Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

torts > Torts and shit > Flashcards

Torts and shit Flashcards

1
Q

Intentional Torts Elements

A

Intent, act, causation, injury

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Two different kinds of intent in intentional torts

A 
Specific = purpose is to act in a way that brings about the specific result
General = Knows w/ substantial certainty that these consequences will result
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Transferred Intent (IT)

A

Battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

To determine liability (IT)

A

Act is done with intention of harm, offensive contact or apphrension thereof to another, contact is not consented or consented by fraud, contact is not otherwise privileged

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Battery defin & other application of it

A
  • An act by the D which brings about a harmful or offensive contact to the P’s person and intent to bring the contact, and causation
  • Apprehension is not necessary
  • Liability extends to the consequences that the D didnt intend specifically and those that couldnt be anticipated
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Assault Defin and other ideas

A
  • An act by the D creating a reasonable apprehension in a P of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the P person
  • Must be aware of assault, immediate, D apparent ability to act is sufficient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

False Imprisonment defin & other ideas

A

An act or omission to act on the part of the D that confines or restraints the P to a bounded area AND intent on the part of the D to confine or restrain the P to the area AND P is aware of the confinment
- The P is not required to resist force, doesnt stand if they knew of a reasonable means of escape, moral pressure doesnt constitute FI

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Shopkeepers Privilege

A

There must be a reasonable belief as to the act of theft AND the detention must be done in a reasonable manner AND the detention must be made for a reasonable period of time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

IIED defin & other ideas

A
  • An act by the D that is extreme and outrageous conduct, intent to cause the P severe emotional distress OR a recklessness as to the effect of the D conduct
  • No physical injury required, D must know of their presence, conduct that transcends all bounds of decency tolerated by society
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Trespass to land

A

An act of physical invasion of the P real property, intent to bring about the invasion causes third party or object to invade the property, remains on property after consent has expired
- The intent is to step on the land not to trespass

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Trespass to chattels

A
  • An act by the D interfering with the Ps right of possession in the chattel, intent to perform the act, damages
  • Just intent to the act of interference
  • Intermeddling = act that damages property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Conversion

A
  • The D interfering with the P right of possession of the chattel, intent, interference is serious enough D has to pay full value of chattel
  • The longer the withholding and more extensive of use of the chattel the more likely a conversion has happened
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Nuisance

A

Requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of anothers land
- Can be intangible object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Consent (Defense to IT)

When is it effective, two kinds, who cannot consent

A
  • To be effective: a person must have the capacity to consent or must be able to appreciate the nature, extent, and consequences of the conduct consented to
  • Express consent = P has expressly shown a willingness to submit to the D conduct
  • Implied consent = Apparent consent, Consent implied by law
  • Children, drunks, incompetents
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Self defense Defin (Defense to IT)

A
  • A person has reasonable grounds to believe that they are being or about to be attacked may use force that is reasonably necessary for protection against injury
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Self defense, factors that determine if defense is reasonable

A

Amount of force, the means or object which force was applied, manner or method use, surrounding circumstances

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Self Defense - castle doctrine

A

Allows a person to protect their occupied dwelling at night by using deadly force without asking questions or retreating

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Self defense - deadly force

A

Deathly force is only available if an actor believes themselves to be facing death and must try retreating first unless they believe it to be futile

19
Q

Defense of others

A
  • A person can defend another in the same manner and conditions as one could protect self from attack
  • If mistakenly believes someone was in danger then it still available if mistake was reasonable
20
Q

Defense of property

A

P was trespassing AND reasonably believed force was necessary AND asked them to leave or reasonably believed that would be futile

  • Deadly force can never be used for this
  • May not be used to recapture property with exception of hot pursuit
21
Q

Necessity defin & two types

A

A person may interfere with real or personal property of another if interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force and where the threatened injury is more substantially serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it

  • Public = where the act is for the public then it is a complete defense
  • Private = if only for the actor or small number of ppl then you have to pay damages
22
Q

Firefighters rule

A
  • Prohibits emergency personnel from holding a person liable for injuries suffered when responding to a situation created or caused by that person
23
Q

