Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

27 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back

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
Intentional Torts

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


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

false imprisonment

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

i. Consent
ii. Self Defense
iii. Defense of Others
iv. Defense of Property
v. Privileged Arrest
intentional torts : defenses

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.

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).

matter of public concern

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.

not a matter of public concern

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.

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

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.

Defenses - Contributory Negligence

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

defenses - comparative fault

a. Plaintiff knew of the risk and voluntarily proceeded.

defenses - assumption of the risk

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.
strict liability

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.
strict liability:


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
products liability

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.
products liabilty: how to prove a defect

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.
products liability:

design defect

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

inadequate warning or failure to warn

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

intent theory

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.
products liability: theories:

strict liability 4 elements

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.
products liability: theories

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
products liability: theories:


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.
private nuisance

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.
nuisance: publice nuisance

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