Florida Bar- Torts

Front 1

What are the elements of battery

Back 1

1)intentional act 2) causes harmful or offensive contact 3) with the P or something closely connected to. *D must either desire to cause or know immediate harmful or offensive contact is substantially certain to occur.

Front 2

What are the elements of assault?

Back 2

!) intentional act 2) that causes P to experience reasonable apprehension of 3) an immediate harmful or offensive contact. * D must desire to cause the apprehension or know it is substantially certain to occur

Front 3

Elements of False Imprisonment

Back 3

1) intentional act 2) that causes P to be confined against P's will 3) and the P knows of confinement or is injured thereby. *NO DURATION REQUIREMENT - but duration might affect damages

Front 4

What is the requisite intent for false imprisonment?

Back 4

1) desire to confine or restrain P to a bounded area OR 2) knows that such confinement is VIRTUALLY certain to occur.

Front 5

False Imprisonment- How may P be confined? Does P have any duties?

Back 5

P may be confined by physical barriers, failure to release when there is a legal duty to do so, or invalid assertion of legal authority. P has no duty to resist if D uses or makes a credible threat to use physical force.

Front 6

False Imprisonment- P is not confined where...

Back 6

there is a REASONABLE means of escape of which she is ACTUALLY AWARE. (reasonable is arguable)

Front 7

Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 7

1) an intentional or RECKLESS act 2) amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct, 3) that causes P severe emotional distress.

Front 8

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress- What constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct?

Back 8

beyond the bounds of decency- that which a civilized society will not tolerate. The more outrageous D's conduct, the easier it is to prove injury.

Front 9

3rd Party Intentional Infliction of Emotional distress. 3 extra elements

Back 9

1) P must be present when D's wrongful conduct occurs, 2) D must be aware of P's presence AND 3) P must be a close relative of the person attacked.

Front 10

Negligent Infliction of emotional distress.

Back 10

Physical impact is required in negligent infliction cases. Ingestion constitutes an impact. Proof of a physical injury is not required to recover for emotional injuries caused by consumption of contaminated food.

Front 11

Trespass to land- intentional, unintentional, and accidental entries

Back 11

Intentional Entries: D is liable, damage is not required, mistake is no defense.
Unintentional Entries: A person is not liable for negligent or reckless entries unless there is damage
Accidental Entries: no liability for non-negligent accidental entries

Front 12

Trespass to land definition. How is element of invasion satisfied?

Back 12

Intentional act that causes a physical invasion of a P's land. Intent to invade is enough- mistake no defense. The element of physical invasion is satisfied if D enters or causes 3rd person or object to enter P's land, stays longer than they are allowed, or fails to remove an object when there is a legal duty to do so.

Front 13

What does a P need to have to bring a trespass to land action? How are damages calculated?

Back 13

P must have actual possession or a right to immediate possession of that land. Nominal damages are recoverable where there is no real injury but D is liable for any injury caused.

Front 14

Elements of trespass to chattels

Back 14

1)Intentional act by D 2) that interferes with P's chattel 3) causing harm.

Front 15

Trespass to Chattels- what is chattel and how is intent formed. How are damages calculated?

Back 15

Chattel is tangible personal property or intangible property that has a physical representation like a title or receipt. Intent is satisfied when D intentionally performs the physical act that interferes. D is liable even though he didn't recognize the significance of his act. Mistake is no defense. Damages are an element of the CoA - actual damages is the value of loss of use ...rental value...of chattel during the time of dispossession or the cost to remedy an intermeddling.

Front 16

When is interference with chattel actionable? Trespass to chattel or conversion?

Back 16

When it constitutes dispossession or intermeddling. More serious interference- destruction or serious and substantial interference may be a conversion. The longer the period of interference and the greater the use of the chattel by D the more likely it will be considered a conversion.

