Mbe Questions - Misc Rules

Front 1

Idiosyncratic Emotional Harm in Neg Action

Back 1

P MAY recover for idiosyncratic emotional harm - even if she's particularly susceptible to emotional distress - IF the physical injury accompanying the emotional harm was foreseeable.

Front 2

Pedestrian killed by driver and no eyewitnesses

Back 2

Driver's negligence is inferred. If there's E of negligence, case should go to trial and judge should deny motion for directed verdict.

Front 3

Comparative Negligence Juris

Back 3

P can recover to extent of D's neg even if P contributorily negligent (e.g. P 99% neg and D 1% neg, P can recover 1% of damages)

Front 4

Defamation of a Group

Back 4

if the group is sufficiently large, no cause of action for any one member of the group. (250 is sufficiently large)

Front 5

Intoxication = Negligence?

Back 5

NO - intoxication ALONE doesn't equal negligence OR contrib neg

Front 6

elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress

Back 6

1. conduct was EXTREME & OUTRAGEOUS
2. it was intentional or reckless
3. P actually suffered emotional distress

Front 7

Common Law Rule - Liab of co-tortfeasors

Back 7

Joint & Several Liab

Front 8

Are neg tortfeasors entitled to indemnification?

Back 8

No - only contribution (e.g. buying dented cans and serving contents to guests when contents are not edible b/c of damage to cans)

Front 9

Damages when there's destruction of property that has become dangerous to the community:

Back 9

can NOT collect damages in this case b/c protecting the community is valid objective of police power

Front 10

Assumption Of Risk Defense - Requirements

Back 10

Generally: That the P knowingly entered into or stayed in a position of danger.

Products Liab: That the P's voluntary assumption of risk was UNREASONABLE under the circumstances.

Front 11

Respondeat Superior - Servant Liab

Back 11

Respondeat Superior doesn't relieve servant of liab, it just adds the master as another potential defendant.

Front 12

Nuisance Action - Elements

Back 12

1. D's conduct w/ respect to neighboring land interfered w/ P's enjoyment of his land.
2. Interference is result of intentional, negligent, or ultrahazardous conduct
3. Interference is substantial and unreasonable

Front 13

2 definitions of "intentional conduct" in tort

Back 13

1. D desired that the result would occur

2. D takes steps so that it's substantially certain that the act will occur, even if D didn't subjectively desire its occurrence.

(e.g. - if a mentally ill person throws a rock at someone but didn't DESIRE to harm him, he has still engaged in intentional conduct because, by taking the steps to actually throw the rock at the person, he has made it substantially certain that harm will occur.)

Front 14

Pure Comparative Negligence Statute

Back 14

A party can prevail regardless of whether is his negligence exceeded the other party's, as long as the other party WAS negligent also. Prevailing party can recover the percentage of damages attributable to the other party's negligence.

Front 15

Per Se Negligence Juris

Back 15

Unexcused violation of a criminal statute or ordinance is CONCLUSIVE proof of negligence, and not just some E of it. (BUT, P still has to give D opportunity to present defenses)

Front 16

Strict Liability for Domestic Animals

Back 16

An owner will be held STRICTLY liab for injuries caused by his domestic animal IF the owner knew or should've known of the animal's violent temperament or dangerous tendencies.

Front 17

Good Samaritan Doctrine

Back 17

Once one undertakes to rescue someone, he has a duty to act w/ reasonable care (and follow through w/ the rescue if, by not completing the rescue, the victim would be worse off than if the rescuer had never started the rescue process in the first place)

Front 18

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Back 18

permits the finder of fact to find negligence on the part of the D even though the P has produced no DIRECT E of the D's negligence - such negligence may be inferred from circumstantial E.

P must ultimately establish under res ipsa loquitur that it's more likely than not that the harm to the P resulted from the D's negligence rather than from some other cause.

Front 19

Personal Injury Damages

Back 19

1. for pain & suffering, past & future
2. for diminution of earning capacity, past & future
3. for medical expenses, past & future
4. in most states, for loss of consortium

Front 20

Relevant E

Back 20

E having a tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable that it would be w/out the E.

Ask - does the piece of E tend to prove or disprove a material fact?

Front 21

Introducing "Refreshing Recollection" E

Back 21

Any document may be used by the Witness to refresh witness's recollection, but it CANNOT be introduced into E by the PRODUCING party. However, it CAN be introduced by the adverse party.

Front 22

Leading questions may be used:

Back 22

1. in preliminary matters
2. w/ a hostile witness
3. on cross
4. when questioning a W experiencing memory loss
5. When questioning a child or immature W.

Front 23

Prior Sworn Inconsistent Stmts (for Hearsay purposes)

Back 23

Stmts made at trials, hearings, and depositions - but NOT prior sworn stmts in affidavits - are NOT hearsay.

Front 24

Admission by Employee

Back 24

Statement made WHILE the EE was employed by the ER (if the EE had retired when he made the stmt, it would NOT be an admission by an EE)

Front 25

Then-Existing State of Mind

Back 25

Hearsay exception

Stmt as to D's state of mind at the time of the stmt

includes: intent, plan, motive, design, etc.

Front 26

Hearsay Exceptions: Declarant's availability immaterial

Back 26

1. present sense impression
2. excited utterance
3. present state of mind
4. past recollection recorded
5. business records
6. absence of business records
7. public records
8. absence of public records
9. records of vital stats
10. stmt for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment
11. documents affecting property interests
12. family records
13. ancient documents
14. market reports
15. learned treatises
16. reputation of character
17. reputation stmts
18. final judgments
19. catchall

Front 27

Permitted uses of E of Prior Bad Acts

Back 27

- motive or opportunity
- intent or knowledge
- absence of mistake
- identity
- common scheme, plan, or preparation