Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - manufacturing defect: product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer because of a departure from its intended design
      - food products treated same way - consumer expectations standard.
    - - warning defect: while adequate warnings insulate a defendant, inadequate warnings result in liability
      - seller must anticipate reasonably foreseeable misuses of the product
      - no requirement or contractual pricity
- - - - assault
      - battery
      - false imprisonment
      - trespass to land
      - trespass to chattels
  - - - plaintiff experiences a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact
      - apparent ability is all the is required
      - harmful or offensive contact exists if a reasonable person would regard as offensive
      - words alone are insufficent. some overt act is required
      - actual damages not required
    - - harmful or offensive contact with the victim or something closely connected with the victim
      - reasonable person standards
      - includes anything connected to the victim's person
      - direct touching not required for the tortfeasor or the victim
      - includes setting in motion a force that brings about the harmful or offensive contact
      - apprehension is not required
      - lack of consent
    - - intentioanl act that causes a plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area against plaintiffs will and the plaintiff knows of the confinement or is injured.
      - confinment includes
        
        confining by physical barriers
        
        failing to release the plaintiff where the defendant has a legal duty to do so
        
        asserting invalid legal authority
      - very brief time is insufficient but no specific time required
      - no duty to resist if defendant makes a credible threat to use physical force
      - not confined if there is a reasonable means of escape that plaintiff is actually aware exists
      - requires knowledge of confinement or actual harm
      - defense: shopkeepers privilege requires detention that is
        
        in a reasonable manner
        
        for a reasonable period of time
        
        based on a reasonable belief as to theft
    - - intentional or reckless act amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct that causes the plaintiff severe mental distress
      - reckless conduct is sufficient if defendant acts in deliberate disregard of a high degree or probability that emotional distress will follow
      - extreme and outrageous conduct is beyond the bounds of decency. conduct a civilized society would not tolerate.
      - mental distress must be severe and substantial . more than a reasonable person could be expected to endue.
  - - - means a defendant may use force reasonably necessary to protect against injury when he reasonably believes he is being or about to be attacked
      - the defendant cannot be the initial aggressor and reasonable mistakes as tot he danger are allowed
      - defense of others
    - - requires the defendant to request the plaintiff to stop or leave unless it would be futile. defendant may not use deadly force.
    - - requires that injuring plaintiff's property was reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater hard to the public, to the defendant, or to save the defendant's more valuable property.
      - a reasonable person standard is used
    - - can be express or implied, and defendant will be still liable if the exceeds the scope of the consent
  - - - tortfeasor's intentional act is a physical invasion of property
      - intentional entry is all that is required. no intent to cause harm
      - mistake is not a defense. need not know they are trespassing
      - plaintiff must be in actual possession or have the tight to immediate possession of that land.
      - satisfied if the plaintiff causes a third person to enter onto plaintiffs land or remains upon the plaintiffs land when under a legal duty to leave
      - plaintiff's land includes the area both above and below th edurface
      - liable for nominal damages and actual harm
    - - intentional act that interferes with the plaintiff's chattel, causing harm
      - chattel means tangible personal property or intangible property that has a physical representation
      - mistake is not a defense
      - interference includes dispossession or intermeddling
      - more serious interference may amount to conversion
    - - intentional act that causes the destruction or serious interference with the plaintiff's chattel.
      - interference is more serious than trespass to chattel and includes
        
        a greater use of the chattel
        
        a longer period of interference
      - mistake is not a defense
      - plaintiff entitled to fair market value at the time of conversion plus consequential damages, or replevin
      - defendant's offer to return the chattel does not alleviate the conversion
- - - - physical or non-physical intrusion
      - must be highly object able to a reasonable person
      - refers to the plaintiff's physical solitude and the privacy of personal affairs or concerns. the plaintiff must have a reasonable expectation of provacy
    - - attributing to the plaintiff views he does not hold or actions he did not take
      - reasonable person would find offensive
      - must be communicated to a substantial number of people
    - - needs to be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legitimate public concern
      - must be publication to the public
      - does not apply if publication is newsworthy
  - - - whether the conduct involves a significant interference with the public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience
      - whether the conduct is proscribed by a statute, ordinance, or regulation
      - whether the conduct is of a continuing nature or has produced a permanent or long-lasting effect.
  - - - defamatory message
      - of or concerning the plaintiff
      - publication
      - harm to reputation
    - - lible
      - slander
      - slander per se
    - - general damages
      - pecuniary or special damages
      - punitive damages
    - - truth
      - privileges
      - qualified
      - consent
- - - - first, is there a duty?
        
        defendant must meet a certain standard of conduct for the production of others against unreasonable risk
        
        when action is taken, a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs
        
        no affirmative duty to act exists
        
        exceptions resulting in affirmative duties: innkeepers, common carriers, special relationships
        
        one can assume a duty to act. besides standard of care, also liable if leaves plaintiff in worse condition
        
        no duty to control others
        
        negligent infliction of emotional distress
      - second, what is the standard of care
        
        measured against a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person
        
        objective standard
        
        higher standard for professionals
    - - occurs when the defendant's conduct falls short of the standard of care
      - negligence per se
        
        when a statute provides for a criminal penalty, the statute's specific duty replaces the common law duty.
        
        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 ispa loquitur
        
        applies based on the particular injury
        
        the accident that caused the injury would not normally occur unless someone was negligent, and the negligence is attributable to the defendant
    - - cause in fact
        
        actual cause
        
        but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injury would not have incurred.
        
        or the defendant's actions were a significant factor in bringing about the injury
      - proximate cause
        
        based on foreseeability and is actually a limitation on liability in that every actual cause case does not rise to legal cause.
        
        must be foreseeable
        
        exception - eggshell plaintiff (take the plaintiff as you find them)
        
        intervening acts
        
        foreseeable interning acts do not cut off a defendant's liability
        
        unforeseeable intervening acts do cut off liability
    - - actual harm or injury
      - cannot recover nominal damages
      - compensated for past, present, and prospective damages including economic damages, medical expenses, lost earning, and noneconomic damages such as pain and suffered.
      - punitive damages
  - - - means that the plaintiff's conduct contributed to her injury and is compared to defendant's negligence. damages are reduced accordingly
    - - requires that the plaintiff must have know the risk and still voluntarily proceeded with the action
      - plaintiff consented to the defendant's actions
      - can be implied or expressed
    - - two or more tortious acts combine to cause an injury
      - if the plaintiff recovers in full from one defendant, then there is satisfaction and she cannot recover from the second deffendant
      - seek more than fair share
      - fault is apportioned