Front 17

Elements of conversion

Back 17

1)Intentional act by D 2) that causes the destruction of or a serious and substantial interference with P's chattel *Mistake is no defense

Front 18

Defenses to intentional torts: List

Back 18

1) privilege
2) consent
3) self-defense
4) defense of others
5) defense of property
6) necessity
7) shopkeepers privilege

Front 19

Defenses to intentional torts: Privilege

Back 19

A privilege may exist where 1) the person affected by D's conduct consents; 2) some important personal or public interest will be protected by D's ordinarily prohibited conduct and this is justifiable; 3) D must act freely in order to perform one's essential function

Front 20

Defenses to intentional torts:consent

Back 20

The consent must be effective and D must not exceed the scope. P can manifest consent expressly, by implication, or as a matter of law. As a matter of law= where P is unable to consent and 1) emergency action is necessary to prevent death or serious injury, 2) reasonable person would be expected to consent and 3) no reason exists to believe P would not consent.

Front 21

Defenses to intentional torts: self defense

Back 21

Ok if D used reasonable force necessary to avoid the harm threatened by P. Can't use SD if the threat is not about to happen, has been averted, or has ended. Even if no harm threatened, may use SD if a reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe they were under attack as long as she subjectively believes that a sufficient threat exists to justify force and there is a reasonable basis for that belief.

Front 22

Defenses to intentional torts: defense of others

Back 22

D may defend another person from attack by P to the same extent that the 3rd person would be entitled to defend himself. But a D who makes a mistake about whether the defense is justified, or as to the degree of reasonable force, cannot assert the defense and will be liable.

Front 23

Defenses to intentional torts:Defense of property

Back 23

D is permitted to use reasonable force to prevent P from committing a tort against D's property. Force must be no greater than necessary to prevent the harm.

Front 24

Defenses to intentional torts:Necessity

Back 24

D may injure O's property if this is reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the public, to himself, or to his property.

Front 25

Defenses to intentional torts: Shopkeeper's privilege

Back 25

SK not liable for false imprisonment if he has a REASONABLE SUSPICION that P has stolen goods, uses REASONABLE FORCE to detain, for a REASONABLE PERIOD of time on the premises or in the immediate vicinity. SK priv is available to a LEO, merchant, farmer, or transit agency emp who has prob cause to believe that a retail, farm, transit fare thefty or trespass or unlawful use of invenory control device has been committed by a person. In retail or farm theft, D must show property may be recovered by taking offender into custody.

Front 26

Negligence: Duty

Back 26

legal obligation to conform to a standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk. No affirmative duty to aid a P unless: 1) d's negligent conduct placed P in the position where she requires aid, 2) D starts to take action- must continue to act reasonably (can't leave P in worse position) 3) gratuitously promises to give aid must exercise reasonable care. 4) special relationship. But Good samaritan statutes limit lliability of rescuers unless it is reckless or intentional wrongdoing.

Front 27

What are the special relationships recognized where a D has a duty to take affirmative action in aid of a P?

Back 27

1) parent/child
2) employer/employee
3) common carrier and innkeeper/customer
4) school/pupil
5) jailor/prisoner

Front 28

What is the effect of negligence per se?

Back 28

The statute must impose an affirmative duty and impose a penalty for failure to act. Some statutes are meant to protect a class of people (minors...firearms) and in that case the statute will impose strict liability. Other violations of statutes- traffic- are only prima facie evidence of negligence.

Front 29

Duty to control third parties

Back 29

1)Parent must exercise reasonable care to control minor child to prevent child from intentionally harming others or creating unreasonable risk of bodily harm
2) master must exercise reasonable care to control servant while acting outside the scope of employment into prevent servant from intentionally harming others or creating unreasonable risk of bodily harm .

Front 30

4 standards of care for land possessor liability

Back 30

1) Trespasser
2) licensee- friend- warn of known dangers
3) invitee- customer - inspect/make safe
4) invited licensee- social guests- inspect and warn or make safe.

