Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
To
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Battery | 1) Harmful, Offensive Contact 2) w/ P's Person. |
| Super-sensitive Plaintiff | NOT to be taken into account, UNLESS D knew of them. |
| A Plaintiff's Person | Anything physically CONNECTED WITH the P will suffice. |
| Assault | 1) Reasonable Apprehension 2) of an Immediate Contact |
| Apparent Ability | Creates Reasonable Apprehension. |
| Immediacy | Words alone are NOT enough. Words COUPLED W/ CONDUCT can be enough. In fact, sometimes, words coupled w/ conduct UNDO the conduct and any reasonable apprehension. |
| False Imprisonment | 1) Sufficient Act of Restraint, 2) to a Bounded Area |
| Sufficient Act of Restraint | Threats are enough. Inaction is enough if there is an understanding D would act for P's benefit. P generally must be aware of the confinement at the time it takes place. (Length of time is irrelevant.) |
| Bounded Area | A mere inconvenience is NOT enough. An area is NOT bounded if there is a REASONABLE MEANS OF ESCAPE of which P is AWARE. |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress | 1) Outrageous Conduct AND 2) Damage (fallback tort) |
| Outrageous Conduct | 1) Continuous Conduct; 2) Type of P: young child, elderly, pregnant woman; 3) Type of D: Common Carrier, Innkeeper |
| Damage | Proof of severe emotional distress (e.g. severe, substantial emotional harm) |
| Intent (intentional infliction of emotional distress) | RECKLESSNESS can suffice. TRANSFERRED INTENT is normally UNAVAILABLE. |
| Intentional Torts to Property | 1) Trespass to Land, 2) Trespass to Chattels, 3) Conversion |
| Trespass to Land | 1) Act of Physical Invasion, 2) to Land |
| Act of Physical Invasion | There is NO need to show knowledge of crossing a property line. Propelling a physical obj onto property will suffice. |
| Land | Includes airspace above and subsurface below SO LONG AS at a distance where landowner can make REASONABLE USE of the space. |
| Trespass to Chattels and Conversion | 1) Act of Invasion, 2) to Personal Property. (if a lot of dmg, choose conversion) |
| Intentional Torts | 1) Battery, 2) Assault, 3) False Imprisonment, 4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, 5) Trespass to Land, 6) Trespass to Chattel, 7) Conversion |
| Defenses to Intentional Torts | 1) Consent, 2) Self-Defense, 3) Defense of Others, 4) Defense of Property, 5) Necessity, 6) Discipline |
| Consent | Good against ALL intentional torts, plus some other torts. |
| Those who lack Capacity to Consent | 1) Child, 2) Mental Incapacity, 3) Coerced/Forced, 4) Fraud/Mistake |
| Implied Consent | Arises through CUSTOM AND USAGE or through P'S OWN CONDUCT. |
| Self-Defense | A person is JUSTIFIED in using REASONABLE FORCE to prevent what she REASONABLY BELIEVES to be an IMMINENT THREAT of force against her. |
| Reasonable Belief | Self-defense req's that a reasonable person in the D's position would have believed that he was in danger (i.e. subjective and objective). |
| Reasonable Force | A person may use only the degree of force reasonably necessary to avoid the threatened harm. |
| Deadly Force | Use of deadly force is reasonable ONLY when the D reasonably beleives that she is facing a threat of deadly force. |
| Retreat | Cts are divided on the Q whether a retreat is req'd b/f deadly force may be used. MODERN: requires retreat, UNLESS in own home. |
| Defense of Others | A person may defend another person IN THE SAME MANNER and UNDER SAME CONDITIONS as the person attacked would be entitled to defend himself. |
| Mistaken Belief | A defender is NOT liable if he reasonably believed that another person was endangered. |
| Defense of Property | A person may use REASONABLE FORCE to defend his real or personal property; however, deadly force may NEVER be used to protect property alone. |
| Necessity | Used ONLY in conjunction w/ INTENTIONAL TORTS to PROPERTY. Public Necessity: An unlimited privilege to protect a lot of people. Private Necessity: A qualified privilege to protect a limited number of people. |
| Discipline | Parent/Teacher can use reasonable force to discipline children. |
