Blaw

Front 1

intent

Back 1

person desires to cause consequences of his act or believes that those consequences are certain to result

Front 2

battery

Back 2

intention infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact

Front 3

assault

Back 3

intention conduct to another that puts him in fear of immediate bodily harm

Front 4

false imprisonment

Back 4

intentional confining of a person against her will

Front 5

infliction of emotional distress

Back 5

atrocious conduct beyond all bounds of decency

Front 6

defamation

Back 6

false communication that injures a persons reputation

Front 7

libel

Back 7

written element of defamation

Front 8

slander

Back 8

spoken element of defamation

Front 9

defenses to defamation

Back 9

truth and privilege

Front 10

invasion of privacy
(4 distinct torts)

Back 10

appropriation
intrusion
public disclosure of private facts
false light

Front 11

appropriation

Back 11

person's name or likeness

Front 12

intrusion

Back 12

unreasonable and offensive interference with solitude or seclusion of another

Front 13

public disclosure of private facts

Back 13

offensive publicity of private information

Front 14

false light

Back 14

unreasonable and untruthful publicity that places another in a false light that is highly offensive

Front 15

defenses to invasion of privacy

Back 15

absolute, conditional, and constitutional privilege

Front 16

misuse of legal procedure
(3 torts)

Back 16

malicious prosecution
wrongful civil proceedings
abuse of process

Front 17

real property

Back 17

land and anything attached to it such as buildings, trees, and minerals

Front 18

trespass

Back 18

entering on, remaining on, and failing to leave land in possession of another

Front 19

nuisance

Back 19

non-trespassory invasion of another's interest in private use and enjoyment of land

Front 20

personal property

Back 20

any property other than an interest in land

Front 21

trespass
(personal property)

Back 21

intentional taking or unauthorized use of a person's personal property

Front 22

conversion

Back 22

intentional exercise of dominion or control over another's property that justly requires the payment of full value for the property

Front 23

interference with contractual relations

Back 23

subjects a person to liability for the monetary loss that results

Front 24

disparagement

Back 24

publication of false statements about the title or quality of a person's property or products

Front 25

fraudulent misrepresentation

Back 25

false representation of fact, opinion, or law to induce another to act or to refrain from action

Front 26

defenses to intentional torts

Back 26

consent and privilege

Front 27

consent

Back 27

willingness that an act shall occur that negates the wrongfulness of the act

Front 28

privilege

Back 28

includes conditional and absolute privileges

Front 29

tort

Back 29

private wrong generally resulting in personal injury or in property damage or destruction

Front 30

examples of infliction of emotional distress

Back 30

leading a noisy mob to someone's home
placing a snake in someone's bed
sexual harassment on the job
extreme bullying by insurance adjusters

DOES NOT INCLUDE RUDE AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE

Front 31

trespasser mistakenly unaware of the trespassing

Back 31

not a defense for the tort of trespassing

Front 32

plaintiff's consent to defendant's conduct

Back 32

defense for an intentional tort

Front 33

absolute immunity

Back 33

protects public prosecutor from civil liability for malicious prosecution

Front 34

Communications Decency Act of 1996

Back 34

grants immunity to Internet Service Providers from liability for defamation when publishing information from a third party

Front 35

can't be used to prevent a trespass

Back 35

deadly force

Front 36

conditions that allow privilege of self-defense

Back 36

whether or not danger actually exists, provided defendant reasonably believed self-defense was necessary

Front 37

tort law based upon

Back 37

common law

Front 38

chattel

Back 38

personal property

Front 39

privilege

Back 39

immunity from tort liability granted when the defendant's conduct furthers a societal interest of greater importance than the injury inflicted upon the plaintiff

Front 40

punitive damages

Back 40

damages over and above the amount necessary to compensate the plaintiff

AKA EXEMPLARY

Front 41

duress

Back 41

constraining a person's will by compelling them to give consent unwillingly

Front 42

malicious prosecution and wrongful civil proceedings

Back 42

unjust commencement of a civil proceeding without probable cause or for an improper purpose

Front 43

difference between absolute and conditional privilege

Back 43

conditional-depends
absolute-regardless

Front 44

who is held liable for intentional torts

Back 44

adults, minors, and incompetent persons

Front 45

trespass can be

Back 45

on land, above the ground, or underground

Front 46

consent to conduct is invalid when used by who?