Front 31

Invitees- what are they and what duty

Back 31

a person who enters onto D's land at D's express or implied invitation- for the purpose relating to Ds interests or activities. Business invitees are customers, or public invitees- maybe a park. D has duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries to invitees cause by activities conducted on his land. (inspect and make safe)

Front 32

Licensee

Back 32

(friends)- duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them from injury arising from activities conducted by D or on D's behalf. It is usually sufficient to warn but D must also exercise reasonable care to discover licensees of whom he is not aware.

Front 33

Invited licensee-

Back 33

social guest- duty to inspect and warn or make safe.

Front 34

trespasser

Back 34

Known- (presence has been detected within 24 hours of accident) - must refrain from gross negligence or intentional misconduct. No duty do protect known tres from natural conditions on the land. (if not attractive nuisance, the duties relating to child trespassers are the same)

Front 35

Attractive Nuisance

Back 35

Possessor of land is liable for PHYSICAL harm to trespassing children caused by an ARTIFICIAL condition if: 1) he knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass, 2) knows or has reason to know condition involves unreasonable risk of death or serious harm, 3) child is unaware of condition or of risk, 4) utility to maintaining condition is slight compared to risk to children, 5) owner fails to exercise reasonable care to protect kids, or 6) owner entices children upon premises.

Front 36

Standard of Care: Reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances

Back 36

D breaches duty if he fails to conduct himself reasonably. If the cost to D of taking precautions against risk was outweighed by the likelihood that P would be injured by activity ,considering also the severity of injury to P , and considering social utility...then D failed to act reasonably. This is an objective standard.

Front 37

Standard of Care for health care provider

Back 37

the level of care, skill, and treatment that is acceptable and appropriate for a reasonably prudent similar health care provider in like circumstances.

Front 38

Standard of care for children

Back 38

the reasonable person standard takes age into account. Reasonable child of the same age, education, intelligence, and experience. But kids performing adult activities- driving, boating, etc. must conform to the adult standard of care.

Front 39

D's violation of a criminal statute has the effect of establishing the standard of care only when the following 3 conditions are present...

Back 39

1) The injury caused by D's conduct is the type the statute was intended to prevent; 2) P is a member of the class intended to be protected, and 3) D's violation of the statute is not excused. *compliance with a statute is regarded as mere evidence on the issue of whether D breached his duty and doesn't raise any presumption in D's favor.

Front 40

What does a P have to get to file a med-mal claim?

Back 40

A written opinion by a medical expert verifying reasonable grounds for a claim exist.

Front 41

Procedure for med-mal notice?

Back 41

Claimant must serve notice on D by certified mail at least 90 days before filing suit.

Front 42

Med Mal procedure- after notice

Back 42

Insurer evaluates claim- within 90 days insurer must deliver to claimant a rejection of the claim, an offer to settle, or an offer to admit liability and seek arbitration of damages. Within 120 days of filing, all parties are required ato attend a mandatory mediation if arbitration hasn't been agreed to by the parties.

Front 43

What is res ipsa loquitur and what are the 3 requisites for it?

Back 43

INFERENCE OF NGELIGENCE: Res ipsa means you must show you have produced enough evidence, if believed by a jury, to prove D has breached his duty. It is used when the standard of care is not obvious.
3 requisites are:
1) The event that caused injury wouldn't ordinarily occur without negligence
2) it is mroe likely than not it was D's negligence that was responsible for the event
3) P was not responsible for the event that cause dinjury.
**Note: in FL Res Ipsa does not apply to actions re: tire blowouts when the blowout occurred after possession and use by another.

Front 44

Cause-in-fact- what test? How proven?

Back 44

Ties breach of duty to injury. BUT FOR test. Must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence or there is no negligence claim.

Front 45

When do you use the substantial factor test?

Back 45

When there are 2 or more D's that result in the injury to P and each action taken alone would have been sufficient. This corrects the mechanical but for application which would limit liability in these situations

Front 46

What happens when there are multiple defendants who contributed to harm?

Back 46

FL is a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, such that each D is responsible for his % fault.

Front 47

What happens when there are several defendants each acting independently, but can't identify which D's conduct actually caused P's injury??

