Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

TORTRS - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Children - held to standard of a child like age, intelligence, & experience. Child under 5, no standard.
      - Professionals - required to possess knowledge & skill of an average member of profession or occupation. For Drs, national standard of care is applied.
      - Possessors of land - depends on P's status whether unknown trespasser, known trespasser, licensee, or invitee.
        
        Unknown trespasser - no duty to undiscovered trespasser.
        
        Known (discovered or anticipated) trespasser - must warn of or make safe any conditions that are (1) artificial, (2) highly dangerous, (3) concealed; and (4) known to land possessor in advance.
        
        Licensees (those who enter w/ possessor's permission; social guests) - a duty to warn or make safe hazardous conditions that are concealed and known to land possessor in advance. Must exercise reasonable care in the conduct of active operations on property. No duty to inspect or repair.
        
        Invitees (those who enter in response to invitation or enter as member of public; customers) - duty re: hazardous conditions that are concealed and known to possessor in advance or could have been discovered by reasonable inspection. Invitee loses their status if exceed scope of invitation.
        
        Trespassing Children - attractive nuisance doctrine. P must show dangerous condition on land that owner should or is aware of; owner knows or should have known that children might trespass on land; condition is likely to cause injury; and expense of remedying situation is slight compared w/ magnitude of risk. Child does not need to be attracted onto land by dangerous condition, nor attraction is enough for liability.
      - Duty Owned to Users of Rec Land - not liable if does not charge a fee unless landowner willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of dangerous condition or activity.
    - - Statutory standards of care - Negligence Per Ce - clearly stated specific duty imposed by statute providing for crim penalties (fines and speeding tickets also) may replace gen common law duty of care if (1) P is w/n protected class; and (2) statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered by P.
        
        Excuse for violation of statute is allowed where compliance would cause more danger than violation or where compliance would be beyond D's control (heart attack)
        
        Effect of violation or compliance is a conclusive presumption of duty & breach
      - Affirmative Duty to Act - no legal duty to act or rescue. Exception: special relationship b/w parties (parent-child, common carriers, innkeepers, shopkeepers); peril due to own conduct; assumption of duty by acting - once D undertakes to aid someone, they must do so w/reasonable care; duty to prevent harm from 3rd persons.
      - Other particular standards of care: common carriers & innkeepers are held to very high degree of care (liable for slight negligence); automobile driver to guest (duty of ordinary care); bailment duties.
  - - - Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces: medical malpractice, negligence of rescuers, protection or reaction forces to D's conduct; subsequent disease or accident substantially caused by original injury.
      - Superseding Forces - break causal connection b/w D's initial negligent act and P's ultimate injury. D is relieved from liability.
- - - - Transferred intent doctrine applies when D intends to commit a tort against one person but instead commits (1) a different tort against that person; (2) same tort as intended but against a different person; OR (3) a different tort against a different person.
        
