Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
68 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Provides remedies to plaintiffs who are inured and seeking redress |
Tort |
|
|
An injured party can bring a civil lawsuit to seek compensation for a wrong done to the party or the party’s property |
Tort |
|
|
A tort can be either |
Intentional Unintentional |
|
|
The person did not intend to cause harm |
Unintentional tort |
|
|
The individual intended to act or not act in preventing harm to another person |
Intentional |
|
|
Is an unintentional tort in which the alleged wrongdoer does not intend the consequences of his/her actions to another a person, property, or reputation |
Negligence |
|
|
Considers wether there were acts of omission or commission that resulted in the harm of another person |
Negligence |
|
|
4 elements of negligence |
1)duty of care 2) breach of duty 3) proximate cause 4) damage/ injuries |
|
|
In order to meet negligence do have to all 4 elements? |
Yes |
|
|
Is a special relationship between two or more parties that may be created by statute, contract, or common law |
Duty |
|
|
Under negligence law- the individual must conduct himsel/herself in a manner spas to avoid additional injury |
Duty |
|
|
Occurs when it’s determined that a reasonable person in the position of defiant acted negligently |
Breach of duty |
|
|
Occurs when it’s determined that a reasonable person in the position of defiant acted negligently |
Breach of duty |
|
|
Question is how would a reasonable person would act in sane or similar circumstances |
Breach of duty |
|
|
Assumes the existence of actual causation and injuries into whether the relationship between wrong and harm was sufficiently close |
Proximate cause |
|
|
Occurs when the breach by the defendant actually and caused injury |
Proximate cause |
|
|
Also referred to as”but for” test |
Proximate cause |
|
|
Does the plaintiff must still suffered an injury to have a viable negligence clan? |
Yes |
|
|
Very small and are awarded when the law recognizes a technical Invasion of the plaintiff |
Nominal damages |
|
|
Available to make plaintiff whole The plaintiff can seek damages for wage loss, pain and suffering, disfigurement, and medical expenses |
Compensatory damages |
|
|
Significant enough to punish the wrongdoer and to prevent the wrongdoer and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future |
Punitive damages |
|
|
Occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual's job performance or creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment
|
Hostile environment
|
|
|
Involves unwelcome sexual behavior that is directed at someone else but negatively impacts a different individual’s work environment discussed
|
Third-Party Sexual Harassment
|
|
|
it is most frequently associated with harassment of employees by people who do not work for the same organization
|
Third-Party Sexual Harassment
|
|
|
"any activity expected of someone joining a group that humiliates, degrades, abuses, or endangers, regardless of the person's willingness to participate”.
|
Hazing
|
|
|
•Described as an exchange of sexual favors in return for some other work-related action.
|
Quid pro quo
|
|
|
Typically occurs when an individual accepts or rejects the sexual advances of a coworker (usual a supervisor) as a term of or condition for employment
|
Quid pro quo
|
|
|
Example of Quid pro quo |
if one’s internship supervisor requested a sexual favor and in return, he or she would write the individual (or the victim), a positive letter of recommendation or hire the individual or the victim at the end of the internship.
|
|
|
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
|
Sexual harassment |
|
|
constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects (3)
|
1) an individual's employment,
2) unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance 3) creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment |
|
|
Cobb v. Time, Inc., (2002)
|
1) Court found that Cobb was a public figure
2) that he had failed to prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant |
|
|
Brewer v. Rogers (1993)
|
A high school football coach was held to be a public figure for purposes of defamation
|
|
|
Vilmav. Goodell, 2013
|
According to the Court, as a public figure, Vilmahad the burden of showing that Goodell made the statements with actual malice
|
|
|
orally damaging a person’s reputation
|
slander
|
|
|
Using the written word damaging a person's reputation
|
libel
|
|
|
If false and defamatory statements are made about a public figure, then absent a showing of actual malice, is their defamation
|
No |
|
|
The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement [written or oral] to a third person. If the alleged defamation involves a matter of public concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statement’s falsity and the defendant’s fault.