Back 47

Each D's conduct may be regarded as a cause-in-fact- of P's injury

Front 48

Med mal - unconscious at time of injury- special rule:

Back 48

In a med mal case, if patient was unconscious- he may rely on the inference of negligence even though D can't prove who caused injury and doctors didn't each have exclusive control.

Front 49

What is proximate cause?

Back 49

It is the legal cause of the injury and it D's conduct must also be the proximate cause of the injury. D is generally still liable even if his actions result in an unforeseeable extent, type, or manner of harm

Front 50

What is a superseding cause?

Back 50

An unforeseeable, intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation and releaves tortfeasor of all liability. Types of superseding causes 1) criminal acts of third persons, 2) intentional torts of 3rd persons, 3) extraordinary forms of negligent conduct, 4) acts of god.

Front 51

What is an intervening force?

Back 51

If the intervening force was foreseeable, D will be liable. *negligent rescue
*subsequent disease
*subsequent med mal

Front 52

What does a P have to do to get punitive damages in florida?

Back 52

P must prove by clear and convincing evidence that D acted intentionally or with willful, wanton or gross misconduct. Generally limited to the greater of 3X compensatory award of $500k. No cap if there was specific intent to harm P and D did in fact harm P. For child/handicapped/elder abuse, punative damages may exceed the limit if P offers clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that award is excessive.

Front 53

What are the damages consequences for being impaired by alcohol or drugs at the time of incident?

Back 53

there is no cap on punitive damages

Front 54

What is special about med mal damages?

Back 54

Caps have been placed on the recovery of noneconomic damages.

Front 55

What happens if the D in a med mal case refuses claimants offer of vol binding arbitration?

Back 55

Recover of noneconomic damages are limited to 500k and attys fees of up to 25% of the total award.

Front 56

How does voluntary arbitration preclude other remedies and limit damages?

Back 56

1) Net economic damages are limited to past and future med expenses and 80% of wage loss, offset by collateral source payments.
2) noneconomic damages are limited to 250k per incident
3) punitive damages are not permitted.

Front 57

What happens if the claimant in a med mal case rejects voluntary arbitration and proceeds to trial?

Back 57

HEr noneconomic damages are limited to 350k

Front 58

What is Pure comparative negligence? Seat belt note?

Back 58

Apportionment of damages tracks apportionment of fault perfectly. A FL jury may consider that a P failed to use an available and operational seat belt if that failure substantially contributed to the plaintiff's injuries. It is not negligence per se to not wear a seatbelt, it isn't a prima facie case of neg and it's not considered in damage mitigation.

Front 59

Assumption of risk

Back 59

If P expressly or impliedly consents to undergo the risk created by D's conduct.

Front 60

Strict Liability definition

Back 60

D is liable for injuring P whether or not D exercised due care. 2 types- possession of animals and abnormally dangerous activities.

Front 61

Dog Bite Statute

Back 61

FL has abolished the common law one-bite rule for dogs. Owner is liable regardless of dog's former visciousness or owner's knowledge of propensity. Liability is owed to P in a public place or lawfully in a private place. No strict liability if P provokes dog. Bad Dog signs are a complete bar to suit if owner hasn't been negligent unless the victim is 6 or under. Comparative negligence will reduce owner's liability.

Front 62

Analysis of strict liability related to animals

Back 62

Dog Statute- also, it depends on the nature of P's injury and whether the animal is wild or domestic.

Front 63

Analysis for Strict liability related to abnormally dangerous activities:

Back 63

Consider whether:
1) activity creates risk of serious injury to P, his land, or his chattel.
2) this risk cannot be eliminated by the exercisde of due care.
3) the activity is not usually conducted in that area. (dynamiting, crop dusting, and exterminating have been found to be abnormally dangerous)

Front 64

Defenses to Strict Liability

Back 64

MAY NOT claim contributory negligence. Comparative negligence may reduce damages. P may be found to have assumed the risk of injury and be barred from recovery in a strict liability situation if P knew of and appreciated the danger and voluntarily exposed himself to the danger.

Front 65

Strict products liability analysis

Back 65

Must have 3 things: Proper P, Proper D, and defect.

Front 66

Strict products liability- Proper P analysis

Back 66

If SL is applicable, Any P injured while using a defective product may recover damages from an appropriate D. This includes- purchasers, consumers, their family, friends, guests, and employees. Modern trend toward allowing one not using a product to claim SL if it was reasonably foreseeable that such a P might be injured- ex: bystander hurt when defective steering wheel causes accident.

Front 67

Strict products liability- Proper defendant analysis

Back 67

A person who assembles parts into a product is SL for defects in components use. Manufacturer of component part is SL for defects in the component. If the finished product is defective because assembler put the component to an unsuitable use, component manuf is usually not liable unless manuf knew or should have known component was being misuesed. A rebuilder/reconditioner is often held to be the equiv of a manuf and may be SL for defects in reconditioned goods. Retailers and commercial lessors are subject to SL for defects in new goods they sell or lease. Comm. Lessors are subject to SL for defective used goods and there is split auth as to whether a retailer is sub to SL for used goods it sells.

Front 68

Strict products liability- defect analysis

Back 68

Strict liability is imposed where a product is in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous.

Front 69

Product liability- absence of warnings

Back 69

products may be dangerously defective when it has an inadequate warning or no warning. Some products are so obviously dangerous that a warning is considered unnecessary - like a sharp knife.

Front 70

Prod Liability - absence of warnings- rebuttable presumption

Back 70

In FL compliance with gov regulations may create a rebuttable presumption that a P is not defective or unreasonably dangerous. To raise this presumption, manuf must show:
1) the product complied with federal/state statutes, rules or standards
2) statutes or standards were designed to prevent the type of harm that occurred and
3) compliance with the statutes or standards is required as a condition of selling the product.

Front 71

Product liability- cause in fact

Back 71

The defect that injured P must have been in existence at the time it left D's control. It may be necessary to establish that other handlers did not mistreat or alter the product.

Front 72

Product liability defenses

Back 72

Misuse: P uses product in a manner neither intended nor foreseeable.
Comparative negligence- % fault apportionment - usually limited to misuse/abnormal use or independent negligence situations

Front 73

Products liability based on negligence

Back 73

Elements of PL claim based in negligence are the same elements that are a part of a negligence action.

Front 74

Products Liability based on a warranty theory

Back 74

Liability arises from the fact that a product is not as represented (expressly or impliedly by D). P must establish a warranty existed as to the product and the product does not conform to that warranty.

Front 75

Products Liability- failure to notify seller

Back 75

The UCC provides a P must notify a D/seller of the breach of warranty within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered it. This does not apply where P is a bystander wh suffers personal injury.

Front 76

Public nuisance

Back 76

An unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. To enjoin or abate a PN one must: 1) have the right to recover damages, 2) have authority as a pub official or agency to rep the state or a political subdivision in the matter, or have standing to sue as a rep of the general public as a citizen in a citizen's action or as a member of a class in a class action

Front 77

Private nuisance

Back 77

a thing or activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with P's use and enjoyment of her land. Distinguish trespass which is physical invasion- nuisance is not necessarily.The invasion of interest must be intentional and unreasonable or unintentional and otherwise actionable under the rules controlling liability for negligent or reckles conduct.

Front 78

Defenses to Nuisance

Back 78

Coming to the nuisance- the fact that P has acquired or improved his land after a nuisance will not bar the action but it is a factor to consider whether the nusiance is actionable.
Compliance with statute- is a relevant and persuasive but not absolute defense to neglience.

Front 79

Defamation- what to prove

Back 79

that D published to a 3rd party who reasonably understands, material concerning P that caused reputational damage.

Front 80

What is a defamatory message?

Back 80

it lowers P in the esteem of the community or discourages third persons from associating with him. One that holds P up to hatred, ridicule, contempt, or scorn.

