Legal Analysis - Torts

Front 1

Torts:


a. Act by Defendant (volitional movement)
b. Intent (specific or general)
i. Transferred intent (tort to tort and person to person
c. Causation (direct or substantial factor

Back 1

Intentional Torts

Front 2

Torts:

1. Assault is the intentional placing of another in reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact.

Back 2

intentional tort:

assault

Front 3

torts:

1. A battery is the intentional causing of a harmful or offensive contact with another

Back 3

intentional torts:

battery

Front 4

torts:

1. A defendant is liable for false imprisonment where she intentionally causes plaintiff to be confined or restrained to a bounded area.
a. Sufficient methods of confinement include:
b. Insufficient methods of confinement include: moral pressure and future threats
c. P must know of confinement or be harmed by it.
d. An area is bounded when there is no reasonable means of escape known to plaintiff.

Back 4

intentional torts:

false imprisonment

Front 5

torts:

i. Trespass to Land
ii. Trespass to Chattel
iii. Conversion

Back 5

property

Front 6

torts:

i. Consent
ii. Self Defense
iii. Defense of Others
iv. Defense of Property
v. Privileged Arrest

Back 6

intentional torts : defenses

Front 7

torts:

i. Does the statement involve a matter of public concern? (Do not write this on the paper, just question whether it is to pick a side).
ii. All statements about public figures involve matters of public concern.

Back 7

defamation

Front 8

torts:

1. It is a constitutional defamation analysis, three things:
a. Is the statement defamatory,
b. Is it of and concerning the plaintiff,
c. Is it published to a third party.
i. If NO on all three then there is no liability.
ii. If YES then we have to ask, (1) is the falsity of the statement established. If NO then no liability. If YES, then ask yourself if the plaintiff is a public figure or official (have to show actual malice – knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth and damages will be presumed), or a private person (can show actual malice or can show negligence and actual damage).

Back 8

defamation:

matter of public concern

Front 9

torts:

a. Is the statement defamatory
b. Is it of and concerning the plaintiff
c. Is it polished to a third party
i. IF YES:
1. Is the statement libel or slander per se: 4 ways
a. Injures the person in business or there profession.
b. Statement that says they have a loathsome disease.
c. Accuses them of a crime.
d. Impotent or un chastity
i. For all of these damages are presumed.
ii. If doesn’t fit into this then have to show special damages.
ii. If NO not liable.
iii. All roads lead to defenses.

Back 9

defamation:

not a matter of public concern

Front 10

torts:

i. Duty, Breach, actual, and proximate cause, and damages.
ii. If we have a violation of statute issue: the statute comes first because it gives us duty and breach first. Also known as negligence per se. For a Statute:
1. Have to show that it has a criminal penalty
2. Clearly defined standard of conduct.
3. Statute is designed to prevent the type of harm suffered by this plaintiff.

Back 10

negligence

Front 11

torts:

iii. Duty:
1. Defendant had a duty to act reasonably under the circumstances.
iv. Breach:
v. Actual Cause
1. But for Test for causation
2. Substantial Factors test, when there is concurrent causes
vi. Proximate Cause
1. Rarely a real issue
2. Forseeability
vii. Damages
1. See Remedies Outline

Back 11

negligence

Front 12

torts:

a. Last Clear Chance Issue
b. Contributory negligence is negligence on the part of the plaintiff and proves the plaintiffs negligence and is a complete bar to recovery, unless defendant had last clear chance to avoid the injury.

Back 12

negligence:

Defenses - Contributory Negligence

Front 13

Torts:

a. WE reduce the defendant’s liability to the percentage that the plaintiff is at fault.

Back 13

negligence:

defenses - comparative fault

Front 14

torts:

a. Plaintiff knew of the risk and voluntarily proceeded.

Back 14

negligence:

defenses - assumption of the risk

Front 15

torts:

i. It is an issue when the fact pattern states that the defendant exercised care or reasonable care or proceeded cautiously.
ii. Look for whether it involves an animal or does it involve an ultra hazardous abnormal dangerous activity.

Back 15

strict liability

Front 16

torts:

the activity poses a risk of serious harm, it is an activity that cannot be done without risk no matter how much care you exercise, it is not something that is commonly engaged in the community, the court will weight ht value of the activity with the appropriateness of the location. If we meat all of this criteria then you are strictly liable for damages.

Back 16

strict liability:

hazardous

Front 17

torts:

i. For all theories below cover that there is a defective product, and that it had that defect at the time it left the defendants control.
1. Intentional Theory (battery)
2. Strict Liability
3. Negligence
4. Warranties
5. Representations

Back 17

products liability

Front 18

torts:

1. Start with looking at whether there is a defect in manufacturing, meaning that it was not properly made or the way that it was made makes it more dangerous, and have to keep in mind that manufacturers are presuming consumer risk use.

Back 18

products liabilty: how to prove a defect

Front 19

torts:

everything in the line is the same but the product has some kind of dangerous propensity. Two Test:
a. Consumer Expectation Test: it is not safe for its intended use.
b. Feasible Alternative Test: It could have been made safe without a serious impact on its price or utility.

Back 19

products liability:

design defect

Front 20

torts:

Design defect and warning go hand and hand.
4. Have to warn of risk that are not apparent to users.

Back 20

products liability:

inadequate warning or failure to warn

Front 21

torts:

Usually a batter, because the person must have intended the consequences or knew they were substantially certain to occur.

Back 21

products liability - theories:

intent theory

Front 22

torts:

a. There is a strict duty by a commercial supplier.
b. Not to put a defective product into the stream of commerce. Defective at the same of sale or distribution
c. And liable where it causes damages.
d. Negligence Analysis.

Back 22

products liability: theories:

strict liability 4 elements

Front 23

torts:

3. Implied Warranty Theory: every product carries an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness of a particular purpose.
4. Express Warranties: affirmation of fact or some sort of promise about the goods. Can do puffing but no express warranty about product that isn’t going to be true.

Back 23

products liability: theories

Front 24

torts:

a. Person made a statement of material fact about the quality of the goods.
b. Intended to reduce reliance on the fact.
c. Causation of Damages

Back 24

products liability: theories:

misrepresentation

Front 25

torts:

1. Something that causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with an individuals use and enjoyment of there property.
2. Also look at trespass when we look at private nuisance.
3. Trespass is a physical invasion that interferes with your right to possession.

Back 25

private nuisance

Front 26

torts:

1. An unreasonable interference with the Health, Safety, or Property Rights of the community.
2. Private Party needs to show unique damages in order to recover money. Usually just an injunction.

Back 26

nuisance: publice nuisance

Front 27

torts:

iii. Defenses
iv. For Nuisance want to think about remedies.

Back 27

nuisance