|
Defamation |
|
|
actual "use of force against another, resulting in harmful or offensive conduct”
|
Battery |
|
|
3 elements of civil battery are
|
Intent
Actual Contact Harm/Damages |
|
|
occurs when the criminal laws punish more severely due to its seriousness.
|
Aggravated assault
|
|
|
4 Factors which raise an assault to an aggravated assault typically include
|
1) use of a weapon
2) status of the victim 3) the intent of the perpetrator 4) degree of injury caused |
|
|
does not refer to the actual violence itself but rather the attempt or threat of violence
|
Assault |
|
|
To rise to the level that the offense is significant enough, three main elements must be present for the assault
|
•Intent to cause apprehension
•Apprehension of imminent harm •The person does not give their consent to the act |
|
|
The intent to cause apprehension to occur, the act must be intended to be harmful or offensive contact
|
Intent to cause apprehension
|
|
|
Happens when the possibility of being intentionally hit generates apprehension in the mind of a reasonable person
|
Apprehension of imminent harm
|
|
|
A person who voluntarily enters into a risky situation, knowing the risk involved, will be prevented from recovering in tort for damages
|
Assumption of Risk
|
|
|
The plaintiff must exhibit. for the assumption of risk
|
1.Actual knowledge of the danger
2.Understood and appreciated the risks associated with such danger 3. Voluntarily exposed himself to those risks |
|
|
The awareness of risks of an activity may be evaluated as it pertains to the individual’s skill and experience.
|
Evaluation of Risks
|
|
|
An athletic participant with years of experience and high levels of skill may assume a higher degree of awareness would be less successful in employing assumption of risk as a defense strategy
|
Evaluation of Risks
|
|
|
Coaches possess a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect players from |
"unreasonably increased risks”
|
|
|
A coach breaches the duty to his students if he or she acts |
1 ) recklessly
2) intentionally |
|
|
The defendant does not owe a plaintiff a duty of care for an injury that occurred from an inherent risk of a sport.
|
Implied Assumption of Risk
|
|
|
Participants in athletic events are required to sign an assumption of risk form before being allowed to practice
|
Expressed Assumption of Risk
|
|
|
No duty of care is owed as to risks inherent in a given sport or activity.
|
Primary Assumption of Risk
|
|
|
Calhoon. Lewis, 2000
|
•An activity falls under the doctrine of primary assumption of risk if it “is done for enjoyment or thrill, requires physical exertion as well as elements of skill, and involves a challenge containing a potential risk of injury”
|
|
|
an attempt by one party to escape liability from another party |
waiver or release
|
|
|
written articles in which a party releases or exculpates a second party from possible tort liability
|
Waivers
|
|
|
Two types of modified comparative negligence
|
1) 50% form 2) 49% form |
|
|
•Plaintiff may be awarded a proportionate allocation of damages unless the negligence was determined to be 100%.
•A plaintiff be found to be 80% at fault, the plaintiff would still be able to recover 20% of the award |
Pure Comparative Negligence |
|
|
Compares the negligence of the plaintiff with that of the defendant and can sometimes work to reduce the recovery of damages for the plaintiff.
|
Comparative Negligence
|
|
|
shields the state, its agencies, and its officials from lawsuits for damages, absent legislative consent to sue.
|
Sovereign Immunity
|
|
|
The plaintiff recovers only if his or her percentage of fault is less than the defendant's
|
49% form
|
|
|
Prevents a plaintiff who is found to be more than 50% negligent from any recovery whatsoever
|
50% form
|
|
|
Remedy for all injuries sustained by an employee during the scope of employment
|
Workers’ Compensation
|
|
|
strict liability” because the payment of benefits is not based on any fault of the employer, but rather on the existence of an employment relationship
|
Workers’ Compensation
|
|
|
the administrative process for compensating injured workers who were injured while doing their jobs
|
Workers’ Compensation
|
|
|
Are Professional athletes eligible to receive state workers’ compensation
|
Yes |
|
|
Usually required by the state for every employee, although some state laws have exceptions for certain numbers of workers, small business owners, and other categories
|
Workers’ Compensation
|
