Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Manufacturing defectL product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer because of a departure from its typical design
      - Food products treated the same way: Consumer expectations standard
    - - P must show a reasonable alternative design that is a less dangerou modification or alternation and was economically feasibile
      - Reasonable alternative design must exist at the time of the defect
    - - Seller must anticiapte foreseeable misuse of the product
      - no requirement of K privity
- - - - Plaintiff experiences a reasonable APPREHANSION of immediate harmful or offensive contact.
        
        Reasonable person standard for offensive
      - WOrds alone are insufficient
      - ACTUAL DAMAGES NOT REQUIRED
    - - Harmful or offensive contact with the victim or something closely connected with the victim
      - Reasonable person standard
      - anything connected to the victims person
      - Direct touching not required
      - Setting in motion a force that brings about the harmful or offensive contact
      - Lack of consent
    - - Intentional act that causes a plaintiff to be confined within fixed boundaries or restrained to a bounded area against plaintiff's will and the plaintiff knows of the confinement
      - CONFINEMENT: ohysical barrier, failing to release the P when the D has a legal duty to do so, and asserting invalid legal authority
      - Very brief time is sufficient
      - no duty to resist if D threatens physical force
      - NO confinement is there is a reasonable means of escape that the P knows exists.
    - - Intentional or reckless infliction of ED that causes P severe distress
      - EXTREME conduct that is beyond the bounds of what a RP could be expected to endure. Not somethign a civil society would tolerate
  - - - Physical invasion of Property
      - INtentional entry is all that is required
      - mistake is not a defense. not necessary they know they are trespassing.
      - P must be in actual possession or have immediate right to possess the land
      - Satisfied even if P invites D onto land AND then D does not leave when under legal duty to do so.
    - - intentional act that interferes with P's right to personal property
      - MIstake is not a defense
      - Interference: dispossession or intermeddling
      - More serious interference may amount to CONVERSION
    - - Intentional act tthat causes the destruction or serious interference with the plaintiff's chattel.
      - interference more serious than trespass
      - mistake not a defense
      - plaintiff entitled to fair market value at the time of conversion plus consequential damages
      - D's offer to return the chattel does not fix the conversion
  - - - defendant can use force reasonably necessary to protect against injury when he reasonably believes he is being or about to be attacked
      - D cannot be the initial aggressor
      - Resaonable mistakes as to level of danger are permissible. Duty to retreat may be imposed in some situations.
    - - same as self-defense but for other people
    - - Requires the Defender of Property to request that the attacker stop attacking the property UNLESS it would be futile
      - Lethal force CANNOT be used (aw!)
    - - Injuring P's property was reasonably necessary to prevent further substantial harm to the public, to D, or to D's more valuable property.
      - RP standard is used
    - - Express/IMplied: Defendant can still be liable if it exceeds the scope of the consent.
- - - - Misstatement of Fact, not opinion (unless rendered by someone with superior skill)
      - False, affirmative statement
      - Active concealment
      - omissions of fact, failure to disclose
      - Intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, RP standard,
      - Causation/Damages
  - - - Libel: written form of defamation
      - Slander: spoken word or any defamation not preserved in permanent form.
      - Slander PER SE: commission of a crime, allegations of a loathsome disease, imputes improper conduct of business or profession, serious sexual misconduct.
    - - General damages: no proof of actual damages required
      - Pecuniary or special damages: Quantifiable money losses
        
        PLaintiff must prove slander PER SE
      - Punitive damages
        
        Need additional showing of malice
    - - Truth in the claim
        
        P must prove the statement is false in the prima facie case
      - Absolute privilege
        
        Defendant may not be held liable for an otherwise defamatory statement as a matter of law
        
        applies to courtroom proceedings, policy making, spouses, and legislators
      - Qualified Privilege
        
        D can't be liable for defamation unless he loses the protection of the privilege
        
        If matter is outside scope of privilege, defense will not apply.
        