| Defamation (CL) | 1) Defamatory statement that is false, 2) of and concerning P, 3) published to Third-Party, 4) Damages |
| Defamatory Statement | A defamatory statement is one that INJURES THE P'S REPUTATION. |
| Truth | D bears burden of proving truth. At CL, TRUTH IS A DEFENSE to a defamation claim. |
| Of and Concerning | D's statement MUST reasonably be understood to refer to the P. |
| Publication | The statement must be COMMUNICATED TO A THIRD PERSON. The Third Person must be CAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING. Publication must be at least NEGLIGENT or INTENTIONAL. |
| Damages (defamation) | When defamation is spoken (slander), P must prove special damages. When defamation is written/broadcast (libel), juries may presume damages. |
| Special Damages | Economic loss tied to defamatory statement. |
| Presumed Damages | No proof of economic loss necessary. |
| Plaintiff can recover presumed damages in cases of SLANDER PER SE. What are the traditional categories of slander per se? | 1) Statements that impugn one's trade/profession. 2) Accuse P of committing a serious crime. 3) Suggest P has loathsome disease. 4) Traditionally, impute unchastity to a woman. |
| Defenses (defamation, CL) | 1) Truth, 2) Absolute Privilege, 3) Qualified Privilege |
| Absolute Privilege | 1) In course of judicial proceedings, 2) In course of legislative proceeding (executive), 3) Between spouses |
| Qualified Privilege | In course of legit public debate, OR to serve interest of one receiving information. |
| Constitutional Limitations (defamation) | First Amendment protects speech on MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN. In cases involving such speech, S Ct has added two elements to the P's prima facie case: 1) Falsity and 2) Fault. |
| Falsity | P must prove that the statement was false (burden shifts). |
| Fault | Public Persons: ACTUAL MALICE. Private Persons: NEGLIGENCE (in matters of public concern, all must prove actual malice to recover presumed/punitive dmgs) |
| Actual Malice | 1) Actually knew false, OR 2) Reckless disregard of truth. |
| Invasions of Right to Privacy | 1) Appropriation, 2) Intrusion, 3) False Light, 4) Public Disclosure of Private Facts |
| Appropriation | Use of P's name or picture for commercial advantage w/o permission. |
| Limitation on Appropriation | P's likeness must be used for advertising, promotional, or labeling purposes (e.g. does NOT apply to news/biographies). |
| Intrusion | Interference w/ a P's seclusion in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. |
| Limitation to Intrusion | P must be in a place where she has an expectation of privacy. |
| False Light | The widespread dissemination of info that in some way inaccurate and that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. |
| Public Disclosure of Private Facts | The widespread dissemination of factually accurate info that would normally be confidential, and the disclosure of which would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. EXCEPTION: if info is newsworthy, legit public interest. |
| Defenses (invasion of privacy) | Consent and Absolute and Qualified Privileges (privilege ONLY apply to false light and pub. disclosure of priv. facts.) |
| Fraud | 1) Affirmative Misrepresentation, 2) Fault (scienter), 3) Intention to Induce Reliance (material), 4) Actual and Justiciable Reliance, 5) Damages |
| Negligent Misrepresentation | Commercial transactions w/ particular P, whose reliance is contemplated. |
| Intentional Interference w/ Business Relations | 1) Inducing Breach of K, 2) Interference w/ K'al Relations, 3) Interference w/ Prospective Economic Advantage |
| Inducing Breach of Contract | An intentional action that causes a third person to breach an existing contract w/ the P. |
| Interference w/ Contractual Relations | D may be liable if interference w/ a P's contractual relations makes performance more difficult, even if the interference does not actually cause a breach. |
| Interference w/ Prospective Economic Advantage | D may be liable for interfering w/ a P's expectation of economic benefit from third persons, even in the absence of a K. |
