Torts - Elements, Defenses, Damages Flashcards
Assault
(1) intentional infliction of harmful/offensive contact or imminent apprehension of contact
(2) that causes a plaintiff to reasonably apprehend imminent contact.
DAMAGES:
- Nominal
- Actual (including physical harm flowing from an assault)
- Punitive
Battery
(1) Intent to inflict contact or imminent apprehension of contact
(2) causing contact
(3) which harms or offends plaintiff
DAMAGES
- Nominal
- Actual (including physical harm flowing therefrom)
- Punitive
Trespass to Chattel
Minor intentional interference with plaintiff’s right to control chattel.
Liable for ACTUAL damages—eg, cost of repairs, loss of use.
Conversion
A defendant who has permission to use the plaintiff’s chattel commits conversion when he/she (1) intentionally uses the chattel in a way that exceeds the scope of permission
Substantial intentional interference with plaintiff’s right to control chattel
Liable for fair market value of chattel at time of conversion
Landowner’s Duty to Known/Anticipated Trespassers
(1) warn the trespasser about, or protect the trespasser from, hidden, artificial (i.e., man-made) dangers that are known to the land possessor but unlikely to be discovered by the trespasser and
(2) use reasonable care in active operations conducted on the land.
Under the traditional res ipsa loquirer standard, negligence is INFERRED by circumstantial evidence when:
(1) the plaintiff’s harm would not normally occur unless someone was negligent
(2) the defendant had exclusive control, or was responsible for all others who had control, over the thing that caused the harm* and
(3) the plaintiff did nothing to cause the harm.
*The modern trend among many courts is to ignore the exclusivity requirement when applying the traditional standard for res ipsa loquitur in negligence actions that involve products liability
Negligence per se - 3 Elements
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 negligence per se is shown, then duty and breach elements are satisfied, and plaintiff can move on to proving causation and damages.
- Class of Person–– the plaintiff must be in the class of people meant to be protected by the statute.
- Type of harm––the plaintiff must also suffer the type of harm the statute intended to protect against.
- If the statute applies, the defendant will be liable to the plaintiff if violation of the statute proximately caused harm to the plaintiff.
What is an Abnormally Dangerous Activity? (3 factors)
Activity that causes
(1) a high risk of harm,
(2) that is not commonly found in the community,
(3) the risks of which cannot be eliminated with due care
3 Prima Facie elements of a Products Liability claim
(1) defendant had an absolute duty as a commercial seller of the product to provide a safe product,
(2) the product had a recognized “defect”;
(3) actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and
(4) as a result, plaintiff suffered damages
manufacturing defect
a deviation from what the manufacturer intended the product to be
the deviation causes the harm to the plaintiff
the test for the existence of a manufacturing defect is whether the produce conforms to the defendant’s own specifications
design defect
defect in the manufacturer’s whole design—meaning every product in that design line is potentially defected
defect can shown by a blend of two
Design Defect - consumer expectation test
product is dangerous beyond the expectation of an ordinary consumer
Design Defect - risk-utility test
there exists a reasonable alternative design that is economically feasible and was available to the defendant
and
defendant’s failure to use that alternative design rendered the product unreasonable unsafe
failure to warn defect
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.
*Defendants might provide warnings about one type of harm, but fail to warn about the type of harm that actually occurs, in which case, plaintiff may be able to claim a failure to warn defect
Products Liability - Special Causation Rule
Actual Causation—to be the actual cause of plaintiff’s injury, the product must have been defective when it left the defendant’s control.
Proximate Causation—to be the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, the defect causing plaintiff’s injuries must have occurred when the product was being used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. A defendant will still be liable if the plaintiff misuses the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner and is injured in the course of her use/misuse (e.g,. putting hot cocoa in a milkshake blender and getting burned).
implied warranty of merchantability
fit for the purposes for which it is being sold
implied fitness for a particular purpose
seller knows buyer’s purpose, and buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment in supplying the product
attractive nuisance - 5 elements
(i) an artificial condition exists in a place where the owner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass,
(ii) the land possessor knows or has reason to know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to children,
(iii) the children, because of their youth, do not discover or cannot appreciate the danger presented by the condition, and
(iv) the utility to the land possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk of harm presented to the children, and
(v) the land possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect children from the harm.
Trespass to Chattel
A defendant is liable for trespass to chattels if he
intentionally
interferes with the plaintiff’s right of possession by either: (i) dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel; or (ii) using or intermeddling with the plaintiff’s chattel
Damages:
i) The actual damages caused by the interference (diminution of value or cost of repair);
ii) The loss of use; and
iii) Nominal damages for the loss of possession, even when no actual harm is established.
Conversion
intentionally
committing 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 plaintiff’s damages are the chattel’s full value at the time of the conversion.
