Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts - Coggle Diagram

- - - - A. Act Requirement
      - C. Contact Requirement
        
        Contact that is offensive or harmful
        
        harmful or offensive
        
        offensive = offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity.
        
        Remember! context matters: Leitchmann (smoking advocate); Peete v. Black (goddamn suction case); Fisher (racism)
        
        contact
        
        Fisher, plate
        
        Buick, camera
        
        Extension of the plaintiff's body
        
        Buick, camera
        
        plate, FIsher
        
        Boeing, car doesn't count (but horses!)
        
        extensions of the defendant's body
        
        stratton, chemicals on the figs
        
        Garett, body hitting the floor when the chair is removed
        
        bed bugs
        
        Leichtman, smoke
      - B. Intent Requirement
        
        Result was desired or substantial certainty it would occur
        
        Dual v. single intent
        
        Single intent: Wagner State
        
        Dual Intent: muniz
        
        raises the issue of mental capacity
        
        transferred intent=A intends to harm B but accidentally harms C instead. A's intent to harm B will be treated legally as an intent to harm C. (Baska)
    - - Impliedly Consented to Contact
  - - - intent
        
        substantial certainty or desire for the outcome
      - confinement
        
        by means of force, threat of force, deceit, or assertion of authority, Faniel, Scofield
        
        length of time doesn't matter, everyone
        
        no contemporary awareness needed, Scofield
        
        feeling a strong reason to stay isn't enough
      - Act
      - no consent
        
        consent must be explicit, if it can't be inferred, Zohn v. Menard
      - no lawful privilege
        
        Ex. shoplifting statute-->analyze the statute, "reasonable grounds to believe."
  - - - iv. the emotional distress is severe
      - iii. that causes emotional distress
      - ii. outrageous conduct
      - i. intent
  - - - privilege to repel chattel Boggs v. Merideth
      - pirvilege
        
        of landowner
        
        protect your land and chattels, but not a privilege to harm others, Katko v. Briney
        
        against landowner
        
        incomplete, you still have to pay for the damage you do
      - Intent is special!
        
        substantial certainty or outcome applies to one's own act, and not to "contact" with the land like in battery. Very plaintiff friendly.
      - elements
        
        desiring to be on or being substantially certain that one will be on land that is in fact the plaintiff's.
    - - Elements
- - - - defendant was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity Dyer
        
        factor test !! 2nd Restatement
        
        d. common or not? e. location f. value to the community
        
        a. risk of danger b. magnitude or gravity c. residual risk
      - The abnormally dangerous activity caused damage Dyer
      - The damage is of a chracteristic type given the danger or the activity. Madsen
  - - - Scienter action
        
        possessor
        
        owner or keeper
        
        keeper: sufficienet control or custody.
        
        knowledge -- know or reason to know-- of a dangerous propensity.
        
        Voss tells us when we have a jury question on this element: nipping livestock is not enough, but wawrnings from the owner are enough.
        
        harm results from the propensity.
    - - possessor of a wild animal
      - harm results
      - harm has to flow from wild characteristics.
- - - - Standard: strictly liable for any injury
      - Product comes off the assembly line in a state that will cause harm.
    - - Risk utility test , bronco case
      - consumer expectation test, Bronco case