Negligence rule proof

A

Duty, breach, causation, injury

24
Q

Negligence - RPP factors

A
  • Factors: cost of various courses of actions and reduce risks found to be worth it, risks in light of utility of conduct, foreseeable risk of injury, alternatives, extent of the risks posed by their conduct, adherence/departure to custom, likelihood of the risk causing harm
25
Q

Negligence - hand formula

A

B is less than or more than PL

26
Q

Negligence - RPP Medical Standard, informed consent

A
  • Knowledge and skill of an ordinary member of the profession, requires expert testimony at trial
  • Informed consent = risks of procedure, necessity, alternative forms of treatment, material risks are disclosed
  • Defenses to IC = alarm and emergency
27
Q

Negligence - RPP Children

A
  • Degree of care that child of like age, intelligence and experience
  • Exception is child doing an adult activity
28
Q

Negligence per se

A
  • P is apart of the class statute is designed to protect, D did the type of act statute is trying to prevent
  • Statute creates the duty not the RPP
29
Q

Res Ispa Loquitor

A
  • D had full control of the instrumentality, the circumstances could not have happened without negligence, the injury was a direct result of this
30
Q

Causation rule proof

A

Actual cause and proximate cause

31
Q

Actual cause

A
  • Whether the conduct led to the injury, “but for”

- If there are two actors both can be actual cause

32
Q

Post hoc ergo propertr hoc

A
  • The fact that one thing happened after another doesn’t mean the first one caused the second one
  • More to prove causation then a sequence of events
33
Q

Actual cause - multiple sufficient causation

A
  • If two actors did different negligent acts then they will ask if each alone was sufficient and if yes both are liable
  • Pre emptive causation doesn’t count – when a negligent act happens after the injury
34
Q

Actual Cause - Alternative liability

A
  • Both actors did a negligent act at the same time and unsure which caused injury then both are liable unless they can prove they didn’t cause injury
35
Q

Proximate causation and risk rule

A
  • Injury was among type foreseeable from the negligent act
  • Risk rule: Risks of possible harms that a reasonable person would regard the conduct as negligent, did the actual harm match one of those?
36
Q

Proximate causation - egg shell skull

A
  • Take the P as you find them even if a sensitivity made injury worse or injured when another wouldn’t be
37
Q

Proximate causation - Rescue doctrine

A

Rescuers are a foreseeable risk when a negligent actor puts others in danger

38
Q

Proximate causation - foreseeable P

A

Negligent liability is limited to the class of persons who are placed at risk of foreseeable harm by the actors conduct

39
Q

Loss of chance doctrine - Traditional Rule

A
  • Must show the outcome was most likely because D was negligent
  • 51% or more
  • Damages is all
40
Q

Loss of chance doctrine - Loss of Chance rule

A
  • P must prove the D negligence caused the loss of the P chance of a favorable outcome
  • Recovery = total damages x amount of loss of chance
41
Q

Loss of chance doctrine - Relaxed standard rule

A
  • P must prove the negligence substantially contributed to their outcome
  • Recovery is a question for the jury
42
Q

Exceptions to the no duty to rescue rule

A

1) Prior innocent/tortious conduct created a risk of harm
2) Statutory duty (good Samaritan laws)
3) Special relationship to π (employer-employee, landlord-tenant, store owner-customer, etc)
4) Special relationship to the source of risk (parent-child, employer-employee, etc)
5) Voluntary undertaking/taking charge

43
Q

Comparative negligence

A

If a D proves the P has failed to take precautions for their own safety then the jury will weigh the fault of the P against the fault of the D aka compare their respective degrees of fault and P recovery will reduced to proportion to the percentage of fault

44
Q

Contributory negligence - traditional & modern rules

A

Failure to use proper care for one’s own safety

b) Traditional approach is that if the jury believes the P contributed then they recover nothing
c) Modern approach:
i) If the D hadn’t just acted negligently but recklessly then courts ignore the P involvement
ii) Last clear chance doctrine - Allow P to recover if their act of negligence still gave the D an opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to do so - not said as a defense but used by the P to argue their contributory negligence shouldn’t dismiss the case

torts (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions