New York Bar Torts

Front 1

Elements of Intentional Torts

Back 1

Plaintiff must prove:

Voluntary act

Intent

Causation

Front 2

Voluntary Act

Back 2

State of mind that directed the physical movement.

Front 3

Intent

Back 3

Defendant acts with the purpose of causing consequence (act that constitutes the tort, not necessarily the harm), or act knowing the consequence is substantially certain to occur.

Front 4

Transferred Intent

Back 4

Intent applies if it causes:

1. different intent tort

2. same tort against diff person

3. different intent tort against diff person

Front 5

Battery

Back 5

Elements:

1.defendant causes a harmful or offensive contact

2.acts with the intent to cause the contact or the apprehension of contact

Front 6

Defense to Battery

Back 6

1. No battery if express of implied consent.

2. No battery if the contact does not cause injury or is not objectively offensive. (if defendant is aware that plaintiff is hypersensitive, still liable)

Front 7

Damages for Battery

Back 7

1. not required to be foreseeable

2. can recover nonminal damages

3. can allow recovery for punitive damages if acted with malice or outrageously

Front 8

Assault

Back 8

1.Plaintiff's reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact

2. Defendant must act with the intent to cause the apprehension or contact.

Front 9

Apprehension of Assault

Back 9

1. Must be imminent (without significant delay)

2. Actual fear not required, but awareness or knowledge is.

Front 10

Damages for Assault

Back 10

1.No proof of actual damages required

2. Nominal damages

3. Punitive damages if appropriate

4. Damages from physical harm also recoverable.

Front 11

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 11

1. Intentionally or recklessly acting;

2. with extreme or outrageous conduct;

3. that causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress.

**No transferred intent.

Front 12

IIED: Conduct

Back 12

Exceeds the possible limits of human decency.

Front 13

IIED: Most likely when. . .

Back 13

1. defendant is in a position of authority or influence (special relationship)

2. plaintiff is a member of a group with a known heightened sensitivity (pregnant women, young children, elderly person)

Front 14

IIED: Conduct directed toward third party

Back 14

1. if the conduct is directed at member of victim's immediate family, defendant is aware, doesn't matter if physical injury.

2. if there is a bystander and the defendant is aware, and results in bodily injury to bystander.

Front 15

Damages for IIED

Back 15

1.Plaintiff must prove severe emotional distress beyond what a reasonable could endure

2. Do not have to prove physical injury unless bystander.

Front 16

False Imprisonment Elements

Back 16

1. Person acts intending to confine or restrain another within boundaries fixed by the actor

2. Those actions directly or indirectly result in confinement

3. and plaintiff is aware of the confinement or harmed by it.

Front 17

Shopkeeper Privilege

Back 17

Reasonable detention of a suspected shoplifter is not an invalid use of authority and not false imprisonment.

Front 18

Damages for False Imprisonment

Back 18

1. actual damages do not need to be proved unless the plaintiff was unaware of the confinement.

2. punitive damages where appropriate.

Front 19

Defenses to Intentional Torts Involving Personal Injury

Back 19

1. Consent

2. Self-Defense

3. Defense of Property

Front 20

Defense to Intentional Tort: Consent

Back 20

1. Express

cannot exceed the scope of the consent

Will not hold: mistake, fraud, duress

2. Implied

athletic injuries- only liable if conduct is reckless.

Front 21

Defense to Intentional Tort: Self-Defense

Back 21

1. Reasonable force (reasonably proportionate)

2. Duty to retreat? Not if in home or curtilage (or place where legally entitled to be).

3. Initial agressor not entitled to self-defense.

4. Can also defend others based on reasonable belief that the party would be entitled to use self defense.

Front 22

Defense to Intentional Tort: Defense of Property

Back 22

1. reasonable force

2. deadly force cannot be used

3. recapture of chattels unless they were originally taken lawfully, then can only use peaceful means.

4. Cannot use force to retake land.

Front 23

Privilege of Arrest

Back 23

1. Private citizen permitted to use force if felony has been committed, reasonable belief to suspect that the person committed, can mistake identity

2. police must reasonably believe a felony has been committed and person arrested committed - if make mistake as to whether a felony has been committed is not liable.

3. misdemeanor- arrest only if is being committed or reasonable appears to be about to be committed in presence of police officer. If private citizen, can additionally only be made if there is breach of peace.