        If D acts out of malice, the privilege is lost and defense does not apply.
    - - SUpreme court modified defamation in NEW YORK TIMES V SULLIVAN
        
        MALICE is required IF:
        
        P is a public figure or public official
        
        The subject matter of the defamation is a matter of PUBLIC CONCERN
        
        Also required for punitive damages
  - - - physical or nonphysical intrusion, highly objectionable 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 PRIVACY
    - - Defendant publishes matters that portray plaintiff in a false light.
        
        attributing to the plaintiff views he does not hold or actions he did not take
        
        Reasonable person would fine offensive
        
        Communicated to a substantial number of people
    - - Unreasonably discloses private facts about P to the public
      - Needs to be highly offensive to a RP and NOT of legit public concern
      - Must be publication to the public
      - Does NOT apply if the publication is newsworthy
- - - - Defendant must meet a certain standard of conduct for the protection 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 UNLESS: innkeeper, common carrier, special relationship
      - One can assume a DUTY TO ACT
        
        Besides the standard of care, affirmative duty to actor can be liable if they leave the plaintiff in a WORSE condition
        (Assuming no statute)
        
        Good Samaritan Statute: relieves liability and would govern an actor who steps in to assist.
      - DUTY TO CONTROL
        
        No duty to control others
        
        Exception: special relationship
        
        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
        
        Masters have a duty to control servants while acting within the scope of employment. A duty of care in hiring as well (look for knowledge of prior bad acts by that particular employee)
      - POSSESSORS OF LAND
        
        Invitee (someone who is on property for commercial or business purposes)
        
        Duty to prevent injuries and duty to discover dangerous conditions
        
        Licensee (someone invited onto the property for personal reasons) : Duty to exercise reasonable care and to warn of dangerous conditions
        
        Trespasser
        
        Unknown: No duty of care at all. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zero. None. Absolutely not a thing.
        
        Known Trespasser: Different approaches (typically a duty to make known of hidden dangers
        
        Children: Heightened standard of care as to ARTIFICAL CONDITIONS
      - Standard of Care
        
        Reasonable, ordinary, prudent person
        
        Objective
        
        Heightened standard for professionals (regional professionals can exercise professional judgment and are not liable if they used an accepted practice in that field, specialists use a national standard
        
        Child: held to the standard of a child of like age, intelligence, education and experience
    - - 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 will control over the common law duty.
        
        The P must prove that he was in the class taht the statute was designed to protect, the harm suffered was the harm designed to prevent, and the standard of conduct is clearly defined
      - Res Ipsa Loquitur
        
        Circumstantial Evidence Doctrine (think plane crash with no survivors)
        
        The accident that occurred would not occur without negligence and the negligence is attributable to teh defendant
    - - Cause in Fact (ACTUAL) cause
        
        But for the defendant's conduct, would the harm have occurred? If the answer is no, actual cause is satisfied.
        
        When there are two or more defendants, the P bears the burden to prove it was caused by ONE OF THEM.
        The burden then shifts to the Ds to prove it was not them, but instead the other, that caused the harm.
      - Proximate cause
        
        Foreseeability.
        
        Defendants are liable for the normal incidents within the increased risk caused by their acts. As duty arises only to foreseeable Ps
        who are within the zone of danger,
        
        Exception: Eggshell plaintiff. If the P suffers a more serious injury than expected, D will STILL BE LIABLE.
        
        INDIRECT CAUSES (where a force came into motion after the D's act that may break the chain of causation)
        
        Foreseeable intervening acts: Do not cut off liability (Negligence, malpractice, subsequent accidents)
        
        Unforeseeable intervening acts: cut off liability for a D (natirally occurring phenomenon, criminal acts of 3rd parties unless foreseeable, intentional torts, etc.)
  - - - P's conduct contributed to the injury and is compared the D's negligence (damages are reduced accordingly) Comparative fault WILL NOT APPLY to intentional torts
    - - NOT NEEDED!
    - - requires that P knew of the risk and proceeded anyway. They thereby consented to the injury by proceeding. Assumption of risk can be express or implied.
    - - If plaintiff recovers in full from one D, then there is full recovery. BUT UNTIL THEN, P can recover the entirety of the judgment from each of the Ds.
      - Contribution: tortfeasor can seek recovery for the amount they are not responsible for by suing the other defendant. This occurs when the fault is approptioned, like comparative negligence.