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
Module 7
Torts
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Intentional Tort | An instance where the Plaintiff must show that the Defendant intended to harm the plaintiff, and actually caused the harm intended for the Plaintiff. |
| Assault | (1) the threat of immediate harm or offense of contact or (2) any act that would arouse reasonable apprehension of imminent harm. |
| Battery | unauthorized and harmful or offensive physical contact with another person that causes injury. |
| False Imprisonment | anyone who without cause deprives another of personal freedom . This can happen when a person is restrained in a room or a car or even if his or her movements are restricted while walking down the street |
| Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress | A tort that provides for recovery for mental distress resulting from an intentional act |
| Trespass | intentionally going on land that belongs to someone else or putting something on someone else's property and refusing to remove it |
| the right to enjoy your property without interference from others | |
| Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations | A tort that occurs when someone intentionally interferes with a contract between two parties. The interference could be to make performance impossible, impractical or to induce one of the parties to breach the contract. |
| Malicious Prosecution | the tort of causing someone to be prosecuted for a criminal act, knowing that there was no probable cause to believe that the plaintiff committed the crime |
| injury to a person's good name or reputation | |
| Trade libel/disparagement | Publishing false information about another business's product |
| Absolute Privilege | Statements made during a judicial proceeding are privileged and cannot be made part of a defamation action. |
| Qualified Privilege | a statement that would otherwise be actionable is held to be justified if made in a reasonable manner and for a reasonable purpose. |
| Invasion of Privacy | To win an Invasion of Privacy tort claim, the plaintiff must prove one of four harms: (1) misuse of name/picture for business, (2) intrusion on seclusion, (3) publicizing private embarrassing facts, or (4) being portrayed in a "false light." |
| Appropriation of Name or Likeness | someone else placing your photograph on a billboard or cereal box as a model or using your name as endorsing a product or in the product name |
| Public Disclosure of Embarassing Facts | Circulation of false statements that do injury to a person. |
| False Light | that which paints a false picture in a publication |
| Negligence | The plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) Defendant owed a duty of care; 2) Defendant breached that duty; 3) The breach was the actual and proximate cause of harm; and 4) The resulting harm is measurable in damages. |
| Duty of Care | The law limits the number of people toward whom we owe a duty to be careful |
| Foreseeability | only those injured parties who are within the zone of risk for injury may recover under a tort theory. |
| Actual Cause | (causation in fact) can be found if the connection between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's injuries passes the "but for" test: if an injury would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct, then the defendant is the cause of the injury |
| Proximate Cause | The injuries to the plaintiff must also be foreseeable, or not "too remote," for the defendant's act to create liability. This is proximate cause: a cause that is not too remote or unforeseeable |
| Damages | Injury to the Plaintiff. For a plaintiff to win a tort case, she must allege and prove that she was injured |
| Res Ipsa Loquitur | ("the thing speaks for itself") is a negligence concept used when direct proof is scarce. Circumstantial evidence shows the damage is the sort that wouldn't normally happen unless someone was negligent, allowing the negligence to be inferred. |
| Excuses | Defenses to a tort case |
| Contributory Negligence | The Plaintiff was also negligent, and the Plaintiff's own negligence caused the injury. In some jurisdictions (small number), this is a complete bar to recovery. |
| Comparative Negligence | Under comparative negligence, damages are reduced based on the plaintiff's own fault. If a plaintiff suffers a $100,000 injury and is 20% responsible, the defendant, being 80% culpable, is only liable for $80,000 in damages. |
| Assumption of the risk | A defense to tort that shows when a person knowingly takes a risk, he or she must suffer the consequences. |
| Act of God | Also known as force majeure, serves to completely extinguish liability. |
| Vicarious liability | employer is responsible for the negligence of his employees if they were acting in the scope of employment |
| Respondeat superior | that the higher authority must respond to claims brought against one of its agents |
| Strict liability | Strict liability applies to inherently dangerous activities (like handling dynamite or wild animals). If damage occurs, the party is held legally responsible, even if they were careful. This also covers repeat-biting dogs and pharmaceutical drugs. |
Created by:
efacultyusg