Business Law Exam 3 (Tort Law)

Front 1

Primary obligations in Tort Law are

Back 1

Imposed by the torts themselves

Front 2

A tort is

Back 2

A failure to fulfill a primary obligation that was imposed by law

Front 3

A secondary obligation in tort law

Back 3

Involves compensation and is backward looking

Front 4

There is no ____ concept in tort law

Back 4

Privity

Front 5

The main objective in tort law is

Back 5

To compensate the plaintiff

Front 6

Intentional torts involve

Back 6

Intentional (not careless) conduct

Front 7

Re: intent: tortfeaser need only have

Back 7

Intended to act (rather than to have intended to cause injury)

Front 8

Re: intent: tortfeaser need only have

Back 8

Intended to act (rather than to have intended to cause injury)

Front 9

Assault occurs when

Back 9

Defendant intentionally causes plaintiff to believe that offensive bodily contact is imminent

Front 10

Re: intent: tortfeaser need only have

Back 10

Intended to act (rather than to have intended to cause injury)

Front 11

Assault occurs when

Back 11

Defendant intentionally causes plaintiff to believe that offensive bodily contact is imminent

Front 12

Battery consists of

Back 12

Offensive bodily contact

Front 13

Intrusion upon selection exists where

Back 13

The defendant intentionally invades the plaintiffs private affairs without justification in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive

Hint 13

Privacy

Front 14

Public disclosure of private facts exists where

Back 14

The defendant gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another and if the matter publicized or the act of the publication would be highly offensive to a reasonable person AND is not of legitimate concern to the public

Front 15

A tortfeaser is

Back 15

A person who has committed a tort

Front 16

A tortfeaser is

Back 16

A person who has committed a tort

Front 17

Negligence torts occur when

Back 17

The tortfeaser acts carelessly

1. Duty of Care

2. breach of standard of care

3. Causation of harm due to lack of care/breach

Front 18

Intentional torts occur when

Back 18

The tortfeaser intentionally acts in a certain way

Front 19

Strict liability torts occur when

Back 19

A wrong occurs without tortfeaser a intent and without them acting careless

Hint 19

No intent

Front 20

Liability insurance is

Back 20

A contract in which an insurance company agrees (in exchange for a price) to pay damages on behalf of a person who incurs liability

Front 21

Duty to defend requires that

Back 21

The insurance company defend (at its own expense) any lawsuit that is brought against the insured policy

Front 22

False imprisonment is

Back 22

When a person in confined within a fixed area without justification

Front 23

Defences to false imprisonment

Back 23

Consent

Imprisonment done w/ authority

Front 24

Malicious prosecution is

Back 24

When the defendant improperly causes the plaintiff to be prosecuted

Front 25

Trespass to land occurs when

Back 25

The defendant improperly interferes with the plaintiffs land

Front 26

Intention (for trespass) requirement is satisfied if

Back 26

The defendant intended to do the action that resulted in the interference with the plaintiffs land, even if they didn’t intend to trespass

Front 27

Chattels are

Back 27

Moveable forms of property

Front 28

Vicarious Liability occurs when

Back 28

One person is held liable for a tort committed by another person

Front 29

An independent contractor is

Back 29

A worker who is not as closely connected to the employers business as is the employee

Front 30

5 factors used in court to determine if someone is an employee or independent contractor

Back 30

1. Employer controls what, how, when and where things are done for employees

2. The employee uses the employees premises and equipment

3. Employee paid regular wage vs contractor who is paid lump sum

4. Employee integrated into employers business whereas independent contractor has their own business

5. Employee withholds income tax for employees

Front 31

In compensatory damages, the tortfeaser is required to pay the plaintiff money to

Back 31

Put the plaintiff back to pre-tort condition

Front 32

Damages are only payable if

Back 32

The plaintiffs injury was caused by the tort and the injury isn’t too remote

Front 33

A loss is remote if

Back 33

The loss wasn’t reasonable foreseeably causes by the tort

Front 34

Remoteness doesn’t apply to

Back 34

Intentional torts

Front 35

Mitigation occurs when

Back 35

The plaintiff takes steps to minimize losses

Front 36

Punitive damages are

Back 36

Intended to punish the defendant and deter other potential wrongdoers

Front 37

Punitive damages are used where the defendant has

Back 37

Committed tort and acted in a “harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, and malicious manner”