| Wrongful Institution of Legal Proceedings | Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process. |
| Negligence | Duty, Breach, Cause, Damages |
| To whom is a Duty owed? | All people who are FORESEEABLE VICTIMS of your failure to take precautions. |
| Plaintiffs who are foreseeable as a matter of law. | Rescuers and Viable Fetuses |
| How much care must one exercise? | Poindexter Rule: Must exercise the amt of care that would be taken by a REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON in the SAME/SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. |
| Duty Standard for Children (majority) | Child must exercise degree of care that a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience would use under circumstances. |
| Duty Standard for Children (minority) | Under 7 incapable of negligence, 7-13 presumed incapable of negligence (rebuttable), 14 or older presumed capable of negligence (rebuttable). |
| Duty Standard for Children (adult activity) | A child engaged in an adult activity is held to the adult standard. |
| Duty Standard for Professionals | A professional is req'd to POSSESS and EXERCISE the knowledge and skill of an ordinary member of that profession in GOOD STANDING. |
| Plaintiffs owed duty by Owners and Occupiers of Land | a) Undiscovered Trespasser, b) Discovered Trespasser, c) Licensee, d) Invitees |
| Duty owed by Owner/Occupier of Land to Undiscovered Trespasser | No Duty. |
| Duty owed by Owner of Land to Discovered Trespasser | Activity = Reasonable Care; Condition = Man-Made Death Trap |
| Duty owed by Owner of Land to Licensee | Activity = Reasonable Care; Condition = Concealed + Known |
| Duty owed by Owner of Land to Invitee | Activity = Reasonable Care; Condition = Concealed + Known OR Reasonable Inspection |
| Duty owed by Owner of Land to child trespasser | Reasonably Prudent Standard (e.g. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine) |
| Negligence per se | Criminal or Regulatory Statute that is 1) designed to protect type of P in case and 2) protects against type of risk/harm in case. Such statute can be used to established presumption that duty was breached. |
| Exceptions to Negligence per se | 1) Compliance w/ the statute is MORE DANGEROUS than violating the statute. 2) Compliance is IMPOSSIBLE under the circumstances. |
| Affirmative Duty to Act Rule | There is NO DUTY TO RESCUE. |
| Exceptions to Affirmative Duty to Act Rule | 1) Defendant put the P in PERIL. 2) RELATIONSHIP: a) close family, b) common carrier or innkeeper, c) invitor-invitee. 3) Duty to Control Third Persons: D must have ACTUAL ABILITY and AUTHORITY to control. |
| Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress | GENERALLY no duty. EXCEPTIONS: 1) Zone of Danger (physical risk + physical manifestations of stress); 2) Bystander Recovery (at scene + close relationship to V + physical manifestation of stress). |
| Res Ipsa Loquitur | P must prove two substitute facts: 1) Event is one that does not normally occur in absence of negligence, AND 2) Any negligence would be attributable to the D. RESULT: P gets to the Jury. |
| Tests for Cause in Fact | BUT-FOR TEST: D's conduct is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would not have occurred but for D's conduct. SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST: Multi-Ds + Commingled Cause. BURDEN SHIFTING TEST: multi-Ds + Unknown Cause. |
| Causation | Cause in Fact + Proximate Cause |
| Proximate Cause | Proximate cause is a limitation on a D's liability. A person is ONLY liable for those harms that are WITHIN THE RISK of his activity. |
| Cases in which an intervening cause will almost never cut off liability. | a) Subsequent Medical Malpractice, b) Negligent Rescue, c) Reaction Forces, d) Subsequent Diseases or Accidents |
| Cases in which an intervening cause will not cut off liability if D can anticipate the intervening cause. | a) Negligence of a Third Party, b) Criminal Conduct by Third Party, c) Acts of God |
