Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
51 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Definition of intent
|
RS 8, Actor desires consequences of his act OR is substantially certain they will result
|
|
|
Battery
|
RS 13 and 18, A person is liable for pattery if 1) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with person or third person or an imminent apprehension of such contact AND 2) a harmful or offensive contact directly or indirectly results
|
|
|
Battery without proven harm?
|
RS 907 Nominal damages
|
|
|
Assault
|
21 1) Same as battery 2) The other is put in such an imminent apprehension
|
|
|
Imminent apprehension
|
31 Words alone not enough
|
|
|
False imprisonment
|
35 Actor is subject to liability for false imprisonment if : 1) he acts intending to confine the other or a third party within fixed boundaries 2) his act directly or indirectly results in such a confinement 3) the other is conscious OR harmed by it
|
|
|
Methods of confinement
|
39-40 1) physical force 2) threat of physical force (express or inferred from conduct) 3) Duress 4) Asserted legal authority
|
|
|
Trespass to Chattels - Dispossession
|
217
|
|
|
Conversion
|
222 - Conversion may require actor to pay full value - Six factors 1) Extent and duration of actor's dominion or control 2) Actor's intent to assert a right inconsistent with the other's right of control 3) Actor's good faith 4) Extent and duration of the resulting interference with the other's right of control 5) Harm done to the chattel 6) Inconvenience and expense caused to the other
|
|
|
Consent
|
892 One who effectively consents to conduct of another to invade his interests can't recover for conduct or harm.
|
|
|
Self defense
|
613 Reasonable belief that you are about to be harmed, reasonable reaction (nothing intended to likely to cause death or serious injury)
|
|
|
Deadly force?
|
65 Only available if the individual reasonably believes she would suffer serious bodily injury or death
|
|
|
Mistake in self-defense
|
72 An actor is not privileged to defend against force which another is privileged to use, unless other is wrong and it's not the actor's fault
|
|
|
Less threatening mechanical devices
|
84 Actor may employ, to protect land or stuff, device that won't cause death or serious bodily harm, and is NOT liable for harm done to deliberate intruder IF 1) use is reasonably necessary to protect land/stuff AND 2) reasonable under circumstances AND 3) customarily used for such a purpose OR reasonable care to make its use known
|
|
|
Repelling trespassers personally
|
77 Privileged to use reasonable force to prevent or end another's intrusion upon land or stuff if : 1) not privileged or they somehow make you think so 2) reasonably thinks only force will stop it 3) actor has made a request that's disregarded, OR the actor reasonably believes it's useless, OR harm will come first
|
|
|
Public necessity
|
RS 196 : One is privileged to enter another's land if reasonably believes it to be necessary for purpose of averting imminent public disaster.
|
|
|
Domestic animals
|
509 only strictly liable if know or have reason to know about "abnormally dangerous propensities"
|
|
|
Products liability
|
402 One who sells any product in a DUD condition is liable for physical harm to the user or consumer IF a) seller is in business of selling b) it is expected to and does reach the user without substantial change in condition EVEN IF a) all possible care in preparation and sale of his product b) didn't buy directly from seller
|
|
|
Reasonable person standard
|
283 Unless the actor is a child, standard of conduct to which s/he must conform to avoid negligence is that of a reasonable person under like circumstances
|
|
|
Disability
|
283
|
|
|
Custom
|
295 Custom is always factor to be taken into account, but not always conclusive
|
|
|
Bystander NIED models, from least to most recovery
|
1) No recovery
2) Impact rule [once physical injury, emotional consequences follow] 3) Modified impact rule [some/incidental contact] 4) Zone of Danger [could have been impacted] 5) Foreseeable Bystander Elements Test [Thing, Atlantic Coast] 6) Foreseeable Bystander Factor Analysis [Dillon] 7) No limitations [basically Hawaii] Also, "Direct victims" (Molien) |
|
|
Gipson v. Kasey
|
Foreseeability not a duty factor! Purely fact question, using it in duty usurps jury role
|
|
|
Ways to have defect
|
May be dangerously defective due to 1) manufacturing defect 2) design defect 3) failure to warn
|
|
|
RS 402 Comment
|
integrates "consumer expectations test"
|
|
|
Indiana Harbor Belt
|
Accidents that are due to a lack of care can be prevented by taking care! Reserve strict liability for when you need additional incentives for cost avoidance.