Front 38

Trespass to Chattels occurs when

Back 38

The defendant interferes with chattels in the plaintiffs possession

Front 39

Trespass to Chattels occurs when

Back 39

The defendant interferes with chattels in the plaintiffs possession

Front 40

Conversion occurs when

Back 40

The defendant interferes with plaintiffs chattels in a way that is serious enough to justify a forced sale

Front 41

Trespass to Chattels occurs when

Back 41

The defendant interferes with chattels in the plaintiffs possession

Front 42

Conversion occurs when

Back 42

The defendant interferes with plaintiffs chattels in a way that is serious enough to justify a forced sale

Front 43

A forced sale is where

Back 43

The defendant is forced to buy the plaintiffs property after they took, damages, etc that property

Front 44

Detinue occurs when

Back 44

The defendant fails to return a chattel that the plaintiff is entitled to possess

Front 45

Detinue occurs when

Back 45

The defendant fails to return a chattel that the plaintiff is entitled to possess

Front 46

The right of reception allows a person to

Back 46

Take their property back without going to court (but only using reasonable force to do so)

Front 47

Consent exists if

Back 47

A person voluntarily agrees to experience an interference with their body, land, or goods

Front 48

3 things about consent

Back 48

Can be express or implied

Is valid only if free and informed

Is usually revocable

Front 49

Self-Defence consists of

Back 49

The right to protect oneself from violence and the threat of violence

Front 50

Nominal damages symbolically recognize that

Back 50

The defendant committed a tort even though the plaintiff did not suffer any loss

Front 51

Torts that are per se

Back 51

Are torts where suffering damage isn’t required

Front 52

Injunction is

Back 52

A court order that requires a defendant to do something or refrain from doing something

Front 53

Alternative Compensation Schemes is

Back 53

A system that allows a person who has suffered an injury to receive compensation without bringing an action in tort

Front 54

Alternative Compensation Schemes is

Back 54

A system that allows a person who has suffered an injury to receive compensation without bringing an action in tort

Front 55

Compensation under ACS is

Back 55

Usually lower than under tort law

Front 56

Workers compensation requires

Back 56

Employees to contribute to a general fund

Front 57

Workers compensation assures employers that

Back 57

Workers who are injured on the job can’t sue in tort

Front 58

No fault insurance allows

Back 58

Recovery from a fund without proving fault

Front 59

Necessity applies if

Back 59

The defendants acts were justified by an emergency

Front 60

Legal authority provides

Back 60

A person with a lawful right to act a certain way

Front 61

Provocation consists of

Back 61

Words or actions that would cause a reasonable person to lose self control

Front 62

Contributory negligence occurs when

Back 62

The plaintiff is partially responsible for the injury that the defendant tortuously causes

Front 63

Conspiracy occurs when

Back 63

Two or more people agree to act together with the primary purpose of causing the plaintiff to suffer a financial loss

Front 64

Conspiracy occurs when

Back 64

Two or more people agree to act together with the primary purpose of causing the plaintiff to suffer a financial loss

Front 65

Intimidation occurs when

Back 65

Then plaintiff suffers a loss because of the defendants threat to commit an unlawful act against either the plaintiff or a third party

Front 66

Conspiracy occurs when

Back 66

Two or more people agree to act together with the primary purpose of causing the plaintiff to suffer a financial loss

Front 67

Intimidation occurs when

Back 67

Then plaintiff suffers a loss because of the defendants threat to commit an unlawful act against either the plaintiff or a third party

Front 68

Aggressive competition is generally acceptable when

Back 68

It is one party against the other but not when two or more parties act against another

Front 69

If the defendants were committing an unlawful act, the court will not require

Back 69

Primary purpose element

Front 70

Re: intimidation, the threatened party must

Back 70

Have given into the threat

Front 71

Interference with contractual relations occurs when

Back 71

The defendant disrupts a contract that exists between the plaintiff and a third party

