Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

1L TORTS > TORTS - Fall 2012 > Flashcards

TORTS - Fall 2012 Flashcards

1
Q

Trespass to Chattel

A

A trespass to a chattel may be committed by intentionally:

(a) dispossessing another of the chattel, or
(b) using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another

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

R2T218 - Liability to Person in Possession

A

One who commits a trespass to a chattel is subject to liability to the possessor of the chattel, if, and only if,

(a) he dispossesses the other of the chattel, or
(b) he chattel is impaired as to its condition, quality or value, or
c) the possessor is deprived of the use of the chattel for a substantial time, or
(d) bodilt harm is caused to the possessor, or harm is caused to some person or thing in which the possessor has a legally protected interest

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

R2T222A - Conversion Defined (1) of (2)

A

(1) Conversion is an intenitonal exercise of dominion control over a chattel which is so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other the full value of the chattel.

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

R2T 222A - Elements to Conversion (2) of (2)

A

(2) In determining the seriouslness of the interference and the justice of requiring the actor to pay the full value, the following factors are important:
(a) the extent and duration of the actor’s exercise of dominion or control;
(b) the actor’s intent to assert a right in fact inconsistent with the other’s right of control;
c) the actor’s good faith
(d) the extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other’s right of control;
(e) the harm done to the chattel
(f) the inconvenience and expense caused to the other.

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

Concept of Intent

A

R3T §5 “Actor who intentionally causes physical harm is subject to liability for that harm.”
The phrase “intentionally causes physical harm” describes tortious intent
It is both an intentional act and a harm.
This concept applies to Torts for Physical Harm (R3T) and other intentional torts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Battery - SATL Def.

A

Intentional infliction of unconsented bodily contact that is harmful or offensive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Battery - Rest. Definition

A

R2T § 13 (harmful) ; § 18 (offensive):
An actor is subject to liability to another for battery if
(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of another or a third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and
(b) a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.

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

Assault - Rest. Def. R2T21

A

R2T § 21. Assault.

(1) Act intending to cause battery or imminent apprehension of battery
(2) P is thereby put in such imminent apprehension.

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

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Rest.

A

AKA: OUTRAGE

R2T § 46
(1) Extreme or Outrageous Conduct
(2) Causing severe emotional distress
Can commit IIED/RIED/Outrage to 3P
(1) Member of immediate family who is present whether or not distress results in bodily harm, or
(2) Any other person who is present if distress results in bodily harm.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

False Imprisonment - Rest 2T35

A

(1) Δ acts to confine P or 3P within boundaries fixed by Δ
(2) Δ’s act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement
(3) P is conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it.

Exception: Reasonable means of escape known to P

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

Assault - Common Def.

A

Assault: Apprehension of imminent contact that is harmful or offensive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Confinement

A 
Reasonable escape includes slight inconvenience, embarrassment, “technical invasion” of property
Being forced to follow
Retention of property 
Partial interference is not confinement
Without Consent
Exception: Consent can be revoked
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Modes of Confinement

A

Physical barriers—
Look for island, ship, security area, locked room
Palatial yacht, luxury hotel large ranch can be boundaries

Use of force
Threat of imminent use of force
Assertion of legal authority
Forced to follow
Retention of property
cf. Noble v. Louisville Transfer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Conversion (what to look for)

A

Demand for return—If D obtained chattels legitimately, there is no conversion until possessor demands return or there is an independent act of conversion. (Watch for pawn shop, tow yard, storage facility, etc.)

Bona Fide Purchasers [for value]—If ignorant of seller’s wrongful possession, will be protected. (Watch for $15 iPad4, etc.)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Manifestation of Consent

A

Actual consent manifested by:
Words
Affirmative actions (nodding, presenting arm, etc.)
Silence or inaction when non-consenter would speak or take action (e.g., withdraw)
Effective even if not communicated to D

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Capacity (3 i’s) relating to consent

A

3 I’s (Infancy, Insanity, Intoxication) prevents consent if it precludes appreciation of nature, extent and probable consequences of “consensual” conduct

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

Implied consent

A

“Legal fiction”

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

Implied consent rationale

A

Court reasons that invasion is less important than interest protected by invasion such that a person would consent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

When Mistake Caused by D vitiates consent

A
  1. Mistake caused by D’s fraud
    MAJ: Vitiates consent
    min: Fraud in the essence—material misrepresentation
    Cf. Fraud in the inducement
    Trend: Any material fraud known to D and unknown to P
  2. Mistake caused by D’s negligence may vitiate consent
  3. Mistake not caused by D; Mutual mistake does not vitiate consent
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Consent obtained by duress