Front 81

What is publication? (defamation)

Back 81

P must prove that some reasonable 3rd person who received defamatory message understood it to refer to P. IF P is not specifically named, she must allege through colloquium that some people will interpret the communication to be about her. A message is deemed published if D negligently permitted it to be communicated to third persons.

Front 82

Types of defamation

Back 82

Libel- written, video, picture, sound recording- any permanent form.
Slander- spoken or not preserved permanently.

Front 83

Common law defenses to defamation- list

Back 83

1) truth
2) absolute privilege
3) qualified privilege

Front 84

Defense to Defamation- absolute privilege

Back 84

Legislator is not liable for defam message uttered on the floor of legislature or during hearings or committee proceedings. A participant in judicial proceedings isn't liable for defam message that is reasonably related to the proceedings.

Front 85

Defense to Defamation- qualified privilege

Back 85

D who communicates on a matter of interest to recipient is qualifiedly immune. D is immune from liability if messages are republished in a report of public hearings or meetings as long as D's report is fair and accurate. QP is lost if D doesn't possess an honest belief in the truth of the defamatory message.

Front 86

Defamation- retraction

Back 86

FL requires a defamation P to serve written notice on a media defendant at least 5 days before filing suit. P's retraction notice must list when the defam message was broadcast. If media member fully retracts the libel within 10 days and if the original publication was made in good faith- then only actual damages are recovered.

Front 87

Malice- defamation

Back 87

Where a P is a public official or public figure P must establish that D acted with malice. Proof of common law express malice is required to defeant a common law qualified privilege. Common law express malice requires a showing that D's primary motive was to injure the plaintiff.

Front 88

Good Samaritan Law- generally

Back 88

FL good sam law provides civil protection to anyone, including doctors, who gratuitiously, in good faith, and in the use of ordinary care aids a victim at an accident.

Front 89

Good Sam Law- hospitals/doctors

Back 89

Protects emergency workers unless the conduct is reckless. Recklessness= 1) she knew or should have known at the time services were rendered that her actions created unreasonable risk of injury that affects the life or health of another. 2) that risk was substantially greater than the risk necessary to make her conduct negligent.

Front 90

Libel per se and libel per quod- what do you have to prove with media defendant.

Back 90

FL doesn't distinguish. Actual damages must be proved in any case of libel brought against media defendant unless P can prove the defamatory statement was made with actual malice

Front 91

Invasion of Privacy: list 4 types

Back 91

1) intrusion upon seclusion
2) appropriateion of identity of likeness
3) public disclosure of private facts
4) Portrayal in a false light.

Front 92

Inv of Priv- Intrusion upon seclusion

Back 92

D unreasonably intrudes into P's seclusion. Physical intrusions (webcam) non-physical intrusions (taking photos from off property). It must be HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE TO A REASONABLE PERSON

Front 93

Inv of Priv- Appropriateion of identity or likeness

Back 93

Appropriation is an unauthorized use of P's identity or likeness for D's commercial advantage.

Front 94

Inv of Priv- Public disclosure of private facts.

Back 94

D unreasonably discloses private facts about P to the public. It has to be highly offensive to a reasonable person and not of legit public concern. The facts must be disseminated to the PUBLIC not just a 3rd person. Can't be on an element of P's life that is open to public view or on public record. Private matters in public records are absolutely privileged.

Front 95

Inv of Priv- Portrayal in a false light

Back 95

When D publishes matters that portray P in a false light to a SUBSTANTIAL number of people. It means attributing to P views he doesn't hold or actions he didn't take. False light must be such that a reasonable person would find it highly offensive. (this is a lesser form of offensive falseness than needed for defamation)

Front 96

Invasion of privacy- Defenses and privileges

Back 96

1) truth- absolute defense to portrayal in false light
2) consent
3)privilege

Front 97

Invasion of privacy-Constitutional issues

Back 97

Where a P is portrayed in a false light as to a matter of public interest, P must prove that D has acted with New York Times malice---knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity--in order to recover.

