Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Manufacturing = product was dangerous beyond expectation of ordinary consumer b/c of departure from intended design;
        food products = consumer expectations std
      - Design = P must show reasonable alt design that is less dangerous modification or alteration & economically feasible
        
        Warning defect = adequate warnings insulate D; inadequate warnings do not
        
        Seller must anticipate reasonably foreseeable misuses of the product
        
        Contractual privity not required
        
        Reasonable alt design must exist at time of original design; later improvements ("state of the art") not reasonable alt design
- - - - D puts P in reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact
        
        Apparent ability all that is required (of no consequence that D could not have committed the harmful or offensive contact)
        
        How a reasonable person would regard it (exaggerated fears only if D knew; fear not required, only apprehension)
        
        Words alone insufficient; overt act required
        
        Actual damages not required; can recover nominal damages.
    - - Brief time sufficient; no specific duration required
      - No duty to resist if D makes credible threat of physical force
      - Intentional act that causes P to be confined or restrained to bounded area against P's will and P knows of confinement or is injured
        
        Confinement = physical barriers; failing to release P where D has legal duty to do so; or asserting invalid legal authority
        NOT confined if reasonable means of escape and P actually aware it exists; P must have knowledge of confinement or actual harm
      - Defense = Shopkeeper's privilege; requires detention in reasonable manner, for reasonable time, and based on reasonable belief as to theft
    - - Harmful or offensive contact w/ victim or something closely connected w/ victim
        
        Reasonable person standard
        
        Incl. anything connected to victim's person
        
        May be indirect "touching"
        
        Incl. setting in motion a force that brings about harmful or offensive contact (i.e., throwing a baseball)
        
        Apprehension not required
        
        Lack of consent
    - - Reckless conduct sufficient if D acts w/ deliberate disregard of high degree of probability emotional distress will follow
      - Extreme & outrageous; civilized society would not tolerate
      - Intentional or reckless act amounting to extreme & dangerous conduct that causes P severe mental distress
      - Mental distress must be severe & substantial; more than reasonable person could be expected to endure
  - - - D may use force reasonably necessary to protect against injury when reasonably believes is being/about to be attacked
        
        D cannot be initial aggressor
        
        Reasonable mistakes as to danger allowed
        
        Duty to retreat may apply
    - - D must request P to stop or leave unless would be futile; may not use deadly force
    - - Injury to property reasonably necessary to:
        
        avoid substantially greater harm to public or to D; or
        
        save D's more valuable property
        
        Reasonable person standard
    - - Express or implied
        
        D still liable if exceeds scope of consent
  - - - Intent only to enter another's property;
        no intent to cause harm required
      - Mistake not a defense;
        need not know they are trespassing
      - P must be in actual possession or have right to immediate possession (not ownership)
      - Incl. causing a 3rd person to enter P's land or
        remain on P's land when legal duty to leave
      - P's land incl. area above & below surface
      - Liable for nominal damages & harm
    - - Intentional act that interferes w/ P's chattel, causing harm
      - Chattel = tangible property or intangible property that has physical representation
      - Mistake not a defense
      - Interference = dispossession or meddling;
        more serious interference may be conversion
    - - Intentional act that causes destruction or serious interference w/ P's chattel
      - Interference = greater use of chattel for longer period
      - Mistake not a defense
      - P entitled to FMV at time of conversion, plus consequential damages (replevin)
      - D's offer to return chattel does not alleviate
- - - - Intrusion on P's affairs/seclusion
        
        Physical or non-physical
        
        Highly objectionable to reasonable person
        
        Refers to P's physical solitude & privacy of personal affairs/concerns
        
        P must have reasonable expectation of privacy
        
        Publication of facts placing P in false light
        
        Attributing P t views does not hold or actions did not take
        
        Reasonable person would find offensive
        
        Communicated to substantial # people
        
        Public disclosure of private facts about P
        
        Unreasonable; publication to public
        
        Highly offensive to reasonable person & not of legitimate public concern
        
        N/A if newsworthy
  - - - Truth = historical defense; now P must prove falsity of claim in prima facie case
      - Privileges
        
        Absolute = D not liable for otherwise defamatory stmt as matter of law; applies to legislator, participant in judicial proceeding, policymaking officials, and spouses; D has burden of proving privilege
        
        Qualified = D not liable for otherwise defamatory mssg unless loses protection of the privilege; applies to communications of matter of interest to recipient; D has burden of proving privilege; privilege N/A or lost if matter outside scope of privilege or D acts out of malice)
      - Consent
    - - General = no proof actual damages required
      - Pecuniary or special = quantifiable monetary losses (P must prove unless slander per se
      - Punitive = need addt'l showing of malice
    - - SCOTUS has modified stds common law defamation as applied to nature of P and subject matter of defamatory stmt
        New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
        