A 
Consent obtained by duress is invalid
Force or threat of force
P, his family
P’s and his family’s property
Economic force not recognized (but look for special relationship (common carrier, boss, acting teacher)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

consent to criminal act

A

Consent to criminal act (e.g. mutual combat)
R2T § 829C(1) Consent is effective
Split: Cannot consent to an act the law forbids

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

unequal position

A

Unequal position (in pari delicto) Parties may both be wrong, but one may be protected by law (e.g. boxer but not boxing promoter of illegal match )

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Defense of Self and Others

A

Not available to aggressor unless he abandons attack in which case other party may become aggressor
Reasonable mistake does not defeat privilege.
min: Actor steps in shoes of “victim”
Retaliation is not defense.
Retreat
Min: Duty to retreat except home (m/b work)
Statutory limits on duty to retreat. E.g., Florida v. Zimmerman.
Battered woman syndrome—Jury nullifications, executive clemency but no reported cases
Defense of self and others bars negligence claims
Scope of response—reasonable vs. best

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Defense of Property

A

Mistake of fact does not destroy privilege.
Mistake as to superior privilege does destroy privilege. (unless induced by P)
Case may involve threats to Property and People
Defense against animals follows same rules
Statutory expansion may allow use of deadly force to defend property

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Recapture of Chattels

A

Applies to property taken by fraud, force or other tortious conduct
Reasonable time
D liable for mistake creating privilege
P has no right to resist reasonable force

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Detention for Investigation (Rest. 120A)

A 
R2T §120A—
Reasonable belief
D tortiously took chattels
On premises
Privileged to detain on premises for reasonable investigation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Public Necessity

A

Imminent and impending peril
May be exercised by private citizens
Privilege no greater than necessity

28
Q

Private Necessity

A

Benefit protects D rather than public
D not liable for tort
Incomplete privilege
D must pay damages
Possessor of land must allow D to enter and remain while private necessity exists
Usually available even if D created emergency
Must be reasonable time and manner

29
Q

Equitable Principles

A

One may not profit from his own wrong
One who comes into equity must come with clean hands
One who seeks equity must do equity

30
Q

Negligence - CA Civ Code 1714

A

Civil Code § 1714
“Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill . . .”

31
Q

Policy Considerations

A 
Foreseeability
Certainty
Connection between D’s conduct and injury to P
Moral blame
Consequences to community
32
Q

Negligence - Rest. 289

A

Unreasonable conduct:
R2T § 289—Recognizing Risk
RP attention, perception of circumstances, memory, knowledge of other pertinent matters, intelligence and judgment
Δ’s superior attention, perception

33
Q

Duty: As defined by 2 Judges

A

Cardozo—Duty exists if the court says there is a duty (Zone of Danger)

Andrews—Duty exists if D’s action causes P’s injury (World Duty)

34
Q

Landowner is liable if: (Rest 339)

A

Knows (or should know) children likely to trespass and
Unreasonable danger to children and
Children unable to realize risk and
Utility of danger and burden of precaution are outweighed by risk [UB < PL] and
Lack of reasonable care by owner to eliminate danger

35
Q

Reasonable Person Standard R2T 283

A

Unless the actor is a child, the standard of conduct to which he must conform to avoid being negligent is that of a reasonable man under like circumstances.

36
Q

R2T 283A - Children

A

similar age, intelligence and experience

37
Q

R2T 283B - Mental Deficiency

A

No relief unless child

38
Q

R2T 283C Ill/Physical Disability

A

RP under similar illness/disability

39
Q

Common Strict Liability Statutes (6)

A 
Child Labor Laws
Pure Food Acts 
Federal Safety Appliance Act
Federal Safety Appliance Act
“Safe Place” statutes (e.g. lights in apartment complexes open to public)
Sale of firearms, etc. to minors
40
Q

Negligence

A

Unreasonable Conduct

41
Q

Standard of Care

A

Duty

42
Q

Unreasonable

A

conduct below standard of care

43
Q

circumstantial evidence

A

Event giving rise to the harm does not ordinarily occur w/o negligence (may require expert testimony more likely than not)

Single defendant (ex. Ybarra v. Apangard)
Instrumentality under “exclusive” control of P
No evidence of causation
P did not contribute to own injury

44
Q

Negligence (tort of 4 elements)

A
  1. duty of reasonable care
  2. breach of that duty
  3. causation
  4. resulting damages
45
Q

The “Hand Formula” case name

A

US v Carroll Towing Co. (2d Cir 1947)

46
Q

The “Hand Formula” algebra

A

B < PL where:
Probability = P
Injury = L
Burden = B

47
Q

The “Hand Formula” explained

A

The Reasonable Person, Hand postulates, takes a precaution against injury if the burden of doing so is less than the loss if the injury occurs multiplied by the probability that the injury will occur.

