TORTS: Other Torts Flashcards
Strict Liability: Ultrahazardous/Abnormally Dangerous Activites
An activity is ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous if is 1) an activity that creates a high degree of risk of serious harm, 2) the risk cannot be eliminated through reasonable care, 3) the activity is not common, 4) the activity is not appropriate for the location, and 5) the danger outweighs the activity’s value to the community. Plaintiff does not need to establish negligence to win on a strict liability claim, but there must be causation, meaning the dangerous aspect of defendant’s activity caused plaintiff’s injury and plaintiff was foreseeable.
Strict Liability: Animals
Animal owners are strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damages resulting from their animal’s trespass onto another’s property. Does not apply to household pets. Owners are strictly liable if they know of their animal’s unusually dangerous propensity, including a household pet (e.g., they know their dog bites and has previously bitten someone). Owners are strictly liable for any injuries caused by wild animals they keep, including as pets, if the injury results from a dangerous propensity that is typical of that species. Includes people getting injured while fleeing. Trespassers cannot recover.
Private Nuisance
The substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of their land. Substantial interference is interference that would be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. Unreasonable interference is a balancing test that looks at whether the harm to the plaintiff outweighs the utility of the defendant’s conduct to the community.
Public Nuisance
There is unreasonable interference with the health, safety, and property rights of the community at large. Recovery is only available to a private party if they suffered a unique damage, otherwise suit must be brought by the government. Courts will consider the location of nuisance, the frequency and duration, the degree of damages, and the social value of the activity.
Nuisance Remedies
Damages or Injunctive Relief.
Nuisance Defenses
Defendant is following legislative or statutory authority (not an absolute defense). Assumption of the risk and comparative negligence are defenses if the case rests on a negligence theory. Coming to the Nuisance will bar recovery if the plaintiff came to the nuisance for the sole purpose of bringing a harassing lawsuit.
Intentional Misrepresentation
Common law fraud or deceit. Plaintiff must prove 1) there was misrepresentation by actions or intentional concealment of a material fact; 2) scienter or knowledge of the statement’s falsity or reckless indifference to the truth; 3) intent to induce plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentation; 4) causation; 5) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and 6) pecuniary damages to the plaintiff.
Negligent Misrepresentation
Plaintiff must prove there was 1) misrepresentation by a defendant in a business or professional capacity; 2) defendant acted with no reasonable grounds for believing the misrepresentation to be true; 3) defendant intended to induce plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresentation; 4) causation; 5) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and 6) pecuniary damages to plaintiff.
Malicious Prosecution
Plaintiff must show that 1) the defendant commenced a criminal or civil proceeding against plaintiff; 2) the prior proceeding terminated in plaintiff’s favor; 3) there was no probable cause for the proceeding; 4) the defendant had an improper purpose for initiating the proceeding; and 5) plaintiff suffered damages.
Abuse of Process
Occurs when the defendant intentionally misuses legal process for an ulterior purpose and the defendant committed a willful act in a wrongful manner that caused damage to the plaintiff. Legal process can include discovery, depositions, etc.
Tortious Interference with Business Relations (or Contract)
Plaintiff must establish 1) the existence of a valid contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party; 2) that the defendant knew or should have know about the relationship; 3) defendant’s intentional interference induced breach or termination of the relationship; and 4) damages. Defendant’s conduct may be privileged if it relates to fair competition.
Respondeat Superior
An employer is jointly liable for torts committed by an employee within the scope and course of the employment. Employer is not liable if employee committed tort while on a frolic of their own.
Independent Contractor
One who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the torts of the IC unless the employer was negligent in hiring the person or the duty is nondelegable because works occurs in a public place or the work involves inherently dangerous activities.
