Torts MEE Flashcards

1
Q

Assault

A

An intentional act by D creating P’s reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact to P’s person + causation

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

Battery

A

An intentional harmful (pain or injury) or offensive (reasonable person) contact to P’s person by D

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

False Imprisonment

A

An act or failure to act by D resulting in P’s restraint or confinement to a bounded area

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

Shopkeeper’s privilege

A

a store may detain a suspected thief if:

  1. Store has reasonable cause to believe a theft occurred;
  2. Store detains suspect for only a reasonable period and for purposes of investigation; and
  3. Detention is reasonable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

IIED

A

Extreme and outrageous conduct by D causing P’s severe emotional distress

Intent or recklessness

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

IIED - extreme and outrageous conduct

A

Conduct that exceeds the bounds of decency in society (not insults by themselves)

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

IIED - when is non-outrageous conduct actionable?

A
  • D targets P’s known sensitivity or weakness,
  • D’s conduct is continuous or repetitive,
  • D targets a P who is a member of a “fragile” class (e.g., elderly, children, pregnant women), or
  • D is a common carrier or innkeeper
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

IIED - bystander claims

A

A bystander (D must know) closely related (D must know) to a person physically injured or killed by D’s conduct may recover for emotional distress

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

Defenses to intentional torts

A

POPCANS

Privilege, defense of Others, defense of Property, Consent, Authority, Necessity, Self-defense

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

Negligence - Duty of care

A

D owes a duty of care—to behave like a reasonably prudent person— to all foreseeable plaintiffs in the zone of danger

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

Who is the reasonably prudent person?

A

someone with D’s physical characteristics, but with the knowledge and mental capacity of an ordinary person

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

Who has a specialized standard of care?

A

CLIIPS

C - children
L - land owners/occupiers 
I - innkeepers/common carriers 
I - industry custom/standard
P - professionals
S - statutory standards of care
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Child standard of care

A

held to the standard of care of a like child of similar age, education, intelligence, and experience (subjective test)

*Generally, young children (i.e., under 6-7) lack capacity to be held negligent

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

Adult activities exception

A

children engaged in adult activities must conform to an adult standard of care in that activity

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

Common carriers/inkeepers standard of care

A

held to an “utmost care” standard (liable for even slight negligence to passengers or guests)

*modern trend is to hold innkeepers to ordinary negligence

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

Custom/usage in an industry standard of care

A

can be used to establish a standard of care, but failure to adhere does not automatically give rise to a breach of duty

17
Q

Professionals standard of care

A

Expected to act with the care of an average member of the profession in good standing in similar communities

  • Medical specialists held to national standard
  • Medical professionals only have a duty that extends to patients
18
Q

Negligence per se

A

Statute replaces typical standard of care:

  1. Statute provides a criminal penalty;
  2. Standard of conduct is clearly defined in the statute;
  3. P is within the class of people statute is designed to protect; and
  4. Statute is designed to protect against the type of harm P suffered

violation of the statute means P must only prove causation, not breach of duty

19
Q

Duty to anticipated trespassers

A

where owner has reason to believe of trespassers on her land

  • Activities — owner has duty of reasonable care in carrying out activities on her property
  • Dangerous conditions — owner has duty to make safe or warn of any known, concealed, man-made hazards
20
Q

What are the elements for attractive nuisance?

A

Owner must take reasonable care to eliminate dangers on her property or protect children from those dangers if:

KiDs CAR

  • Knows or should know
  • Dangerous condition
  • Children frequent
  • due to Age will not appreciate the danger
  • Remedy costs lesser than the risk
21
Q

What are the different types of intentional torts?

A

FITCAB

  • False Imprisonment
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
  • Trespass
  • Chattels trespass-conversion
  • Assault
  • Battery
22
Q

What is an abnormally dangerous activity?

A

SURP

  • Serious risk of harm
  • Uncommon in area
  • cannot be Performed without Risk
23
Q

Who is an licensee?

A

one who enters land with owner’s permission for his own purpose or business (i.e., not for landowner’s benefit)

E.g., relatives, friends, social guests

24
Q

Who is an invitee?

A

one who enters land held open to the public or who enters with owner’s permission to confer a commercial benefit

E.g., store patron, concert-goer

25
Duty of care for activities carried out on property (licensee/invitee)
reasonable care
26
Duty of care for known dangerous conditions (licensee/invitee)
duty to warn or make safe
27
Duty to inspect (invitee only)
owners have duty to conduct a reasonable inspection for non-obvious dangers and make them safe
28
When does a breach occur?
when his conduct falls short of the standard of care owed under the circumstances
29
What is res ipsa loquitur?
the very occurrence of the accident causing P’s injuries suggests negligent conduct
30
What must P prove for res ipsa loquitur?
TIP: - Type of accident does not occur w/o neg. - Instrumentality in D's control - P is not contributory neg.
31
Substantial factor test for causation
for multiple causes of P’s injury D’s breach is the actual cause if it was a substantial factor in bringing about P’s injury
32
Burden shifting test for causation
Application — used if multiple Ds act (often simultaneously), only one causes P’s injury, but it’s unclear which D caused the injury. Burden of proving actual cause shifts to Ds
33
Proximate cause
Ask: Is it fair under law o hold D responsible for P’s injuries? About foreseeability. Question of fact.
34
Intervening cause
Apply when looking at proximate cause intervening forces that occur after D’s conduct to cause P’s injuries will not cut off D’s liability if they are foreseeable
35
Quick damages rules
1. P must prove damages 2. Nominal damages never available 3. Personal injury - D compensates P for all damages (past, present, and future - economic and non) 4. Punitive damages - only recoverable if D’s conduct is wanton and willful, reckless, or malicious (normally not awarded in negligence) 5. Never recoverable - atty's fees, interest from date of damage in personal injury
36
Assumption of the risk requirements
D must show: 1. P knew or should have known the risk (objective standard); and 2. P voluntarily proceeded in the face of that risk
37
NIED
1. D’s negligence results in a close risk of bodily harm to P 2. P must be in “zone of danger” to recover I.e., D’s act must have nearly caused physical harm to P 3. D’s negligence results in P’s severe emotional distress 4. P exhibits some physical manifestation attributable to her emotional distress (court split here)
38
NIED - bystander claims
P and the injured person are closely related; P was present at the scene of the injury; and P personally observed or perceived the event
39
Defenses to strict liability
Assumption of the risk | Comparative negligence