Front 24

Trespass to Chattels

Back 24

Intentional interference with plaintiff's right of possession by either:

1. Dispossessing the plaintiff of the chattel

2. Using or intermeddling with the chattel

Damages:

1. actual damages and damages caused from loss of use

2. recover actual damages

Remedy: diminution in value, cost of repair

Front 25

Conversion

Back 25

1. Itentionally commits an act to deprive or interfer in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff entirely of the use of the chattel.

2. Dominion or control.

3. The seriousness of the action can convert trespass to conversion.

4. Damages in the amount of the full value of the converted property at the time of conversion OR replevin.

Front 26

Trespass to land

Back 26

1. intentional act cause a physical invaion of the land of another.

2. mistake of fact is not a defense.

3. No proof of actual damages is required.

Front 27

Necessity

Back 27

1. Defense to trespassing.

2. Private necessity- must pay for actual damages in effort to save own life or property.

3. Public necessity- protect large number of people from public calamities, not liable for the damage to property. (absolute privilege)

Front 28

Private Nuisance

Back 28

1. an activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the another's use and enjoyment of his land.

2. Interference can be intentional, negligent, reckless, or the result of abnormally dangerous conduct.

3. Offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to a normal, reasonable person in the community

Front 29

Defense to Private Nuisance

Back 29

1. Compliance with state or local regulations not a complete defense.

2. "coming to the nuisance" not a complete defense.

Both evidence that a jury can consider.

Front 30

Public Nuisance

Back 30

Unreasonable interference with a right common to the general publiv.

A private citizen has a claim for public nuisance only if she suffers harm that is different in kind from that suffered by members of general public.

Front 31

Injunction

Back 31

Court order abating the nuisance

Front 32

Damages for Nuisance

Back 32

1. Harmed suffered

2. Permanent damages for continuing nuisance with public benefit (utility)

Front 33

Negligence

Back 33

1. failure to exercise care that a reasonable person would exercise in that situation

2.breaches duty to prevent foreseeable risks of harm to others and must be cause of plaintiff's injuries.

Front 34

Negligence (elements)

Back 34

1. duty

2. breach

3. causation

4. damages

Front 35

Duty

Back 35

There is a legal duty owed to all foreseeable persons that may be injured by failure to folow reasonable standard of care.

Front 36

Failure to Act

Back 36

No duty to act affirmatively. Except:

1. assumption of duty when voluntarily aids.

2. placing another in danger

3. by authority, actual ability to control

4. special relationship- carrier-passenger, bussiness-patron

Front 37

Foreseeability of harm

Back 37

Duty of care is owed to plaintiff only if she is a member of the class of persons who might foreseeably harmed. Zone of danger.

for instance: rescuers.

Front 38

Standard of Care

Back 38

Reasonably prudent person under the circumsances.

Objective.

Mental and emotional characteristics are considered average.

Physical characteristics are taken into account.

Child's age is taken into account. (unless engaged in adult activity)

Intoxication is only taken into account if it was involuntary.

Front 39

Standard of Care: Custom

Back 39

Relevant evidence, but not per se negligent because entire community could be negligent.

Front 40

Standard of Care: Physicians and Professionals

Back 40

1.traditional rule- same or similar locality

2.modern trend- national standard

3. provide informed consent: must explain risks of medical procedures not required if common risk, unconscious, refused, incompetent, or harmed by disclosure.

Professionals are expected to exhibit the same skill, knowledge, and care as another practitioner in the same community.

Front 41

Negligence Per Se

Back 41

1. criminal law or regulatory statute imposes particular duty

2. neglects to perform duty

3.liable to class of people intended to be protected

4. for and accidents or types of harm intended to protect against

5. if harm was proximately caused by violation of the statute

Front 42

Negligence Per Se: Defenses

Back 42

1. Compliance was impossible.

2. Violation was reasonable under the circumstances.

Front 43

Neg: Standard of Care: Common Carriers and Innkeepers

Back 43

Traditional: Highest duty of care.

Majority now: Common carriers held to higher standard, innkeepers liable only for negligence, but have duty to act affirmatively in some cases.