| Elements of a typical personal injury award | A) Past and Future Medical Expenses B) Past and Future Lost Income C) P's Pain and Suffering |
| "Eggshell Skull" Plaintiff Rule | D is liable for the full extent of the damage he causes, even if the extent was unforeseeable. |
| Defenses to Negligence | 1) Contributory Negligence 2) Assumption of Risk 3) Comparative Negligence |
| Contributory Negligence | P's failure to use the relevant degree of care for his or her own safety. If P is contributorily negligent, P will lose and recover nothing. EXCEPTIONS: 1) last clear chance, 2) egregiously more negligent. |
| Assumption of Risk | If Express, completely bars recovery, unless violates Public Policy. |
| Implied Assumption of Risk | P has KNOWLEDGE of risk AND assumption of risk was VOLUNTARY. Traditionally, bars recovery. (absence of an alt or emergency destroy voluntariness) |
| Types of Comparative Negligence (modern) | 1) Pure (default) and 2) Modified |
| Trespassing Animals | Strict Liability for FORESEEABLE harm caused by animals (other than household pets). |
| Personal Injury (in re animals) | Domesticated Animals: No strict liability, UNLESS know of animal's dangerous propensities. Wild Animals: STRICT LIABILITY, so long as P did not act voluntarily in causing harm. |
| Abnormally Dangerous Activities | 1) Activity is incapable of being conducted except w/ HIGH RISK 2) If harm occurs, it is likely to be SEVERE 3) Activity must be UNCOMMON (harm must be w/in risk) |
| Prima Facie Case of Product Related Injury | 1) D must be a merchant of type of goods, 2) Product must be defective, 3) Defect existed when product left S's hands, 4) P made a foreseeable use of product. |
| Types of Defects | MANUFACTURING DEFECT: Product is an anomaly and the diff between the product in hand and all others is diff that made product dangerous. DESIGN DEFECT: A problem common to each unit that the S could have eliminated through reasonably alternative design. |
| Private Nuisance | Conduct that causes a SUBSTANTIAL and UNREASONABLE interference w/ the USE AND ENJOYMENT of land. |
| Remedy for Private Nuisance | Cts will WEIGH THE EQUITIES of the parties in deciding whether to ENJOIN a D's activity. |
| Public Nuisance | Conduct that causes physical or moral harm to the public in general. A private P can maintain a public nuisance action if P has suffered injury diff from public at large. |
| Vicarious Liability | 1) ER-EE, 2) Automobile Owner-Automobile Driver |
| Employer-Employee (vicarious liability) | Employer is vicariously liable for EEs' torts committed W/IN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT. |
| Intentional Tort of EE (vicarious liability) | An ER is NOT LIABLE for EEs' intentional torts. EXCEPTION: violence is part of the job. |
| Independent Contractors (vicarious liability) | GENERALLY, no vicarious liability. EXCEPTIONS: 1) inherently dangerous activity, 2) public policy |
| Automobile Owner - Automobile Driver (vicarious liability) | GENERALLY, no vicarious liability. EXCEPTIONS: 1) driver is perf'ing errand for owner (agency), 2) driver is household member w/ permission (minority), 3) driver had permission (minority) |
| Parent - Child (vicarious liability) | NO vicarious liability. |
| Joint and Several Liability | Each D can be liable to P for entire damage incurred. 1) Concert of Action, 2) Indivisible Harm. |
| Indemnity | Passive D receives FULL REIMBURSEMENT from active D. |
| Contribution | TRADITIONALLY: paying D recovers PROPORTIONAL SHARES from other Ds. COMPARATIVE CONTRIBUTION: Recovery is based on the RELATIVE FAULT of each tortfeasor. |
| Wrongful Death Actions | Lawsuits brought by decedent's beneficiaries for loss of support or companionship that deceased would have provided. |
| Survival Actions | Lawsuits brought by a decedent's estate based on claims that deceased could have brought had decedent lived. |
| Governmental Immunity | No immunity when gvt is engaged in PROPRIETARY FUNCTION (i.e. normally carried on by private person). Gvt retains immunity when engaging in DISCRETIONARY GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITY. |
Created by:
Sarah_Shore
Popular Social Studies sets