Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts II - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Elements
        
        a. intent
        
        b. to cause harmful or offensive contact or to cause an imminent apprehension of such contact
        
        c. The plaintiff does apprehend imminent contact whether or not it occurs
      - Extra rules
        
        No Takebacks: an aborted battery attempt or attempt to contact is still assault
        
        Martial arts master or bodybuilder can sue (apprehension of contactd not fear is what matters)
- - - - defendants were all negligent. 2. all negligent parties sued 3. defendants have better information
- - - - a. Factual or but for
      - b. proximate cause
  - - - The medical setting does not involve medical standards of care. Hence, no experts and ordinary negligence principles apply.
      - Medical standard of care is implicated. Expert are needed.
        
        Custom is determinative of medical care. Memorial Blood Bank
        
        Reasonableness (a reasonable doctor) determines the standard. Osterloh
        
        MOdified Locality Rule (Arkansas)
        
        Exception: those who hold themselves out as meeting national standards
    - - State by state stadard of care, developed with expert testimony
      - National standard of care with respect to national practice areas
- - - - Overall elements: Defective product, at time of sale, caused injury
        
        Types of defect
        
        Manufacutring
        
        Dismissal stage: don't need evidence of manufacturing standards right off the back
        
        Malfunction theory
        
        Must show deviation from design specs, or else the wrong materials for the product as designed (Kelsey Hayes)
        
        Design
        
        Consumer expectation test
        
        Plaintiff friendly in simpler cases
        
        Does not require an alternative design
        
        Risk utility test
        
        Requires an alternative design
        
        incentivizes safer products because you have to reduce the risk not say they were obvious
        
        Warning
      - Must be a seller. Any regular dealer in the product. The neighbor who sells jam is not a seller for these purposes.
      - Of a product. Maps? AI? Books? Custom pools? Usually mass produced objects that permit risk spreading are considered products.
    - - Negligent Manufacture, no privity rules : Macpherson
- - - - regular trespasser: willful and wanton. Miller v. GM
        
        exceptions: known trespasser, evidence of continual trespassing in a small area
        
        Attractive Nuisance
        
        elements
        
        1. knows or reason to know children will trespass
        
        knows condition creates unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm
        
        3. children will not discover or appreciate risk
        
        eleminating risk is slightly burdensome compared to risk
        
        possessor fails to show reasonable care
      - flagrant trespasser: duty to not intentionally injure. Ryals
    - - Trap liability
        
        Yes trap (Narnia case, Voss)
        
        No trap (Van Huffell)
    - - the defendant creates the danger on the land
        
        Prima facie case
      - Defendant did not create the danger, a third party on the land did
        
        Constructive knowledge (evidence that reasonable inspectino would have found the danger) = prima facie case
        
        Test from Commodore: how easy the danger is to spot, and how expensive it is to find it
        
        Anything that shows that reasonable care would have registered and addressed the danger. Anjou v. Boston Elevated
        
        actual knowledge=prima facie case. Defendant can argue they responded reasonably to the danger.
      - LIberalized Invitee liability for slip and fall. Mode of Operation.
    - - Open and Obvious