Torts Flashcards
Parents regularly encourage an aggressive 6-year-old to be tough. he purposely hits another kid. Is the 6-year-old liable?
yes, kids as young as 4 can be when they intentionally harm another
**what’s negligence standard for kids?
knew or should’ve known acts were wrongful
if wife is told borrowed car’s breaks don’t work (but driver-husband doesn’t know), and driver-husband gets into accident, is he partly liable?
no, wife’s negligence here not imputed to husband. he’ll get full recovery if victim violated traffic laws and he didn’t (even though he didnt break, since he was unaware of broken breaks)
gas company designed storage facility for dangerous chemical, construction company that specializes in constructing those facilities constructed this one. explosion due to design injured a farmer. can farmer successfully sue construction company?
yes because explosion resulted from defect that construction company should’ve been aware of (since they specialize in constructing these kind)
**for abnormally dangerous chemical (where even reasonable care isn’t enough), is company strictly liable for any harm caused by the chemical?
no, only to foreseeable Ps
is pecuniary loss required for libel?
no
is exclusive control relevant for strict liability
no, that’s for res ipsa loquitur (negligence inference)
does the commission of a criminal act often supersede the liability of the OG negligent person?
yes (eg negligence of not turning on lock alarm doesn’t contribute to likelihood of crime happening)
**when will D’s negligence (no construction zone lights) be liable for the subsequent criminal acts of a 3rd party?
if the criminal acts of a 3rd party were reasonably foreseeable (eg not having construction lights when u should’ve in HIGH CRIME NEIGHBORHOOD, then truck gets stuck because it couldn’t see, and gets robbed –> lack of lights = potentially liable for thefts too lol
**for defamation you need ___
actual malice -> liar must KNOW that the statement is false. not investigating yet honestly believing it’s true is protected..
can manufacturer be sued for misrepresentation for promises made on packaging?
yes, like saying a product is safe and spill proof, but then child trips cord and it falls apart (even if no safer design possible), P can sue
when P shows D violated statute, thus establishing prima facia case of negligence (driver had heart attack and crossed center lane), can this negligence be rebutted?
yes! eg heart attack. so not liable because impossible to not break statute
**wrongful birth suit
asserted by mother when, but-for D Physician’s negligent testing/counseling re pregnancy, the mother would’ve terminated pregnancy to avoid birth of child w/ serious defects
does assumption of the risk normally bar recovery?
no, typically only REDUCES recovery – to bar recovery for negligence, assumption of the risk must be substantially express
nuisance = __ and __ interference w/ use and enjoyment
U.S.
unreasonable and substantial
could you recover damages for nuisance suit?
yes, especially if tangible harm to land results in diminution of land’s value
car manufacturer created a high-powered sports car yet failed to equip it with high-speed capability tires. what’s the problem?
car’s unreasonably dangerous – so SL may be applied if manufacturer doesn’t give adequate warning re: tires needed for high speeds – because P’s prolonged use of car at high speed is foreseeable use
although the manual warned that high-capacity tires were needed to drive it safely at super high speed, the manual did NOT warn that the car was NOT equipped w/ those tires
company negligently caused fire that destroyed man’s restaurant. can man collect property + emotional damages?
no emotional because law does not recognize a claim for emotional distress incident to negligently caused property loss.
physical injury/manifestation required for emo if incident to negligently caused property loss
P is partly responsible for crash. Contributory negligence there bars recovery. In what situation can P still recover?
if D had last clear chance to avoid the accident yet didn’t = D’s liable for negligence
**P suffered flooding due to railroad and city’s negligence re: their storm drains. Flooding would not have occurred if either of the two drains had been maintained. P sued railroad only. Evidence in case established that the failures of the two drains were caused by the respective negligence of the city and railroad. P should recover nothing from railroad, half, or all?
all because but-for the railroad’s negligence, no flooding would’ve occurred
but-for test is satisfied when several acts combine to cause the injury, but none of the acts standing alone would’ve been enough
foreseeable harm resulting from pet’s abnormally dangerous propensity known to owner = what level of liability?
strict liability
for battery, the instrumentality of the intentional touching (a blinding spray on one’s face in a store if triggered by trying to open bolted doors) need not be done personally by D (store) if D (store) set into motion an action w/ the purpose/knowledge that offensive/harmful touching would result. so is it battery?
yes even though P’s actions triggered it, because D set the offensive touching into motion by installing the spray that’ll likely result in offensive contact
which of these would defeat a battery claim against hallucinating, mentally ill person?
D didn’t understand his act was wrongful
D didn’t desire to harm P
D didn’t know he was striking a person
D thought P was about to attack him
D didn’t know he was striking a person, because that would defeat the intent necessary for battery, which requires harmful/offensive contact WITH THE PLAINTIFF’S PERSON
doesn’t matter whether he didn’t understand his act was wrongful - if u intended to do touch a person, too bad
does mental disability generally provide immunity for intentionally tortious conduct?
no