Front 44

Neg: Standard of Care: Drivers and Bailors

Back 44

1. Drivers- if no guest statute, reasonable care

2. Bailors/bailees- duty of care depends on type of bailment- modern trend is reasonable care.

Front 45

Neg: Standard of Care: Possessors of Land

Back 45

1. conduct by the land possessor that creates risk

2. artificial conditions

3. natural conditions

4. affirmative duties

(reasonable care for all but not trespassers or licensee/invitee categories different care)

Front 46

Trespassers

Back 46

1. on the land without consent or privilege

2. traditional approach refrain from willful or wanton misconduct (cannot use spring gund)

3. discovered/anticipated- warn against hidden dangers

4. undiscovered trespasser- no duty

Front 47

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

Back 47

Possessor of land may be liable to injuries to children trespassing if:

1. artificial condition exists where owner knows or have reason to know children will trespass

2. know/reason to know poses unreasonable risk of death or severe bodily harm to children

3. Children cannot discover or appreciate the danger

4. Utility/burden of maintenance are slight compared to risk of injury

5. Fails to exercise reasonable care.

Front 48

Invitees

Back 48

1. public invitee

2. business visitor

Duty of reasonable care to inspect property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect invitee from them.

Not beyond the scope of the invitation

Front 49

Licensee

Back 49

1. social guest

2.tolerated

3. emergency personnel

duty to correct or warn of concealed dangers -no duty to inspect. reasonable care for conducting activities on the land.

Front 50

Landlord and Tenant

Back 50

1. landlord remains liable for injuries to tenant and others occurring: in common areas, injuries from hidden dangers about which landlord did not warn, on premises leased for public use, hazard caused by landlord's negligent repair, or hazard that agreed to repair.

2. Tenant liable for dangerous conditions within control

Front 51

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Back 51

Circumstantial evidence, does not apply if there is direct evidence of the cause of injury.

i) The accident was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence;

ii) It was caused by an agent or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant; &

iii) It was not due to any action on the part of the plaintiff.

Front 52

Neg:Causation

Back 52

1. cause in fact

2. proximate cause/scope of liability

Front 53

Cause in fact

Back 53

The "But for" test- the injury would have have occurred but for the defendant's tortious act or omission.

Front 54

Subsantial factor test

Back 54

i) There are multiple tortfeasors and it cannot be said that the defendant’s tortious conduct necessarily was required to produce the harm;

ii) There are multiple possible causes of the plaintiff’s harm, but the plaintiff cannot prove which defendant caused the harm; or

iii) The defendant’s negligent medical misdiagnosis increased the probability of the plaintiff’s death, but the plaintiff probably would have died even with a proper diagnosis.

Front 55

Loss of chance of recovery

Back 55

When a physician negligently misdiagnoses a potentially fatal disease and reduces the patient’s chance of survival, but the patient’s chance of recovery was less than 50% even prior to the negligent misdiagnosis,the plaintiff can recover an amount equal to the total damages recoverable as a result of the decedent’s death multiplied by the difference in the percentage chance of recovery before the negligent misdiagnosis and after the misdiagnosis.

Front 56

Proximate Cause

Back 56

Scope of liability.

Limited to those harms that result from the risk that made the defendant's conduct tortious.

Front 57

Proximate Cause Factors

Back 57

i) Is there a natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect?

ii) Was the one a substantial factor in producing the other?

iii) Was there a direct connection without the intervention of too many intervening causes?

iv) Was the cause likely to produce the effect?

v) Could the defendant have foreseen the harm to the plaintiff?

vi) Is the cause too remote in time and space from the effect?

Front 58

Intervening cause

Back 58

Factual cause of the plaintiff’s harm that contributes to her harm after the defendant’s tortious act has been completed.

If foreseeable, not superseding.

Front 59

Superseding cause

Back 59

Any intervening cause that breaks the chain of proximate causation between the defendant’s tortious act and the plaintiff’s harm, thereby preventing the original defendant from being liable to the plaintiff.

Front 60

Damages for Neg

Back 60

Must prove actual harm for damages in negligence.

If non-economic damage, can recover both non-economic and economic, but if just economic cannot.

Front 61

Personal Injury Damages

Back 61

i) Medical and rehabilitative expenses, both past and future;

ii) Past and future pain and suffering (e.g., emotional distress); and

iii) Lost income and any reduction in future earnings capacity.

Front 62

Property Damages

Back 62

1. difference b/w fair market value of property before and after injury.

2. cost of repairs - personal property

3. household items- replacement.

Front 63

Collateral Source Rule

Back 63

Traditional rule: benefits or paymens provided to the plaintiff from outside sources are not credited against liaiblity of tortfeasor.

