Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Torts (Economic Harm & Dignitary Torts (Fraud/Misrepresentation: and…
Torts
-
Intentional Torts
Against Persons
False Imprisonment: Intentional act that causes a plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area against plaintiff's will and the plaintiff knows of the confinement or is injured.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Intentional or reckless act amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct that causes the plaintiff severe mental distress.
Battery: Harmful or offensive contact with the victim or something closely connected with the victim.
Assault: Plaintiff experiences a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offense contact.
-
-
Against Property
Trespass to chattels:intentional act that interferes with the plaintiffs chattel, causing harm.
Conversions: intentional act that causes the destruction or serious interference with the plaintiffs chattel.
-
-
Negligence
Elements
Breach
Negligent per se: The plaintiff must prove that he was in the class intended to be protected by the statute, the harm suffered is the particular harm that the statute was designed to prevent, and the standards of conduct are clearly defined.
Res ipsa: applied based on a particular injury. It is a circumstantial evidence doctrine. The accident that caused the injury would not normally occur unless someone was negligent, and the negligence is attributable to the defendant.
Causation
Cause in fact: "But for" the defendant's action, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred.
Proximate cause: test is based on foreseeability and is actually a limitation on liability in that every actual cause case does not rise to legal cause.
Duty
-
When action is taken, a duty of care sowed to all foreseeable plaintiff's
Defendant must meet a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk
Exceptions resulting in an affirmative duty !) innkeepers, 2) common carriers, 3) special relationships
-
Defenses
-
Assumption of risk: requires that the plaintiff must have known of the risk and still voluntarily proceeded with the action.
Comparative fault: means that the plaintiff's conduct contributed to her injury and is compared to defendant's negligence.