Blaw Test 2 A

Front 1

Negligence is

Back 1

the failure to exercise reasonable care in the face of a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm

Front 2

four elements to the tort of negligence:

Back 2

The facts must impose on the defendant a duty of reasonable care toward the plaintiff
The defendant must breach that duty
The plaintiff must have been harmed
The defendant's negligence must have been both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff

Front 3

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Back 3

thing speaks for itself

Front 4

Negligence Per Se

Back 4

doctrine which holds that showing a defendant violated a law providing for a criminal penalty will establish negligence on the defendant's part

Front 5

neither res ipsa loquitur nor negligence per se is sufficient to establish a cause of action for negligence. The plaintiff will still have to prove that

Back 5

the negligence of the defendant actually and proximately caused his/her injuries

Front 6

Three Categories of Torts

Back 6

"1. Intentional torts - defendant acted with purpose of causing harm or harm was substantially certain result of his conduct
2. Negligence - defendant failed to exercise reasonable care
3. Strict liability - defendant’s intent/care irrelevant

Front 7

Intentional Torts

Back 7

1. Assault
2. Battery
3. False imprisonment
4. Outrage
5. Fraud
6. Defamation

Front 8

Assault

Back 8

Assault is intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful touching.

Front 9

Battery

Back 9

Battery is the intentional harmful or offensive touching of another

Front 10

False Imprisonment

Back 10

False imprisonment is the intentional wrongful confinement or restraint of another

Front 11

Outrage also known as

Back 11

Intentional Infliction of Severe Emotional Distress

Front 12

Elements of Outrage

Back 12

Defendant’s conduct toward plaintiff must be extreme and outrageous
Plaintiff’s emotional distress must be extreme and severe
Defendant’s conduct must be the cause of plaintiff’s emotional distress

Front 13

Outrage: Tests Used to Establish Elements -Defendants Conduct

Back 13

Was the defendant’s conduct beyond the bounds of what should be tolerated in civilized society?
Would the facts cause a reasonable person to exclaim, “That’s outrageous!”
Did the plaintiff suffer greater distress than a person can reasonably be expected to endure?
Did the plaintiff seek professional help?

Front 14

Negligence - Elements

Back 14

Defendant has duty of care to plaintiff
Defendant breached duty of care
Plaintiff suffered harm
Causation

Front 15

Negligence in the Air

Back 15

Justice Holmes called negligence without injury “negligence in the air.” there is no COA

Front 16

Cause-In-Fact

Back 16

Purpose is to ascertain whether plaintiff’s injury, as a matter of logic, can be traced back to defendant’s conduct.
Determined by “but for test”. But for the defendant’s conduct, plaintiff’s injury would not have occurred. TRUE - cause-in-fact exists FALSE - no cause-in-fact

Front 17

Proximate Cause

Back 17

Purpose is to identify those consequences of defendant’s conduct to those for which it is fair to hold him/her legally liable
Determined by reasonable foreseeability test
+Were plaintiff’s injuries a reasonably foreseeable result of defendant’s conduct?
YES - proximate cause exists
NO - no proximate cause