Question | Answer |
Transferred intent | 1. Assault, 2. Batter, 3. False imprisonment, 3. Trespass to land, and 4. Trespass to chattels
From person to person, or tort to tort |
Damages required | 1. Intentional infliction of emotional distress, 2. Trespass to chattels, and 3. Conversion |
Assault | Act intended to cause reasonable apprehension (expectation) of imminent contact
Apprehension = Intended harmful contact
Battery can be transferred to assault |
Battery | Act intended to cause harmful or offensive contact to P or his person (no actual contact, but object connected to person, e.g. chair/bike/dog on walk with owner)
Nominal recovery for battery (not negligence) |
Acting in concert | Creating joint and several liability among all actors
Actors must have exclusive control causing harm
Must prove concerted action between all Ds |
False imprisonment | Act by D, intended to confine P in fixed boundaries
P must be conscious or harmed by confinement
Time of confinement is irrelevant |
Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Extreme and outrageous conduct (beyond bounds of common decency), intended to cause severe emotional distress
Damages required (not just physical harm)
Fall back tort, so prove obvious tort first |
Private necessity defense | Privilege to interfere with real or personal property of another where reasonably necessary to avert reasonable harm
Qualified privilege = NO liability for trespass, but YES liability for damages |
Conversion | Act of dominion and control, intended to cause serious interference with P right to immediate possession
Remedy- full value at time of conversion
Lost, destroyed, or stolen
NEED- tortuous intent (intended consequence of act)
Mistake is no defe |
Negligence | 1. Duty,
2. Breach,
3. Actual cause (but-for),
4. Proximate cause, and
5. Damages
If D- want cut off liability goes up so argue duty before proximate cause
If P- want impose liability so go down so argue proximate cause before duty |
Negligence- Duty | D owes ordinary duty to exercise reasonable care under circumstances
Test- objective- Reasonable person standard |
Negligence- Duty exceptions | Physical disability:
May be considered so duty changes to duty of reasonable care for a person with that disability
Mental deficiency:
May NOT be considered so reasonable person standard (stupidity = no excuse) |
Negligence- Duty to act | G/R: No legal duty to act
Caveat: Once D undertakes to give aid, must do so with reasonable care
Exception: Doctor/nurse is NOT
held liable for ordinary
negligence unless acts wanton
or reckless |
Negligence- Duty to act in an emergency | Duty to act as a reasonable person under emergency conditions |
Negligence- Rescue doctrine | Independent duty of care owed to rescuee, therefore NOT liable to P if rescue negligently causing further harm, unless acting wantonly or recklessly
Rescuer may recover if injured during rescue |
Directed verdicts | P motion generally denied
But, look to both motions |
Negligence- Duty to act- Conduct of 3rd parties | G/R: No duty to control conduct of 3rd parties, unless authority and actual ability to control 3rd party AND knows of need to do so |
Negligence- Duty to act- Conduct of 3rd parties
Respondent Superior | Master is vicariously liable of NEGLIGENT act of servant committed within the scope of employment |
Negligence- Duty owed to person coming onto land | Obvious conditions
Unknown trespasser= NO duty
Known trespasser= Duty to warn of KNOWN, DANGEROUS, ARTIFICIAL conditions
Social guest (invitee, includes police and fireman)= Duty to warn of KNOWN, DANGEROUS, NATURAL, and ARTIFICIAL conditions |
Negligence- Duty owed to person coming onto land
Attractive nuisance doctrine | Liability for harm to trespassing children if-
1. Artificial, dangerous condition on land,
2. Possessor knows or should know child likely to trespass,
3. Child because of age (immaturity) fails to realize danger or appreciate risk, and |
Negligence- Duty owed to person coming onto land
Attractive nuisance doctrine continued... | 4. Utility of maintaining condition slight when compared to risk
Subjective test |
Negligence per se | Breach of statutory duty of are creating presumption of negligence
Defenses-
1. Compliance causes more danger than violation, and
2. D confronted with emergency beyond control |
Comparative negligence
(majority) | P recovery is reduced by percentage of fault attributable to P
Liable for full amount (seek contribution)
Assumption of recovery not matter what percentage of fault
Jurisdiction may modify- P must be less than 50% at fault
Last clear chance= a |
Comparative negligence (majority)- Joint and several liability | 2 or more forces combined produce one indivisible harm so each tortfeasor is liable for full amount of P's harm |
Contributory negligence
(minority) | G/R: P's contributory negligence bars recovery, unless D is more at fault than P by being reckless or wanton
Last clear chance= Negligent P avoids liability where D had last clear chance to avoid P harm and did NOT do so, unless, P acted reckless/wanto |
Products liability general rule | G/R: Commercial seller strictly liable for any defective condition that is unreasonably dangerous and exists at time of sale |
Products liability P, D, and damages | Who P? Any foreseeable user, consumer, or bystander (no privity required)
Class of D? Any commercial seller (distributor, whole saler, etc.)
Damages- Personal injury and property loss, but NOT economic loss |
Products liability defenses | 1. Assumption of risk (not contributor negligence)
2. Product misuse (Reasonable misuse is foreseeable)
3. Adequate warnings (Not always clear, conspicuous, prominently displayed) |
Products liability design defect | Prove if seller is aware a reasonable economic alternative exists
Danger is not apparent until product reaches the public, or else no reason for alternative design if unknown |
Strict liability | Breach of absolute duty of care, proximately causing harm to P
No negligence |
Strict liability | 1. Abnormally dangerous activities (P harm results from abnormal propensity from abnormally dangerous activity),
2. Ultra hazardous activities,
3. Wild animals |
Defamation to privacy | 1. Defamatory statement of facts, NOT opinion,
2. Publication to any 3rd person who reasonably understands,
3. Damages-
a. General injury to reputation
(presumed)
b. Special pecuniary loss (not
required in lible/slander per se) |
Defamation to privacy continued... | 4. P has to prove fault AND falsity
a. Public official/figure= Must
establish malice (knowing
falsity or reckless disregard
for truth)
b. Private person= Public
(establish negligence),
OR Private concern (just prove
publicati |
Defamation to privacy defenses | 5. a. Truth
b. Privilege
i. Qualified, or
ii. Absolute
No negligence if public official P |
Privacy action | 1. Commercial appropriation,
2. False light privacy,
3. Public disclosure of private facts,
4. Inclusion on seclusion (true privacy action)
Publication required for first 3
Truth is NO defense
Special damages NOT required
Do NOT survive |
Privacy action- Commercial appropriation | Appropriation of P name or likeness without consent to advertise a service or product |
Private nuisance | Substantial and unreasonable interference with P's use and enjoyment of his property
"Coming to nuisance" is only one of many factors to consider |