|
|
|
If superseding cause is generally foreseeable, you're still strictly liable
|
Yukon Equipment Co - storers KNEW people had stolen explosives before
|
|
|
Strict liability doesn't mean absolute liability
|
Perez v. Southern Pacific
|
|
|
Objective standard
|
Vaughan v. Menlove - Courts reject notion that best judgment should be the measure of liability
|
|
|
Robinson v. Lindsay
|
Powerful motorized vehicle = adult standard of care
|
|
|
TJ Hooper
|
"Courts in the end must say what is required"
|
|
|
Nationwide standard of competency, but regionally subjective view of resources. Also (thus) lets doctors who haven't practiced there testify.
|
Hall v. Hillburn
|
|
|
How to make but-for question
|
1) Identify the injury 2) Identify defendant's wrongful conduct 3) Create counterfactual hypothesis 4) Ask whether the injuries that plaintiff suffered would have probably occured if the defendant had behaved correctly. Use last two to establish but-for test! ROBERTSON'S TEST
|
|
|
Burden of persuasion on the plaintiff?
|
RS 433
|
|
|
East Texas Theatres v. Rutledge
|
No way to tell if defendant's omission in failing to remove "rowdy persons" was cause-in-fact of plaintiff's injury.
|
|
|
Sharpe v. Peter Pan
|
Defendant didn't act reasonably, stabbing was within the "reasonably foreseeable risk" created by this breach
|
|
|
Bell
|
Plaintiff had to show more than 50% chance to get to jury, satisfy but-for test
|
|
|
Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly
|
DES case
|
|
|
In Re Polemis
|
"Liable for direct consequences" Direct cause - "beyond the risk" - liable for something that goes beyond the risk you create!
|
|
|
Wagon Mound
|
Essential factor in determining liability is whether the damage is a kind the reasonable man should have foreseen. "Within the risk"
|
|
|
Wagon Mound II
|
Halfway between "within the risk" and "beyond the risk" - degrees of foreseeability, affected by risk v. utility.
|
|
|
Palsgraf Cardozo
|
Duty to foreseeable plaintiffs - duty at top of tort
|
|
|
Palsgraf Andrews
|
Events must be followed to causal consequences - proximate cause is stupid. More fact-intensive
|
|
|
Bigbee
|
Harm could be foreseeable, so it should get to jury. Fact-specific inquiry - doesn't do duty!
|
|
|
Judges' duty re: foreseeability
|
Ballard : Court's task isn't to see if this particular plaintiff's injury was foreseeable, but rather to evaluate more generally whether this type of negligent conduct is likely enough to cause this kind of harm, so that liability may be imposed. More abstract, less fact-specific.
|
|
|
Jury's duty re: foreseeability
|
whether particular conduct occured in the first place (breach), whether negligence was proximate cause (legal cause). More fact-specific!
|
|
|
Hill v. Yaskin
|
Keys in cars? Lot has duty, lawyer does not
|
|
|
Anaya v. Superior Court
|
If original tortfeasor is liable for injuries suffered during course of treatment for accident they caused, liable for injury during transpo
|
|
|
Posecai
|
Duty to protect from third-party criminal actions balancing test : forseeability and gravity of harm v. burden to protect
|
|
|
Third-party criminal action tests
|
1) specific harm rule 2) Prior similar incidents test 3) Totality of the circumstances test (takes additional factors into account) 4) Balancing test GOTTA have prior similar incidents
|
|
|
Kremen holding
|
Conversion applies to intangible; Cali doesn't require them to be merged in a document, but even so, DNS counts as document
|
