Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts= civil wrong, not arising out of contract. - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Act element
        
        Voluntary conduct. Spams or reflexes don't count as act for these purposes. An act cannot be an omission or a refusal or failure to do something. (sled example).
      - intent element
        
        a. purpose or goal of ... or b. substantial certainty of .... Erickson
        
        single intent jurisdiction. Just intent to make contact. Wagner
        
        Dual intent. Intent to make contact and that the contact is offensive or harmful. White
      - contact element (offensive or harmful contact)
  - - - intent to confine
      - Act
      - complete confinement results. Rostraver
        
        can be short
        
        confinement must be complete: if you can walk out, you aren't fully confined, and you have to test whether you are confined rather than infer it.
        
        fraud or deceit is enough
      - Plaintiff is aware of confinement or is harmed by it.
        
        Some courts relax the idea of harm so much that bare confinement is enough. Scofield
      - no lawful privilege
        
        detaining a suspected shoplifter might be privileged
  - - - elements
        
        intent to enter land that the plaintiff in fact possess
        
        enter the land that the plaintiff possesses
      - Privilege
        
        Privilege to enter. enter to prevent harm to self or property. Garner, Ruiz
        
        Privilege you have as a landowner: Privilege to defend possession from chattels. Boggs v. Merideth
    - - trespass to chattel proper
        
        elements
        
        Intent
        
        Physical interference with possesion
        
        Resulting in harm
      - conversion
        
        elements
        
        superior right of possesion
        
        defendant interfered with right of possesion
  - - - Intentional or reckless (like all intentional torts)
      - conduct was intolerable or outrageous
        
        Dwarfism case, yes
        
        Wedding disaster case, no
      - Causal connection between conduct and the distress
      - Emotional distress was severe
- - - - elements
        
        That activity caused harm to the chattel, person, or property of the plaintiff
        
        And....the harm caused by the abnormally dangerous activity is characteristic of the activity
        
        defendant engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity
        
        six factor test, from the second restatement
        
        b. magnitude of harm
        
        c. residual risk
        
        Siegler v. Kuhlman (bad c)
        
        New Meadows (underground transmission of gas can be made safe)
        
        Arlington (storage of gas in underground tanks)
        
        d. common usage
        
        Arlington, Siegler (done by many people or the risk is familiar to many people)
        
        e. location
        
        New Meadows, Arlington (hard to evaluate)
        
        f. value
        
        Koos v. Roth
        
        a. risk
    - - Domestic or wild? Usually a question of law, but can be a question of fact, see Abrevaya
        
        Domestic Animal
        
        Scienter action
        
        elements
        
        the KEEPER has knowledge or notice of the disposition
        
        who is a keeper? A temporary house sitter is not a keeper
        
        "vicious" propensity (more precisely: a disposition that can be harmful whether at play or not)
        
        animal causes harm
        
        Wild Animal
        
        animal hurts someone: automatic liability
- - - - Hand Formula, B < PL
      - Brute unreasonableness
      - Spectrum of patterns and practices related to safety
        
        Custom. can be evidence of breach or of satisfying the duty of reasonable care. But is only evidence.
        
        Sometimes the judge will not admit evidence of custom. TJ Hooper a "custom" that is so bad it can't be admitted.
        
        Recommendations and guidelines
        
        Statutes & Negligence Per se, Warner v. Hartzog
        
        statute must be safety related, aimed at preventing the type of accident at issue.
        
        THe person falls within the class of persons the statute was trying to protect. Tingle, Vega
        
        no justification for excuse for violating the statute
        
        the violation causes the accident or harm
      - RIL
        
        Accident is evidence that someone breached their duty, or there was a breach of duty.
        
        Vivas. A mechanical failure in, for example, an escalator raises an inference of negligence.
        
        A mere mechanical failure is not enough for RIL. Ellis
        
        Defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality of the harm. Defendant had control over what went wrong.
        
        Control in theory or in principle. Authority. Trujeque Vivas
        
        Control in fact. BIrthrong
        
        Injury or accident is not caused by the plaintiff
    - - But for causation. Imagine the counterfactual where the defendant does their duty or does the right thing, and if this would make no difference, then there is no but for cause. Knepfly and Boys Club MORE LIKELY THAN NOT STANDARD
        
        collective action in which not every memnber of the collective is necessary to cause the harm. Joshi
        
        Two fires. Two breaches of duty that would be but for causes by themselves, are still but for causes when they work together.
        
        Probability is not at least 50%
      - Proximate causation
        
        Natural and continuous approach
        
        Substantial factor (confusing and heavily criticized)
        
        Scope of risk test (trampoline)
    - - Must be damage to person or property
    - - Full duty analysis (throw everything into the question, including foreseeability)
      - Misfeasance v. nonfeasance, act v. omission
        
        Non feasance = usually no duty unless special relationship. Bullock v. Tamiami Trail
        
        Historically special relationships. Common carriers and innkeepers. Tamiami.
        
        Ad hoc special relationships. Lauritzen
        
        Special relationship may run to the person who needs protection. Argued in Lauritzen v. Laurtizen
        
        Special relationship may run to the person who constitutes a danger. Cuppy v. Bunch
        
        MIsfeasance = nearly automatic duty
        
        Rescue doctrine. Duty is owed to rescuers who come to address negligently created dangers, they are foreseeable. Govich
        
        disguised affirmative act that look like an omission. Zelenko (starting to help in a way that increases danger)
        
        Continuing risk rule
      - no duty rules
        
        public duty rule Morgan
        
        exception: (1) specific undertaking to protect a specific individual (2) Justified reliance
        
        Public policy, Racine
        
        Primary assumption of the risk. E.g. firefighter's rule. Mark v. Moser
      - Particularizing the reasonable person
        
        Kids. Below 4, or 5, or 7, there is no negligence. Otherwise, the child had a duty only to exercise the level of care of a person of the same age and intelligence and experience. Second restatement, third restatement, common law
        
        Exception: When will children be subject to an adult standard of care?
        
        When the activity is inherently dangerous
        
        When the activity is adult
        
        When the activity is adult and inherently dangerous
        
        Physically disabled, e.g. no sight, no hearing. (reasonable person with the disability)
        
        mentally disabled? No particularization
        
        A reasonable person under stress. Emergency doctrine.
  - - - near miss for negligence
      - emotional distress at the near miss
    - - close relationship to the victim by the plaintiff.
      - contemporaneous awareness of the injury
      - serious physical injury or death.
      - emotional distress must be serious
  - - - Exception to coming and going: Incidental Benefit Rule