Modern: not a thing in New York.

Front 64

Punitive Damages

Back 64

1. establish clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted willfully and wantonly, recklessly, or with malice.

2. Also available for inherently malicious torts (such as intentional infliction of emotional distress, which requires outrageous conduct).

Front 65

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 65

Negligence creates a foreseeable risk of physical injury to the plaintiff if the defendant’s action causes a threat of physical impact that in turn causes emotional distress. (usually need to show resulted in bodily harm)

Front 66

Bystander NIED

Back 66

In zone of danger OR

outside zone of danger and:

i) Is closely related to the person injured by the defendant;

ii) Was present at the scene of the injury; and
iii) Personally observed (or otherwise perceived) the injury

Front 67

NIED without bodily injury

Back 67

1. mishandling a corpse

2. physician misdiagnoses a disease

Front 68

Wrongful Death Action

Back 68

A decedent’s spouse, next of kin, or personal representative may bring suit to recover losses suffered as a result of a decedent’s death under wrongful-death actions created by state statutes.

Front 69

Damages Wrongful Death Action

Back 69

1. loss of support

2. loss of companionship, society and affection

3. NOT pain and suffering.

Front 70

Survival Action

Back 70

Survival statutes typically enable the personal representative of a decedent’s estate to pursue any claims the decedent herself would have had at the time of her death, including claims for damages resulting from both personal injury and property damage

Front 71

Vicarious Liability

Back 71

Vicarious liability is a form of strict liability in which one person is liable for the tortious actions of another. It arises when one person has the right, ability, or duty to control the activities of another, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the injury.

Front 72

Employer vicarious liability

Back 72

Scope of employment: detour but not frolic.

Not independent contractor.

Not intentional torts (unless force is inherent in employee's work and is authorized).

Front 73

Vicarious Liability with Independent Contractors

Back 73

i) Inherently dangerous activities;

ii) Non-delegable duties

iii) The duty of a storekeeper or other operator of premises open to the public to keep such premises in a reasonably safe condition; and

iv) In a minority of jurisdictions, the duty to comply with state safety statutes.

Front 74

Business Partners

Back 74

Common purpose and mutual control- may be liable for each other's torts committed within the scope of business purpose.

Front 75

Negligent Entrustment

Back 75

Liability for giving something to a person who is not in position to care for dangerous thing.

Front 76

Parents

Back 76

Not liable unless child acted as their agent or statute that provides liability for vandalism or school violence.

Duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent minor child from harming third party if has ability to control child and knows/should know necessity for that control.

Front 77

Immunity: Federal Government

Back 77

1. certain torts

2. discretionary functions

3. government contractor

4. certain traditional governmental activities

no immunity for ministerial acts.

Front 78

Charitable immunity

Back 78

Not a thing, although some states will cap damages against a non-profit.

Front 79

Joint and Several Liability

Back 79

Each of two or more defendants who is found liable for single indivisible harm is subject to liability to the plaintiff for the entire harm.

Front 80

Contribution

Back 80

Joint and severally liable, one defendant has paid more than fair share, can sue for contribution to recover excess of fair share.

Front 81

Pure several liability

Back 81

Each tortfeasor is laible only for proportionate share.

New York: If more than 50% liable, liable for all, if less, than just proportionate share.

Front 82

Indemnification

Back 82

Shifts entire loss from one joint tortfeasor to another party.

Front 83

Contributory Negligence

Back 83

Contributory negligence occurs when a plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care for her own safety and thereby contributes to her own injury.

Common law: complete bar

Front 84

Last Clear Chance

Back 84

In contributory-negligence jurisdictions, the plaintiff may mitigate the legal consequences of her own contributory negligence if she proves that the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff but failed to do so.

Helpless- peril, defendant liable if knew/should have known

Inattentive- defendant liable if knew

Front 85

Comparative Negligence

Back 85

Full damages are calculated by the trier of fact and then reduced by the proportion that the plaintiff's fault bears to the total harm.

Front 86

Modified comparative negligence

Back 86

If the plaintiff and the defendant are found to be equally at fault, then the plaintiff recovers 50% of his total damages.

Front 87

Imputed Contributory Negligence

Back 87

Not a thing- courts do not like limiting one person's recovery because action of another person.

Front 88

Defense to Neg: Assumption of Risk

Back 88

Cannot recover.

Exculpatory clauses. (employers, common carriers and innkeeperscannot disclaim )

Participants and spectators in athletic events.

