Torts

Front 1

INTENTIONAL TORTS (7)

Back 1

1. Battery
2. Assault
3. False Imprisonment
4. IIED
5. Conversion
6. Trespass to Land
7. Trespass to Chattel

Front 2

BATTERY

Back 2

The intentional harmful or offensive contact to one’s person or s/thing so closely connected to a person

*Look for transferred intent

Front 3

ASSAULT

Back 3

Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. In assault cases, contact does not have to be made.

*Look for transferred intent

Front 4

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Back 4

The intentional confinement of a person to a bound or defined area where the person is aware of confinement or harmed by it.

Escape under FI is unreasonable if:
a) It involves exposure of the person (nakedness)
b) Material harm to the person or his/her clothing
c) Danger or substantial harm to another person


NB: Not about preventing a person from gaining entrance or from blocking a person’s path to entry

Front 5

IIED

Back 5

The intentional or reckless conduct that is extreme and outrageous which causes severe emotional distress (not distress from life or work)

If you had a previous health condition, it might be hard to prove the connection.

Front 6

CONVERSION

Back 6

The intentional exercise of dominion and control over a chattel, where there is serious interference with the right of the owner to control it. (NB: house/land cannot be converted)

The damages in conversion are the full value

Front 7

TRESPASS TO LAND

Back 7

The intentional unauthorized entry upon the property of another. Harm is not required and mistake will not negate the intent to enter

Trespass can be tangible (meaning physical) or intangible (like gases/chemicals) or shooting at birds over P's property

Accidental entry is a defense

Front 8

TRESPASS TO CHATTEL

Back 8

Intentional dispossessing or intermeddling w/the chattel of another actually causing damage: i) Chattel is impaired in condition, quality or value
ii) Owner is deprived of the use of the chattel for some time
iii) Bodily harm was caused to owner or to the chattel

Damages are the diminished value, not the full market value

Front 9

DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS

Back 9

1. Consent
2. Self Defense
3. Defense of Others
4. Defense of Property
5. Recovery of Property
6. Necessity

Front 10

CONSENT

Back 10

Willingness in fact for conduct to occur and can be expressed or implied

1. Was there consent?
2. What was the scope of consent?
3. Was it exceeded?

Front 11

CONSENT - MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

Back 11

Medical care practitioners may act in the absence of express consent if:
a) The patient is unable to give consent (unconscious, intoxicated, mentally ill or incompetent
b) There is a risk of serious bodily harm if treatment is delayed
c) A reasonable person would consent to treatment under the circumstances
d) AND, the physician has no reason to believe this patient would refuse treatment under the circumstances

Front 12

SELF DEFENSE

Back 12

The use of reasonable force to defend oneself against the threatened battery by another (even if mistaken)

Front 13

DEFENSE OF OTHERS

Back 13

A person can defend other members of his family from threatened battery, however, the person has to use reasonable force

Front 14

RECOVERY OF PROPERTY
SHOPKEEPER'S PRIVILEGE

Back 14

The privilege in favor of a merchant to detain for reasonable investigation of a person whom he may reasonably believe to have taken the chattel unlawfully

Detention has to be: temporary/reasonable period of time
in or near the store
reasonably suspected of theft
reasonable investigation

Front 15

PUBLIC NECESSITY

Back 15

Privilege is used when there is a risk to the public and the risk can be reduced by destroying a thing. In the interest of the public. At times, private citizens can act out of public necessity; not always a public officer.

Plaintiff cannot recover b/c public necessity is a complete
defense (no trespass/damages)

Front 16

PRIVATE NECESSITY

Back 16

Where one person’s property is at risk and s/he uses another’s property to protect his/her own property. Can only be used in an emergency

Def not liable for trespass, but liable for damage done to the property

Front 17

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Back 17

Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of his employee acting within the scope of his employment providing the employer has the “right of control”

Front 18

SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT

Back 18

Those acts/methods used to carry out the objectives of the employment – furthering the employer’s business. FROLIC – substantial deviation from authorized zone and NOT w/in scope; DETOUR – minor deviation from authorized zone, permissible to be w/in the scope; COMMUTE – GR is that commute to/from work is NOT w/in scope, unless job involves travel

Front 19

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

Back 19

A person who K’s with another to do s/thing for him, but who is not controlled by the other nor subject to the other’s right of control regarding how to do the job

Front 20

AGENT

Back 20

A person retained by another (i.e. the principal), to deal with 3rd parties contractually on behalf of the principal. May be a servant or independent k’tor. If agent not under principal’s control, then principal not liable

Front 21

NEGLIGENT HIRING

Back 21

Even where an employer acted outside the scope, employer may be liable for negligently hiring a dangerous employee and placing him in a position to commit harm

Front 22

NEGLIGENT RETENTION

Back 22

Even where an employer acted outside the scope, employer may be liable for negligently retaining a dangerous employee and allowing him in remain in a position to commit harm

Front 23

NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT

Back 23

Allows for owner liability is s/he negligently entrusts his vehicle to an unfit person whom he knows to be unfit or where he came into knowledge of person’s unfitness

Front 24

STRICT LIABILITY

Back 24

A person can be held strictly liable w/o a showing of negligence if either:
1. Wild Animals
2. Inherently dangerous activity
3. Products Liability

Front 25

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Back 25

1. The product was marketed in a defective condition
2. The product is unreasonably dangerous
3. The defect (in manufacturing, design or failure to warn) CAUSED the harm suffered by P)

Front 26

NUISANCE

Back 26

An interference by Def with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property such as noise, light, odors, vibrations etc

P has to show that D’s conduct substantially interferes with her use and enjoyment of her property AND that such interference is unreasonable. Ct will look at the harm, the activity and location

Front 27

PUBLIC NUISANCE

Back 27

Affects an interest common to the general public, rather than one or a few people. Action brought by govt generally, but private person may bring action IF he shows that the damage was substantially different from that suffered by the general public

Front 28

DEFAMATION

Back 28

Def published a statement of fact to 3rd party concerning the plaintiff that was false and defamatory (injuring one’s repurtation), the 3rd party understands that its defamatory as per the plaintiff, the Def was at fault (intent, negligence, malice) in causing harm to the Plaintiff

Front 29

INVASION OF PRIVACY

Back 29

Either:
1. Unreasonable intrusion on the seclusion of another, OR
2. Appropriation of another’s name or likeness, OR
3. Unreasonable publicity given to another’s private life, OR
4. Publicity that places another in a false light before the public