Back 46

minor, mental incompetent, or intoxicated person

Front 47

negligence
(3 types)

Back 47

breach of duty of care
proximate cause or injury

Front 48

breach of duty of care
(types)

Back 48

reasonable person standard
duty to act
duties of possessors of land
res ipsa loquitur

Front 49

reasonable person standard

Back 49

degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a given situation

Front 50

duty to act

Back 50

generally, no one is required to aid another in peril

Front 51

res ipsa loquitur

Back 51

rule that permits the jury to infer both negligent conduct and causation from the mere occurrence of certain types of events

Front 52

reasonable standard of children

Back 52

a child's conduct must conform to that of a child of like age, intelligence and experience

Front 53

reasonable standard of physical disability

Back 53

disabled persons conduct must conform to that of a reasonable person under like disability

Front 54

reasonable standard of mental deficiency

Back 54

mentally deficient person is held to the reasonable person standard

Front 55

reasonable standard of superior skill or knowledge

Back 55

professionals must exercise the care and skill of members in good standing within their profession

Front 56

reasonable standard of people in emergencies

Back 56

standard is still the reasonable person but under emergency circumstances

Front 57

violation of statute

Back 57

reasonable person standard of conduct may be established by a statute

Front 58

duty of possessors of land to trespassers

Back 58

generally, none

Front 59

duty of possessors of land to licensees

Back 59

possessor of land owes a higher duty of care to licensees than to trespassers

Front 60

duty of possessors of land to invitees

Back 60

duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against dangerous conditions

Front 61

causation in fact

Back 61

the defendants conduct was the actual cause of the injury

Front 62

limitations on causation in fact

Back 62

unforseeable consequences and superceding cause

Front 63

unforseeable consequences

Back 63

may negate defendants liability for negligence

Front 64

superceding cause

Back 64

intervening act that relieves the defendants liability to the plaintiff

Front 65

injury

Back 65

defendants negligence must have caused harm or injury

Front 66

defenses of negligence

Back 66

contributory negligence
comparative negligence
assumption of risk

Front 67

contributory negligence

Back 67

both parties contribute to the negligence that causes the harm

Front 68

comparative negligence

Back 68

damages are apportioned between the parties in proportion to their degree of negligence

Front 69

assumption of risk

Back 69

plaintiff who voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of harm arising from the negligence of the defendant cannot recover for such harm

Front 70

activities giving rise to strict liability

Back 70

abnormally dangerous activities
keeping of animals
product liability

Front 71

abnormally dangerous activities

Back 71

for harm resulting from such activities, strict liability is imposed

ex. firework displays, tnt, pile driving

Front 72

product liability

Back 72

form of strict liability upon manufacturers and merchants who sell goods in a defective condition

Front 73

defenses to strict liability

Back 73

contributory negligence is NOT a defense
comparative negligence is in some states
assumption of risk is a defense

Front 74

basis of liability for negligence

Back 74

failure to exercise reasonable care for the safety of other persons or their property

Front 75

burden of proof in a civil action for negligence

Back 75

on the plaintiff

Front 76

reasonable person standard means a reasonable person is

Back 76

always careful, prudent, and never negligent

Front 77

modified comparative negligence

Back 77

denies any recovery to a tort plaintiff whose self-carelessness is equal to or greater than the defendants negligence

Front 78

licensee

Back 78

person privileged to enter upon land only with the consent of the lawful possessor

Front 79

but-for

Back 79

widely applied test for causation in fact

Front 80

last clear chance

Back 80

doctrine holding defendants liable regardless of plaintiffs contributory negligence

Front 81

public invitee

Back 81

ex. person who enters a municipal pool to swim

Front 82

superceding cause

Back 82

an intervening event that may relieve the defendant of liability

Front 83

3rd restatement of torts recognizes ______ assumption of risk as a defense to strict liability

Back 83

only express

Front 84

doctrine that holds an unexcused violation of regulatory statute as negligence

Back 84

negligence per se

Front 85

what professional or skilled persons would not be required to exercise special care and skill normally possessed by those practicing their professions or trade?