Front 89

Strict Liability

Back 89

A prima facie case for strict liability requires (i) an absolute duty to make the plaintiff’s person or property safe, (ii) breach, (iii) actual and proximate causation, and (iv) damages.

Front 90

Categories of Strict Liability

Back 90

Dangerous activities

Animals

Defective of dangerous products

Front 91

Dangerous Activities

Back 91

i) Creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and

ii) The activity is not commonly engaged in.

Front 92

Wild Animals

Back 92

A wild animal is an animal that, as a species or a class, is not by custom devoted to the service of humankind in the place where it is being kept. Harm arises from a dangerous propensity that is characteristic of such a wild animal or of which the owner has reason to know.

Front 93

Domestic Animals

Back 93

strict liability only for injuries caused by that animal if he knows or has reason to know of the animal's dangerous propensities.

Front 94

Owner's animals on another's land

Back 94

1. reasonable foreseeable damage

2. exception= household animals.

except when know/reason to know if the pet is intruding on another property.

Front 95

Defense to Strict Liability

Back 95

1. contributory negligence- not defense

2. reduce recovery under comparative

3. assumption of risk is complete bar

4. stautory privilege- party performing essential public service is exempt but can be liable for negligence.

Front 96

Products Liability

Back 96

A product may be defective because of a defect in its design or manufacture or because of a failure to adequately warn the consumer of a hazard related to the foreseeable use of the product.

Front 97

Who is liable for product liability?

Back 97

Manufacturer, retailer, or other distributor

Front 98

Elements of product liability

Back 98

i) The product was defective (in manufacture, design, or failure to warn);

ii) The defect existed at the time the product left the defendant’s control; and

iii) The defect caused the plaintiff’s injuries when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.

Front 99

Manufacuting defect

Back 99

A deviation from what the manufacturer intended the product to be that causes harm to the plaintiff. The test for the existence of such a defect is whether the product conforms to the defendant’s own specifications.

Front 100

Design Defect

Back 100

Consumer-expectation test- condition that is unreasonably dangerous not contemplated by ordinary consumer?

Risk-utility test.

Do risks posed by the product outweigh its benefits? Reasonable alternative design.

Front 101

Failure to Warn

Back 101

If there were foreseeable risks of harm, not obvious to an ordinary user of the product, which risks could have been reduced or avoided by providing reasonable instructions or warnings.

Front 102

Learned Intermediary Rule

Back 102

The manufacturer of a prescription drug typically satisfies its duty to warn the consumer by informing the prescribing physician of problems with the drug rather than informing the patient taking the drug.

Unless know will be dispensed without personal intervention of healthcare provider.

Front 103

Plaintiff/Defendant for Product Liability

Back 103

1. privity not required (anyone foreseeable user)

2. business of selling- not casual seller or auctioneer.

Front 104

Defenses to Product Liability

Back 104

1.contrib does not bar, compare reduces

2. Assumption of risk will reduce in compare

3. misuse, alteration or modification that were not foreseeable bar.

4. substantial change in product- superseding cause that cuts off liability of original manufacturer

5. compliance with government standards- evidence not defense

6. State of the Art Defense- relevant info on level of scientific and technical knowledge whe product made.

Front 105

Warranties

Back 105

Same as under contract law.

Front 106

Defamation

Back 106

i) If the defendant’s defamatory language;

ii) Is of or concerning the plaintiff;

iii) Is published to a third party who understands its defamatory nature; and

iv) Damages the plaintiff’s reputation.

Front 107

Defamation: statement

Back 107

must be false

Front 108

Defamation: refers to group

Back 108

so small that the matter can reasonably be understood to refer to that member

Front 109

Defamation: Public Official/Public Figure

Back 109

Constitution: must show actual malice.

knew was false or acting with reckless disregard to the truth.

Front 110

Defamation: Private Individual

Back 110

Mater of public concern: prove at least negligence and false statement.

Matter not of public concern: strict liability or negligence.

Front 111

Defamation: Opinion

Back 111

Cannot be a basis for a defamation action unless implies knowledge of facts

Front 112

Libel

Back 112

Defamation by words written, printed, or otherwise recorded in permanent form is libel.

TV, radio.

Prove general damages

Front 113

Slander

Back 113

Defamation by spoken word, gesture, or any form other than libel is slander.