48
Q

contributory negligence

A

Conduct on the part of P that is contributing cause of his own injuries and that falls below the standard of care to which he is req’d to conform for his own protection.

49
Q

comparative negligence (“Pure”)

A

virtually all states reject the rule that contributory negligence is an absolute bar to recovery and base liability on the comparative fault of P & D.

50
Q

comparative negligence (“partial”)

A

P may recover damages for % that D is liable only if P’s own negligence is less than a certain threshold level.

51
Q

direct evidence - defined

A

real, tangible or clear evidence of a fact, happening or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence.

52
Q

Mode of Operation approach

A

approach is a viable alternative to proof of actual or constructive notice in slip-and-fall cases.

53
Q

Bus. Premises Liability Approaches (Traditional)

A

Possessor had actual or constructive notice of dangerous condition P would not discover or appreciate and fails to take reasonable precautions.

54
Q

Bus. Premises Liability Approaches (Mode of Operation)

A

If D’s business methods (e.g., self-service grocery stores) give rise to foreseeable risks from patron’s carelessness (e.g., spillage and breakage), owner must take reasonable precautions.

55
Q

Bus. Premises Liability Approaches (Burden-shifting)

A

If P proves that transitory foreign substance in self-service store caused slip-and-fall, P has created a rebuttable presumption of negligence.

56
Q

Res ipsa loquitur translated

A

“The thing speaks for itself”

57
Q

Res Ipsa Loquitur

A

Circumstantial Evidence

Creates rebuttable inference of Negligence

58
Q

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur

A

Determine from the language in the principal opinions the procedural effect the various jurisdictions accord to res ipsa evidence.

59
Q

Res Ipsa Loquitur in CA law

A

*Under California law, the application of res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of production to the ∆. Unless the ∆ comes fwd w/ evidence suggesting that it was not negligent or that its negligence did not proximately cause the injury, the jury is required to find that the accident resulted from the ∆’s negligence. (Cal. Evid. Code § 646 Law Rev. Commission cmt. (Westlaw 2009).

60
Q

Negligence (elements)

A

The elements of a cause of action in tort for negligence are: (1) a duty to use ordinary care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury and (4) resulting damage. (Budd v. Nixen (1971) 6 Cal.3d 195, 200.)

61
Q

Negligence - CA Civ Code 1714 (a)

A

Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person. (Cal.Civ.Code § 1714(a).)

62
Q

Contributory Negligence - Rest.2T463

A

“Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause cooperating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm.” (Rest. 2d Torts, § 463.)

63
Q

Design Defect (5) Elements

A
  1. The defendant was the manufacturer or supplier of a product;
  2. The product possessed a defect in its design;
  3. The defect in design existed at the time it left the defendant’s possession;
  4. The defect in design was a cause of injury to the plaintiff; and
  5. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from a use of the product that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
64
Q

Comparative negligence

A

Comparative negligence is a defense to strict liability. (Daly v. General Motors (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725) Comparative fault is negligence on the part of a plaintiff which combining with the negligence of a defendant or with a defect in a product or with negligent or wrongful conduct of others contributes as a cause in bringing about the injury.

65
Q

IIED (Elements)

A

(1) outrageous conduct by the defendant;
(2) the defendant’s intention of causing or reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress;
(3) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and
(4) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 497-498

66
Q

Emotional Distress - defined

A

The term “emotional distress” means mental distress, mental suffering or mental anguish. It includes all highly unpleasant mental reactions, such as fright, nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and indignity, as well as physical pain.

67
Q

Offensive conduct - defined

A

A contact with the plaintiff’s person is offensive if it offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. To be offensive, the contact must be of a character that would offend a person of ordinary sensitivity, and be unwarranted by the social usages prevalent at the time and place at which the contact is made.

1L TORTS (1 decks)

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