Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Torts (Intentional Torts (Defenses (Self-Defense - a D may use force…
Torts
Intentional Torts
Against Property
Trespass to Land
-
Intentional entry is all that is required, no intent to cause harm is required
-
P must be in actual possession or have the right to immediate possession of the land (Note: not ownership
Satisfied if P causes a third person to enter onto P's prop. or remains on P's prop. when under a legal duty to leave.
-
-
Trespass to Chattels
Intentional act that interferes w/ the P's chattel, causing harm
-
-
-
-
Conversion
-
Interference is more serious than trespass to chattel and includes:
- a greater use for the chattel
- and a longer period of interference
-
P entitled to fair market value at the time of conversion plus consequential damages, or replevin (return of prop.)
-
Against Persons
Assault
-
Apparent Ability is all that is required D's incapability to commit the harmful or offensive contact does not defeat liab.
-
-
-
Battery
-
-
-
-
Includes setting in motion a force that brings about the harmful or offensive contact (throwing a baseball)
-
False Imprisonment
Intentional Acts that causes a P to be confined or restrained to a bounded area against P's will and P knows of the confinement or is injured
Includes:
Confining by physical barriers
Failing to release P where D has a legal duty to do so
Asserting invalid legal authority
-
-
-
Defense: Shopkeeper's privilege requires detention that is:
in a reasonable manner
for a reasonable period of time, and
based on a reasonable belief of theft
-
Intent
Established if the D either desires that his act will cause the harmful result or knows w/ substantial certainty that the result will follow (includes children & mentally incompetent persons).
Transferred Intent: When D intends to commit one tort, but commits a different tort against that person or another person.
Limited to Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to land, Trespass to chattels
Defenses
Self-Defense - a D may use force reasonably necessary to protect against injury when he reasonably believes he is being or is about to be attacked.
- D cannot be initial aggressor
- Reasonable mistakes as to danger are allowed
- Look for when a duty to retreat may be imposed.
-
Defense of Property - requires the D to request the P to stop or leave unless it would be futile. D may not use deadly force
Necessity - requires that injuring P's prop. was reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the public, to the D or to save the D's more valuable property. Reasonable Person standard
Consent - can be expressed or implied, and defendant will still be liable if he exceeds the scope of consent
Requires:
- Voluntary Act
- Intent
- Elements of a Prima Facie claim
- Causation
- Harm
- Lack of a privilege or defense
-
Strict Liability
Defective Products -
Manufacturing Defect -Product was dangerous beyond the expectation of an ordinary customer b/c of departure in intended design.
Food Products treated the same way - consumer expectations std.
Design Defect - P must show a reasonable alt. design that is less dangerous modification or alteration an is econ. feasible.
Warning Defect - inadequate warnings result in liab., adequate warnings insulate a D.
Abnormally Dangerous Activity - must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even with the exercise of reasonable care, and must be an activity that is not a matter of common usage (i.e., driving a vehicle).
Animals - depends on the nature of the animal
Injury by a "wild animal" will almost always result in strict liab. even if D claims it is "domesticated."
Strict liab. on owner for when an animal trespasses and causes damages (if it is reasonably foreseeable).
"Domesticated animals" typically arises by statute and is dependent on owner's knowledge.
Definition
D is liable for injuring a P whether or not the D exercised due care. Can also be grounded in a statute. Thus, when you see a statute embedded in the facts of a torts question, think strict liability!P must prove:
- the nature of D's activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe;
- the dangerous aspect of the activity is the actual and proximate cause of the P's injury; and
- The P suffered damage to person or property
Negligence
Elements
Duty
Affirmative Duty to Act - no affirmative duty to act exists except for innkeepers, common carriers and special relationships
D must meet a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against an unreasonable risk.
One can assume the duty to act. Besides std. of care, also liable if D leaves P in worse condition
-
No duty to control others, except:
- Special Relationship (teacher/student)
- Parents have a duty to exercise reasonable care to control their child if they know or have reason to know of the necessity and have the ability to control their child.
- Masters have a duty to control servants w/in scope of their employment
- Masters have a duty of care in hiriing empls. (look at knowledge of empls. past bad acts).
Possessor of Land
Invitee - duty to prevent injuries and duty to discover dangerous conditions
Licensee - Duty to exercise reasonable care and to warn of dangerous conditions
Trespasser - Unknown (no duty); Known (Jx w/ diff. approaches); Children (heightened std. of care as to artificial conditions
Standard of Care - Reasonable, ordinary, prudent person
Heightened standard of care for professionals
Also varies based on relationship b/t parties
(bailor/bailee, owners/occupiers, landlord/tenant)
Children - std. of care for a reasonable child of the same age
(6 and below - no negligence; 7-13 - rebuttable presumption of no negligence; 14+ rebuttable presumption of capability for negligence)
Breach
Negligence per se - when a statute provides for a criminal penalty, the statute's specific duty replaces the CL duty.
P must prove he is in the class intended to be protected by the statute, the harm suffered is the particular harm the statute was designed to prevent, and the stds. of conduct are clearly defined
Res ipsa loquitor - applies based on a particular injury. It is a circumstantial evid. doctrine. The accident that caused the injury would not normally occur unless someone was negligent, and the negligence is attributable to the D
Causation
Cause in fact (actual cause) - But For the D's actions, the P's injury would not have occurred. Or, the D's actions were a significant factor in bringing about the injury.
Proximate Cause (legal cause) - The test is based on foreseeability and is actually a limitation on liability in that every actual cause case does not rise to legal cause. RISK MUST BE FORESEEABLE (except for eggshell plaintiffs).
Uninterrupted chain of events between the D's negligent act and P's injury = direct cause. D is liable for all foreseeable harmful results.
Indirect cause - where a force came into motion after D's act and combined with the negligent act to cause P's injury.
Foreseeable intervening acts, do not cut off liability (med mal). Unforeseeable intervening acts do cut off liability (third party acts or natural phenomena)
-
Defenses
Contributory Neg./Comparative Fault - means that the P's conduct contributed to her injury and is compared to D's negligence
Joint and Several Liability - when two or more tortious acts combine to cause an indivisible injury. Each D is liable for the entirety of P's damage when this occurs.
If P recovers in full from one D, then she is satisfied and cannot recover from the second D. The rule of contribution allows the tortfeasor paid to seek recovery for the amount that was more than his share from the D. This occurs when the fault is apportioned, as is the case w/ pure comparative fault.
Assumption of Risk - requires that the P must have known of the risk and still voluntarily proceeded with the action. Essentially, P consented to the D's actions. Can be express/implied.