Actual damages or concrete harm,

Front 114

Slander per se

Back 114

Treated as libel:

1. committing a crime.

2. conduct reflecting poorly on the plaintiff's trade or profession.

3. having a loathsome disease

4. sexual misconduct

Front 115

Damages for libel/slander

Back 115

Public Official or Public Figure- can only recover actual damages

Private individual and matter of public concern- can only recover actual damages

Private individual and not a matter of public concern- may recover general damages and presumed damages without proving actual malice

Front 116

Defenses to defamation

Back 116

1. Truth- absolute.

2. Privileges:

in the course of judicial proceedings

in the course of legislative proceedings

between a husband and wife

in required publications by radio and TV

3. consent

Front 117

Conditional privileges in defamation defense

Back 117

i) In the interest of the publisher (defendant), such as defending his reputation;

ii) In the interest of the recipient of the statement or a third party; or

iii) Affecting an important public interest.

Front 118

Invastion of Privacy Torts

Back 118

1. Intrustion

2. False Light

3. Appropriation

4. Private Facts

Front 119

Misappropriation of the Right to Pubilicty

Back 119

1. The defendant’s unauthorized appropriation of the plaintiff’s name, likeness, or identity

2. for defendant's advantage

3. lack of consent

4. resulting injury

Front 120

Intrusion Upon Seclusion

Back 120

The defendant’s act of intruding, physically or otherwise, into the plaintiff’s private affairs, solitude, or seclusion in a manner or to a degree objectionable to a reasonable personestablishes liability.

Front 121

False Light

Back 121

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant (i) made public facts about the plaintiff that (ii) placed the plaintiff in a false light, (iii) which false light would be highly offensiveto a reasonable person.

Front 122

Public Disclosure of Public Facts

Back 122

i) The defendant gave publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another; and

ii) The matter publicized is of a kind that:

a) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; and

b) Is not of legitimate concern to the public.

Front 123

Damages for Invasion of Privacy

Back 123

Emotional distress and mental distress are sufficient proof.

Front 124

Intentional Misrepresentation

Back 124

1. false representation about material fact

2. scienter

3. intent

4. causation

5. justifiable reliance

6. damages (actual economic loss)

Front 125

Negligent Misrepresentation

Back 125

i) The defendant, usually an accounting firm or another supplier of commercial information, whoii) Provides false information (the “misrepresentation”) to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s negligence in preparation of the information,iii) Is liable to the plaintiff for pecuniary damages caused by the plaintiff’s justifiable reliance on the information, provided thativ) The plaintiff is either in a contractual relationship with the defendant or is a third party known by the defendant to be a member of the limited group for whose benefit the information is supplied, andv) The information must be relied upon in a transaction that the supplier of the information intends to influence or knows that the recipient of the information intends to influence.

Front 126

Intentional Interference With a Contract

Back 126

i) Knew of a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and a third party;

ii) Intentionally interfered with the contract, resulting in a breach; and

iii) The breach caused damages to the plaintiff.

defense: justification

Front 127

Theft of Trade Secret

Back 127

1. valid trade secret

2. that is not generally known

3. reasonable precaution to protect

4. taken secret by improper means

Front 128

Trade Libel

Back 128

Trade libel imposes tort liability for statements injurious to a plaintiff’s business or products.

Front 129

Trade libel elements

Back 129

i) Publication;

ii) Of a derogatory statement;

iii) Relating to the plaintiff’s title to his business property, the quality of his business, or the quality of its products; and

iv) Interference or damage to business relationships.

Front 130

Slander of title

Back 130

i) Publication;

ii) Of a false statement;

iii) Derogatory to the plaintiff’s title;

iv) With malice;

v) Causing special damages;

vi) As a result of diminished value in the eyes of third parties.

Front 131

Malicious Prosecution

Back 131

i) He intentionally and maliciously institutes or pursues, or causes to be instituted or pursued;ii) For an improper purpose;iii) A legal action that is brought without probable cause; andiv) That action is dismissed in favor of the person against whom it was brought.

Judges and Prosecutors have absolute immunity.

Front 132

Abuse of Proces

Back 132

Abuse of process is the misuse of the power of the court. To recover for abuse of process, the plaintiff must prove:i) A legal procedure set in motion in proper form;ii) That is “perverted” to accomplish an ulterior motive;iii) A willful act perpetrated in the use of process that is not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding;iv) Causing the plaintiff to sustain damages.