- Common carrier/passenger
- Business owner/customer
**where the defendant’s actions have placed another person in peril or caused another’s injury, the D has a duty to make reasonable efforts to rescue the imperiled person or render aid to his victim.
**one who gratuitously acts for the benefit of another is then under a duty to act reasonably
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
When the defendant breaches a duty to the plaintiff by creating a risk of physical injury and the plaintiff suffers emotional distress as a result:
- P must be within “zone of danger’ and ordinarily must suffer physical symptoms
Exceptions to NIED Zone of Danger
- Defendant breaches a duty to bystander not in the zone of danger who is (1) closely related to the injured person; (2) was present at scene of the injury; (3) personally observed or perceived the event
- Relationship exists between the defendant and P under which the defendant’s negligence has great potential to cause emotional distress (hospital erroneously reports death of P’s family member)
Breach of Duty
When D’s conduct falls short of the level required by the applicable standard of care, D has breached their duty
Could be based on:
1. custom/usage
2. statute violation = negligence per se
3. Res ipsa loquitur
Res Ipsa Loquitor Requirements
The fact that an injury occurred may create an inference thats the D breached his duty:
- Accident causing the injury is a type that would not have occurred absent negligence
- Negligence is attributable to the defendant (usually because D is in exclusive control of instrumentality causing the injury)
*If P establishes res ipsa, any answer that states “P wins” or “D loses” is wrong –> pick motion that denies motion for directed verdict and send case to the jury
Dramshop act
These acts create a cause of action in favor of any third person injured by the intoxicated vendee –> w/ dramshop act bartender will be vicariously liable
Under common law, without a dramshop act –> bartender will not be vicariously liable