        Limitations on Use of Transferred Intent - may be invoked only if both the tort intended & tort results are one of the following: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and to chattels
      - Incapacity is NOT a defense, young children, intoxicated adults, insane and developmentally unstable people are liable for intended torts
  - - - Apprehension - P must have been aware of threat from D's act, although P need to b e aware of D's identity.
      - Effects of words are not enough, must be coupled w/conduct.
    - - Sufficient acts of restraint: physical barriers, physical force directed against P, immediate family, or personal property, direct threats of force, indirect or implied threats of force, failure to release P when under a legal duty to do so, invalid use of legal authority
      - Insufficient acts of restraint: moral pressure & future threats.
      - Time of confinement is irrelevant.
      - P must know of confinement or be harmed by it.
      - Bounded area - must be no reasonable means of escape known to P; freedom of movement must be limited in all directions. Way out can't be dangerous, disgusting, humiliating, or hidden.
    - - Extreme & outrageous - conduct that transcends all bounds of decency. Conduct that is normally not outrageous may become so if: it is continuous in nature; committed by a certain type of D (common carriers, innkeepers) OR directed toward a certain type of P (children, elderly, pregnant, supersensitive adults if D knows about sensitivity).
      - Intent - recklessness of D's conduct will also satisfy intent
      - Actual damages (severe emotional distress) ARE required; proof of physical injury is not required.
      - Causation in Bystander Cases: when D's conduct directed at 3rd person, and P suffers severe emotional distress b/c of it. P may recover by showing either P.F. elements of emotional distress or that (1) P was present when injury occurred; (2) distress resulted in bodily harm or P is a close relative of 3rd person; and (3) D knew these facts.
  - - - Physical invasion by person or object (ball thrown across P's land). If intangible matter (vibrations, odor), then nuisance.
      - Real property includes surface, airspace, & subterranean space.
      - Intent - D need intend only to enter onto land, not need to know that land belonged to another.
      - Damages not required, P can recover w/o showing actual injury to land.
    - - Intent to trespass is not required, but intent to do the act of interference is all that is needed. D's mistaken belief that they own the chattel is no defense.
      - Actual damages are required (not necessary to the chattel but at least to a possessory right)
    - - Act of conversion - wrongful acquisition (theft), wrongful transfer, wrongful detention, & substantially changing, severely damaging, or misusing a chattel.
      - Intent to do the act is that interferes with P's right of possession is required. Mistake as to ownership is no defense.
      - Chattel - tangible personal property and intangibles
      - Remedies: damages (FMV at the time of conversion) or possession (replevin).
  - - - P can consent to D's conduct is defense, but cannot consent to criminal act.
      - Raises two Qs: was there valid consent? & did D stay w/n boundaries of consent?
      - Capacity is required. Persons w/limited capacity (older children and adults with mild intellectual disabilities can consent to the scope of their understanding)
      - Express (actual) consent - D is not liable. Exceptions: mistake will undo consent if D knew of and took advantage of mistake; induced by fraud; obtained by duress (threats of future action or future econ deprivation not sufficient)
      - Implied Consent - reasonable person would infer from custom & usage or P's conduct (sports, incidental contact.
      - Exceeding consent given - D is liable.
    - - Self-Defense - when person reasonably believes they are being or about to be attacked, they must use such force as is reasonably necessary to protect against injury.
        
        Available: no duty to retreat; not available to initial aggressor unless the other party responds to aggressor's nondeadly force by using deadly force; may extend to third party injuries caused while actor was defending himself.
        
        Reasonable mistake as to existence of danger is allowed.
        
        Only may use force that reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the harm.
      - Defense of Others - may use force to defend another when they reasonably believe that the other person could have used force to defend themselves
        
        Reasonable mistake at to whether the other is being attacked or has right to defend themselves is permitted.
        
        Defender may use as much force as they could have used in self-defense.
      - Defense of Property - may use reasonable force to prevent commission of tort against their real estate or personal property. Request to desist or leave must first be made unless futile or dangerous. Defense is not available if tort has been committed, but one may use force in hot pursuit of another
        
        not available against one w/ privilege (necessity, recapture of chattels)
        
        Reasonable mistake allowed as to whether intrusion has occurred or request to desist is required. Mistake not allowed as to whether entrant has a privilege.
        
        One may not use force causing death or serious bodily harm unless invasion of property entails also a serious threat of bodily harm.
        
        Shoplifting Detentions: shopkeeper has a privilege to detain suspected shoplifter for investigation. There must be (1) reasonable belief as to the fact of theft; (2) detention conducted in reasonable manner w/o deadly force; (3) detention must be for reasonable period of time and for purpose of making investigation.
      - Reentry onto Land - no self-help is allowed; use ejectment for recovering possession of real property.
      - Recapture of Chattels - when one's possession began lawfully, one may use only peaceful means to recover chattel. Reasonable force may be used only when in hot pursuit of one who obtained chattel wrongfully.
    - - Person may interfere w/ real or personal property of another when it is reasonably necessary in emergency to avoid injury from a natural or other force and when threatened injury is substantially more serious than invasion
      - Public necessity - is absolute defense if D acted to avert "imminent public disaster."
      - Private necessity - when action was prevent serious harm to a limited number of people. Actor must pay for any injury they caused.
- - - - Only merchants can be held liable; does not extend to casual sellers, services; but includes commercial lessors and entire distribution chain.
      - Types of defects: manufacturing (departs from its intended design), design (P must show alternative design that would have been safer, practical, & economically feasible), or information defect (hidden risks w/o adequate warnings/instructions.
      - Existence of Defect when Product Left D's Control - if product moved through normal channels of distribution, inferred product was not altered & defect existed when product left D's control.
      - Misuse of Product May Be Foreseeable - P must have been making foreseeable use of product at time of injury. D will not be held liable for dangers not foreseeable at time of marketing.
      - Damages - physical injury or property damages must be shown.
      - Disclaimers are irrelevant in S.L. cases if personal injury or property damages occurred.