        Malice required = knowing falsity or recklessness as to truth or falsity
        
        Nature of P
        
        Public official
        
        Public figure = person who has achieved pervasive fame or notoriety or as to specific limited issues
        
        Subject matter of the controversy = matter of public concern
        
        Required for presumed or punitive damages
    - - Of or concerning P
      - Publication = 3rd person rec'd the defamatory mssg & understood it to be about P
      - Defamatory message = lowers P in community's esteem or discourages 3rd person from associating w/ P
      - Harm to reputation
    - - Libel (written form)
      - Slander (nonpermanent form, incl. spoken word)
      - Slander per se
        
        commission of a crime
        
        allegations of loathsome disease
        
        imputes improper conduct of business/profession
        
        serious sexual misconduct
- - - - P knew of the risk & voluntarily proceeded w/ the action (i.e., consented to D's actions); express or implied
      - Joint & several liability = 2 or more tortious acts combine to cause indivisible injury; each D liable for entirety of P's damages; satisfaction if P recovers in full from 1 D/cannot recover from the other; tortfeasor that paid can seek recovery for amt that exceeded their share from other D (when fault apportioned)
    - - P's conduct contributed to their injury & is compared to D's negligence, damages reduced accordingly (N/A to intentional torts)
    - - Assume pure comparative fault applies in the jurisdiction
  - - - Actual cause (cause in fact)
        
        But for D's actions, P's injury would not have occurred; or
        
        D's actions significant factor in bringing about the injury
        
        2 or more negligent Ds and uncertainty about who cause injury: burden shifts to P to prove harm caused by one of them; then shifts back to Ds to show their negligence not actual cause
      - Proximate (legal) cause
        
        Test = foreseeability
        
        Ds liable for normal incidence w. increased risk cause by their acts
        
        Duty to foreseeable Ps in "zone of danger"; risk must also be foreseeable
        
        Eggshell P exception = must take P as they are; full consequence for injuries, even if more severe than w/ normal person
      - Direct cause = uninterrupted chain of events between D's negligent act and P's injury / liable for all foreseeable harmful results
        
        Indirect cause = force came into motion after D's act and combined w/ negligent act to cause P's injury; may break chain of causation between initial act & ultimate injury
      - Foreseeable intervening acts = DO NOT cut off D's liability (subsequent medical malpractice; negligence of rescuers; subsequent accidents)
        
        Unforeseeable intervening acts = DO cut off liability (naturally occurring phenomena; criminal acts of 3rd persons; intentional torts of 3rd persons; extraordinary forms negligent conduct by 3rd person
    - - Negligence per se
        
        statute provides for criminal penalty/statute's duty replaces common law duty; P must prove was in the class intended to be protected by statute, harm suffered is that which statute meant to prevent, and stds of conduct clearly defined
      - Res ispa loquitur
        
        accident that caused injury would not normally occur unless someone negligent/negligence attributable to D
      - D's conduct falls short of std of care
    - - Standard of care
        
        Higher std for professionals
        
        Also varies depending on relationship (bailor/bailee; owners/occupiers of land; landlord/tenant)
        
        Objective std = reasonable, ordinary, prudent person
        
        Child std = compare to reasonable child of same age, education, intelligence, experience; depends on age in some jurisdictions
      - Whether duty exists
        
        Possessors of land
        
        Invitee = duty to prevent injruies & discover dangerous conditions
        
        Licensee = duty to exercise reasonable care & warn of dangerous conditions
        
        Trespasser
        
        Unknown = no duty of care
        
        Known = depends on jurisdiction
        
        Children = higher std of care as to artificial conditions
        
        Negligent infliction of emotional distress
        
        P in zone of danger
        
        suffered physical manifestation
        
        exceptions = negligent death notice & mishandling of corpse
        
        Bystander
        
        located near scene of accident
        
        suffered severe emotional distress from sensory & contemporaneous observation of scene
        
        close personal relationship w/ victim
        
        No affirmative duty to act
        
        Exceptions:
        
        innkeepers
        
        common carriers
        
        special relationships
        
        D must meet certain std of conduct for protection of others against unreasonable risk
        
        When action taken, duty to all foreseeable Ps
        
        Assume duty to act (incl. leaving P in worse condition)
        
        Assume no statute unless fact pattern gives one
        
        "If jurisdiction has Good Samaritan statute..."
        
        No duty to control others
        
        Exception:
        
        special relationship
        
        parents have duty to exercise reasonable care to control child if know or have reason to know of necessity & have ability to control child
        
        masters have duty to control servants while acting w/in scope of employment
        
        masters have duty of care in hiring employees (look for knowledge of servant's prior bad acts)
    - - Actual harm or injury; not nominal; P compensated for all past, present, prospective damages incl. economic (medical & lost earnings) and non-economic (pain & suffering); punitive if D's actions wanton & willful, reckless, or malicious