Front 72

Three-part test for negligence

Back 72

1. duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff

2. Breach of the standard owed by the defendant to the plaintiff under duty of care

3. Causation of harm resulting from the breach of standard of care

Front 73

Duty of care arises when

Back 73

The defendant is required to use reasonable care to avoid injuring the plaintiff

Front 74

If duty of care has not already been found to exist in similar circumstances this is the three-part test

Back 74

Was it reasonably foreseeable that plaintiff would suffer harm from the carelessness; were the parties in a relationship of sufficient proximity, and; is there any policy reason why a duty of care shouldn’t be found

Front 75

Sufficient proximity will exist for a duty of care to be found regarding professional misstatements where

Back 75

The defendant knew the plaintiff might rely upon the statement and the plaintiff relied on the statement for its intended purposes

Front 76

This test is used to determine if the defendant breached the standard of care owed under that duty

Back 76

Reasonable person test requires the defendant to act in the same way that a reasonable (prudent) person would act in similar circumstances

Front 77

4 elements of interference

Back 77

The defendant knew about the contract between the plaintiff and the third-party

The defendant intended to cause the third-party to breach (whether harm to plaintiff was intended or not)

Defendant must actually cause the third-party to breach the contract

Plaintiff must suffer actual loss as a result of the defendants conduct

Front 78

4 elements of interference

Back 78

The defendant knew about the contract between the plaintiff and the third-party

The defendant intended to cause the third-party to breach (whether harm to plaintiff was intended or not)

Defendant must actually cause the third-party to breach the contract

Plaintiff must suffer actual loss as a result of the defendants conduct

Front 79

Three elements of unlawful means tort

Back 79

Defendant must have committed actionable wrong against third-party

Defendant must have intended to injure plaintiff

Plaintiff must Have suffered economic loss

Front 80

4 elements of interference

Back 80

The defendant knew about the contract between the plaintiff and the third-party

The defendant intended to cause the third-party to breach (whether harm to plaintiff was intended or not)

Defendant must actually cause the third-party to breach the contract

Plaintiff must suffer actual loss as a result of the defendants conduct

Hint 80

Poaching

Front 81

Three elements of unlawful means tort

Back 81

Defendant must have committed actionable wrong against third-party

Defendant must have intended to injure plaintiff

Plaintiff must Have suffered economic loss

Hint 81

Commit

Intent

Loss

Front 82

The tort of deceit occurs if

Back 82

The defendant makes a false statement, which he knows to be untrue, which intends to mislead the plaintiff, and which causes the plaintiff to suffer a loss

Front 83

A false statement can be

Back 83

Spoken or written and can be a half truth or a failure to update the information

Front 84

With the tort of deceit the false statement can be made to

Back 84

A third-party rather than directly to the point of the court need only find that the defendant was substantially certain the plaintiff would be misled

Front 85

With the tort of deceit the plaintiffs loss must

Back 85

Result from them reasonably relying on the false statement

Front 86

Occupiers liability requires

Back 86

And occupier of premises to protect visitors from harm

Front 87

An Occupier is

Back 87

Any person who has substantial control over premises example being a tenant

Front 88

A visitor is

Back 88

Any person who enters onto premises

Front 89

Premises include

Back 89

More than land: for example can be stairs, vehicles, airplanes etc.

Front 90

Reasonable care by an occupier depends upon

Back 90

The potential danger to the visitor

The occupiers cost of removing the danger

The purpose of the visit and the nature of the premises

Front 91

An occupier can avoid liability by

Back 91

Issuing a warning of the danger: for example a sign

Front 92

Under statute the landlord can be liable for injuries to tenants guests if

Back 92

They failed to make repairs required under their lease with the tenant

Section 6 of the BC occupiers liability act

Front 93

To be shown to have failed to meet the standard of care owed for product liability, the defendant must have

Back 93

Carelessly manufactured the item that caused the harm

Carelessly designed the product

Failed to warn potential customers of dangers connected to foreseeable use of the product

Front 94

The But-for test requires

Back 94

The plaintiff to prove that it would not have suffered a loss but for the defendants carelessness

