Torts Final Flashcards
Rules
Intentional Tort
Battery
A person who intends to cause reasonable h/off direct or indirect contact [or the apprehension of] and that contact occurs
Intentional Tort
Offensive
Injurious to a persons sense of dignity
Intentional Tort
Intent
Has purpose to cause or knows to a substantial certainty that this is likely to occur
Intentional Tort
Transferred intent
A person intending to cause one tort but another tort occurs. (e.g. assault to battery)
A person intends a tort on one person but accidentally occurs to someone else
Intentional Tort
Assault
A person intends to cause the reasonable apprehension of imminent h/off contact and such apprehension occurs
Intentional Tort
False imprisonment
A person intends to confine another for another in a confined area by the:
- use of force
- threat of force
- False assertion of authority
- Duress
and that confinement is :
* for an appreciable amount of time
* either the person has knowledge or is
* harmed by the confinement
* WITHOUT Consent
If you can easily walk out or leave confined are = NO False Imprisonment
Affirmative Defense
Consent
- Dual natured - Can be violation of P’s consent or an affirmative defense by D
- Has a scope
- Can be withdrawn
- Verbal or implied
Who cannot consent:
* Kids
* incapactitated people
* Anyone under duress
Affirmative defense
Self Defense
- Must fear threat to personal safety
- Cannot be excessive
- Words alone not enough to justify
Grimes v Saban
Negligence
Duty
Generally
- Engaging in RCC that could foreseeably cause harm.
- RPP standard = Also RPP standard for someone with expertise of special knowledge, physical disability
- NO change for Mental disability
- Kids doing kid stuff = No duty
Negligence
Duty - relationship to property entrants
Landowner Premise Liability
- Invitee - duty
- Liscencee - duty to not “willfully or wantonly hurt them”
- Trespassers - generally no but if they are hurt b/c of dangerous condition then duty to summon aid
CA Rule exception - Rowland (faucet)
* duty of reasonable care to all entrants
Duty
Duty to Rescue
Special relationships
- Parent-child
- Teacher-student
- Employer-employee
- Hotels-guest
- Common-carrier-passenger
o E.g., bus, train, plane - Business-invitee
- Hospitals-patient
- Landlord-tenant
- Custodian-custodee
o E.g., jailor-inmate
THE WHY
* Superior ability to protect
* reduced ability to protect themselves
Duty
Duty to Rescue
When should you?
- Created one’s peril
- Continuing risk of harm - hitting a deer
- Voluntarily undertaking to act - Don’t leave them worse off
- Passenger duty - Podias DD accident (they took action to prevent)
Duty
Duty to Protect against 3rd Party
Relationships
- School - student
- Hotel- guest
- Custodial relationships
- businesses
- Employer - employee
- Common carriers/passengers
- landlord - tenant
THE WHY?
* They have special knowledge
* Reliance by victim
* Benefitting from the victim
Duty
Landowner 3rd Party Protection Tests / Policy
- Landlords - if voluntarily undertaken but negligent
- Parking lots - Posecai (B<PL)
Foreseeability Tests
* PSI - recency, frequency, similar crimes
* Totality of circumstance - more expansive
* Balancing TOC ++ = B<PL
CA Duty
* LL have duty to tenants to provide reasonably security and maintain
* LL liability for dangerous animal/threatening neighbor
Duty
Duty to Control
Special relationships
- Prison/halfway houses - prisoner
- Employers -employees (in the scope of duties)
- NO Spouses
- Medical Professionals - pose a serious danger to foreseeable victim (Tarasoff rule)
Breach
Methods for proving Breach
Common sense weighing of alternatives
B<PL
Notice and opportunity to cure
* Constructive knowledge
* mode of operation
Deviation from customs
NPS (proves duty and breach)
* statutory language
* covers harms intended by statute
* persons covered by statute
RIL - the thing that speaks for itself
RIL (elements)
- Was within D’s control at the time of probable negligence
- has the right, authority, responsibility to control at the time
- The type of harm that would occur if D’s action was negligent
- unable to prove an alternative to D’s act
Byre (barrel case)
Actual injury
Can and Cannot recover?
- Legally cognizable harm and other harms flowing from injury (money, emotional harm, pain and suffering)
- CANNOT recover for Pure economic harm or “free standing” emotional harm w/o proof
Factual cause Tests
- But for - main test
If but for fails then:
- Increased risk showing causation
- Substantial factor (CA test) - multiple factors contribute
- Multiple sufficient causes/duplicative - must be simultaneos
- Preemptive causation - when one act occurs before the other
- Summers v Tice - cannot determine which one caused but both equally negligent
Scope of Liability
Definition and policy reasons
An actors liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actors conduct tortious
Policy reasons
* least cost avoiders
* encourage people to get appropriate insurance
SoL
Extent of harm
If within D’s scope of the risk
* liable for full extent of the damage
* liabe for subsequent medical negligence
* subsequent criminal - foreseeable?
* subsequent negligence - foreseeable?
SoL
Expressed AOR
- Contracts that are vague or ambiguous or do they cover the negligence of the author.
- Cannot waive gross neg/recklessness
- Hartley ATV
- Stelluti spin bike