Front 98

Intentional misrepresentation (fraud)- definition

Back 98

Intentional misrep by D made with SCIENTER which is material and justifiably relied upon by P and which causes damages to P.

The misrep is an assertion of false past or present fact. (usually not opinion unless relied on) A misrep can consist of 1) false assertion 2) active concealment or 3) an ommission of fact. D ,ist intend that P or a class of persons of which P is a member will act or fail to act in reliance on this misrep.

Front 99

Interference with contractual relations

Back 99

Inducing breach of K.

Front 100

Vicarious Liability - Employee-employer

Back 100

Respondeat superior. Emp is liable for injuries caused by negligence or strict liability of emp of the tortious act occurred within the scope of employment. Intentional torts aren't usually given respondeat superior even if committed during working hours. HOWEVER if an emp uses force to wholly or partly further the employer's purpose, such use of force might result in vicarious liability for emp.

Front 101

Vicarious Liability- Independent contractor

Back 101

D is generally not liable for torts of ind contr because he is no control over cont activities. Except in 3 situaitions: 1) contractor undertakes a nondelagable duty (keeping streets in good repair, maintaing a fence around a hole)
2) Contractor engages in inherently dangerous activities- poisonous gasses, explosives in an urban setting etc.
3) D is an owner-occupier and the injured is a business invitee

Front 102

Vicarious Liability- joint enterprise

Back 102

Partners and joint venturers are vicariously liable for each others' torts if those torts were committed in the course and scope of the partnership or joint venture.

Front 103

Does FL have an automobile guest statute?

Back 103

Nope

Front 104

What is Dangerous instrumentality doctrine?

Back 104

Owner of instrumentality capable of causing death or destruction must answer for its misuse by anyone operating it with owner's knowledge and consent.

Front 105

What is the theory of negligent entrustment?

Back 105

Imposes liability on supplier of a chattel who provides something for use by the other person who knwos or has reason to know that the person supplied is likely because of youth, inexperience, or otherwise to use the chattel in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to user or other foreseeable persons. Actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition is irrelevant only if the premises are operated in a negligent mode that could reaosnably cause the business owner or possessor to anticipate that dangerous conditions would arise from the mode of operation. Also applies to car owner who allows another to drive.

Front 106

Modified No fault auto insurance

Back 106

FL has adopted a modified no fault insurance system. The injured person's insurance must pay out of pocket expenses, regardless of fault, to a max of 10k. Injured may recover for pain and suff, mental anguish, inconvenience if he has suffered signif and perm loss of important bodily function, perm injury, signif and perm disfigurement or death. Injured person may also sue in tort to recover med expenses and lost income in excess of the 10k in benefits paid by insurance carrier.

Front 107

Tavernkeepers

Back 107

A person who knowingly serves alcohol to a person habitually addicted to the acohol may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intox. Further if someone willfully and unlawfully gives alcohol to a minor, the server may become liable for resulting injuries.

Front 108

Is there interspousal tort immunity in FL

Back 108

Nope!

Front 109

Governmental Immunity

Back 109

Government Tort Claims Act- the state and subdivisions are liable for PI, death, or prop dam caused by the neglig or wrongful conduct of pub employees acting within the scope of their employment. The employee is not personally liable unless the act was intentional or willful. Intentional torts are not covered. Immunity waiver doesn't apply to discretionary or planning level functions. There is a 100k damage limit per P and 200k per accident.

Front 110

Survival of actions

Back 110

FL lets CoAs survive the death of the P even the survival of intangible personal torts like defamation. However, if the injury that would be the basis for a survival action results in the victim's death, the CoA must be brought under the wrongful death statute.

Front 111

wrongful death

Back 111

A wrongful death action is instituted by the personal representative for the benefit of the decedent's survivors and his estate. The repres may recover for the survivors the value of lost support, loss of decedent's companionship and protection, and mental pain and suffering.