Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Torts - Coggle Diagram
Torts
Intentional Torts
Liability requires: a voluntary act; intent; the elements of a prima facie claim for the tort; causation; harm; and lack of privilege or defense.
Intent: established if the defendant either desires their act will cause harm or knows with a substantial certainty harm will follow
Transferred Intent: Defendant intends to commit one tort, but commits another against the intended person or another. Limited to assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.
Assault: Plaintiff experiences a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.
Baseline requirement of apparent ability. That the defendant could not have committed the assault does not defeat liability.
-
Exaggerated fears are not actionable unless the defendant knew about that fear and used it to put plaintiff in apprehension.
Fear is not required, only an apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact.
Battery: harmful or offensive contact with the victim or something closely connected with the victim
-
-
-
-
-
False Imprisonment: Intentional act that causes plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area against plaintiff's will and plaintiff is conscious of confinement or injured.
-
-
-
Defense: shopkeeper's privilege requires detention that is: in a reasonable manner; for a reasonable time period; and based on a reasonable belief of theft.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:: Intentional or reckless act amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct causing plaintiff severe mental distress.
Reckless conduct is sufficient if defendant acts in deliberate disregard of a high degree of 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 endure
-
Trespass to chattels: Intentional act interfering w/plaintiff's chattel, causing harm
-
-
-
Conversion: intentional act that causes the destruction or serious interference w/plaintiff's chattel
Interference more than trespass to chattel and includes: a greater use of the chattel and a longer period of interference.
-
Defenses
Self Defense: defendant may use force reasonably necessary to protect against injury when they reasonably believe they are being or are about to be attacked.
-
-
-
Defense of Property: requires defendant to request plaintiff to stop or leave unless it would be futile. Defendant may not use deadly force.
Necessity: requires that injuring plaintiff's property was reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the defendant, the public, or to save the defendant's more valuable property. Reasonable person standard.
-
Negligence
Duty
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
-
One can assume a duty to act. Besides stand of care, also liable if leaves plaintiff in worse condition
-
-
-
Standard of Care: Conduct measured against a reasonable, ordinary, prudent person
-
Breach:
negligence per se: When a statute provides for a criminal penalty, that statute's specific duty replaces the common law duty. Plaintiff must prove they were in the class intended to be protected by statute, the harm suffered is the particular harm the statute was designed to prevent, and the standards of conduct are clearly defined.
Res ispa loquitur: applied based on the particular injury; 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
Actual/Cause-in-Fact: But for defendant's actions, plaintiff's injury would not have occurred; OR defendant's actions were a significant factor in bringing about the injury.
Proximate/Legal Cause: A duty arises only to foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger; requires foreseeable risk. Defendants are liable for the normal incidents within the increased risk caused by their acts.
Eggshell Plaintiff: exception to the foreseeable risk doctrine. Defendant's take full consequence for plaintiff's injuries even if the injuries are more severe than they would have been to a normal person
Foreseeable intervening acts do not cut off liability: ex. subsequent medical malpractice, negligence of rescuers, and subsequent accidents
-
Defenses
Comparative Fault: plaintiff's conduct contributed to their injured an dis compared to defendant's negligence; damages are reduced accordingly
Assumption of Risk: requires plaintiff must've known of the risk and voluntarily proceeded; express or implied.
Joint and Several Liability: When multiple acts combine to cause an indivisible injury, each defendant is liable for the entirety of plaintiff's damages.
-
Strict Liability
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.
-
Products Liability
Defect
Manufacturing defect: Product was dangerous beyond the expectation of the ordinary consumer because of a departure from its intended design
-
Design Defect: plaintiff must show a reasonable alternative design that is a less dangerous modification or alteration and was economically feasible
-
-
-
-
-
-