Front 95

The balance of probabilities test says that

Back 95

If there is a 51% chance that the defendant caused the plaintiffs injury, the defendant will be 100% liable

Front 96

The test used to determine duty of care is

Back 96

Reasonable foreseeability test

Front 97

The test used to determine whether the standard of care was breached is

Back 97

Reasonable person test

Front 98

The test used to determine whether there was causation of harm is

Back 98

But-for

Front 99

If different defendants caused the same injury to the plaintiff then the defendant’s can be held

Back 99

Jointly and severally liable

Front 100

In Thin-skull cases

Back 100

If a normal person would not have suffered an injury, the defendant is not liable

If a normal person would have suffered some injuries, the defendant is completely liable

Front 101

In Thin-skull cases

Back 101

If a normal person would not have suffered an injury, the defendant is not liable

If a normal person would have suffered some injuries, the defendant is completely liable

Front 102

Intervening act is

Back 102

An event that occurs after the defendants carelessness and that causes the plaintiff to suffer an additional injury

Hint 102

Douglas college icy stairs

Front 103

Contributory negligence occurs when

Back 103

A lost cause partly by the defendants carelessness and partly by the plaintiffs own carelessness

Front 104

Valenti non fit injura

Back 104

Applies if the plaintiff freely agreed to accept a risk of injury

is a complete defence; meaning the plaintiff cannot recover any damages

Front 105

In volenti, the plaintiff must

Back 105

Be found to have consented to the physical risk and to have given up the right to sue the defendant for negligence

Front 106

Ex turpi causa is when

Back 106

The plaintiff suffered the injury while behaving illegally

Front 107

The tort of nuisance occurs when

Back 107

The defendant unreasonably interferes with the plaintiffs use and enjoyment of its own land

Front 108

Three ways in which interference (re: land) can arise

Back 108

Chemical omissions or vibration that cause physical damages

Smells and sounds that impair the enjoyment of the plaintiffs land

Something on the defendants land that does not travel to the plaintiffs land, such as a sewer system that drains water from the plaintiffs

Front 109

Five things that courts consider when evaluating whether interference is reasonable

Back 109

The nature of the neighbourhood

The time and day of the interference

The intensity and duration of the interference

The social utility of the defendants conduct

The defendants conduct

Front 110

The tort of Ryland’s V Fletcher

Back 110

Where the defendant has conducted a non-natural use of its land and something escapes from that land the defendant will be strictly liable for resulting damage to the plaintiff

Hint 110

Gas escaping

Front 111

Non-natural use is

Back 111

Any use that creates special damage or that creates a special and unusual damage

Front 112

Defences to Ryland’s v Fletcher tort

Back 112

Consent by plaintive to defendants non-natural use of land

Escape being caused by a third-party or natural force that defendant couldn’t have guarded against

Plaintiffs injury was the inevitable result of an activity that the defendant was statutorily authorized to do

Front 113

The tort of defamation occurs when

Back 113

The defendant makes a false statement that could lead a reasonable person to have a lower opinion of the plaintiff

Front 114

Slander is

Back 114

A defamation statement that is spoken

Front 115

Slander is

Back 115

A defamation statement that is spoken

Front 116

Libel is

Back 116

A defamation statement that is written

Front 117

Defamatory statements must

Back 117

Be published

Front 118

Publication occurs when

Back 118

A statement is communicated to a third-party

Front 119

Injurious falsehood or product falsehood occurs when

Back 119

The defendant makes a statement about the plaintiffs business that causes the plaintiff to suffer a loss

Front 120

Slander of title is

Back 120

When the defendant falsely says the plaintiff doesn’t have title to property making it harder for the plaintive to sell the property

Front 121

Slander of quality is

Back 121

Where the defendant disparages the plaintiffs product in a way that causes potential customers to take their business elsewhere

Front 122

Three important elements of injurious falsehood

Back 122

The statement must be false and must have been made to a third-party

Defendant must have acted out of malice

Defendant statement must have resulted in damages to the plaintiff

Front 123

Ex turpi causa only applies where the plaintiff has attempted to use the system to

Back 123

Profit from it illegal act or avoid a criminal penalty