Back 85

teachers and professors

Front 86

under common law, an affirmative duty to aid another person in danger was not imposed between

Back 86

friend and neighbor

Front 87

business visitor

Back 87

ex. a furnace repair person

Front 88

Philip Morris USA v. Williams
- widow of dead cigarette smoker sues

Back 88

Oregon SC applied wrong constitutional standard - US Supreme Court remanded back

Front 89

Vaughn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
- 2 girls in Wal-Mart accused of stealing - searched and detained

Back 89

trial court’s decision reversed – Wal Mart’s search deemed reasonable

Front 90

Frank B. Hall & Co., Inc. v. Buck
- insurance salesman sues for defamation of character

Back 90

- judgment of trial court affirmed – amount of damages not unjust

Front 91

White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
- Vanna White sues for copyright infringement

Back 91

trial court reversed - summary judgment granted

Front 92

Soldano v. O’Daniels
- soldano sues for negligence – o’daniel’s didn’t allow use of telephone after shooting

Back 92

- judgment reversed – there ARE sufficient issues to permit the case to go to trial

Front 93

Love v. Hardee’s
- Love slipped in wet bathroom – won damages

Back 93

- trial court’s decision affirmed

Front 94

Moore v. Kitsmiller
- Moore fell in septic tank hole – won damages but contributorily negligent

Back 94

- trial court’s decision affirmed

Front 95

Klein v. Pyrodyne
- firework at display went astray and exploded on Kleins

Back 95

trial court’s decision affirmed – firework displays are held strictly liable

Front 96

Watson v. State Farm
- 12 year-old boy shot dad’s friend on accident while deer hunting – dead man found 100% liable

Back 96

final judgment apportioned 20% fault to Watson and 40% split between killer son and father

Front 97

Rodrigue v. Copeland
- Big Al Copeland’s xmas display

Back 97

- appellate court’s decision reversed – restrictions placed on Big Al’s display

Front 98

bert v. Crowley Post
- picture of home in the paper – won an invasion of privacy suit

Back 98

- trial court reversed – not invasion of privacy when photo taken from public street

Front 99

Ginsberg v. Hontas
- Tulane softball game slide injury – trial court dismissed case due to lack of proof of slide’s negligence

Back 99

- trial court’s decision affirmed – lack of evidence to support negligence

Front 100

Roshto v. Iberville South
- archived stories published about crime – lost at trial court, won damages in appeal

Back 100

- decision of appellate court reversed – trial court decision reinstated, no damages

Front 101

Chelette v. Wal-Mart
- woman wrongly detained for shoplifting charcoal left in bottom of cart – won damages

Back 101

- trial court’s decision affirmed – wrongly detained

Front 102

Harrison v. State of LA DOC
- men suspected of cheating at Harrah’s and detained

Back 102

- ruling reversed – neither Harrah’s no LA DOC are liable for false arrest

Front 103

Hattori v. Peairs
- Japanese student shot – wrongful death claim won

Back 103

- trial court decision affirmed – amount awarded ok

Front 104

Miller v. Loyola
- educational malpractice

Back 104

appellate court decided no cause of action

Front 105

Brown v. Lee
-Zulu coconut hit face

Back 105

summary judgment reversed - remanded to trial court to determine facts of how coconut was thrown

Front 106

Cook v. Kendrick
- overdose in kitchen

Back 106

appellate court affirmed 80% own fault and 20% Kendrick's fault

Front 107

Becker v. Keasler
- dog bite on sidewalk

Back 107

decision affirmed - strictly liable for dog bites

Front 108

Specialized v. Murhpy
- lending company sues appraisal company

Back 108

appellate court affirmed decision - Specialized 20% at fault, Murphy & Brown 80%

Front 109

Comeaux v. Acadia School Board
- cheerleader injury

Back 109

25% fault assigned to girl was reversed

Front 110

Harris v. Pizza Hut
- armed robbery of Hut with guard

Back 110

appellate decision reversed back to trial court's decision - guard's negligence was a cause-in-fact of injury

Front 111

Stewart v. Daiquiri Affair
- teen worker wrecks after drinking

Back 111

trial court's decision reversed - motion denied

Front 112

Lavergne v. America's Pizza
- hot cup of pizza sauce on baby

Back 112

trial court affirmed - 70% America's Pizza fault, 30% parents

Front 113

Palsgraf v. Long Island RR
- fireworks on train track

Back 113

judgment reversed - complaint dismissed