Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

41 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Types of Intential Torts
a. Assault
b. Battery
c. Trespass to land
d. Trespass to chattel
e. False imprisonment
f. Conversation
g. Intentional infliction of emotional distress (outrageous conduct)
Strict Liability
imposed regardless of intent or conduct; without fault
Statue of Repose
Fixed limitation on time period for filing suits.
Discovery Rule
The one-year statute of limitations begins to run when the patient discovered, or reasonably should have discovered (1) the occasion, the manner and the means by which a breach of duty occurred that produced the patient’s injuries; and (2) the identity of the defendant who breached the duty.
Tortfeasor’s reason for conduct (ex. revenge); motive is irrelevant for purposes of intent but may be a factor in calculating $ damages.
Punitive Damages
Designed to punish and deter tortfeasor or potential tortfeasor.
Proven by clear & convincing evidence where there is no serious or substantial doubt.
Transferred Intent
Tortfeasor intends to commit a tort against a person, but instead commits a different tort against the person, or commits the tort intended against another person, or commits a different tort against a different person, then the intent is presumed to transfer to the other situation. (It is still an intentional act.)
Reasonably compensate plaintiff for harm caused by tortfeasor(s), to punish tortfeasor, and to deter future tortfeasor.
Compensatory Damages
To make plaintiff whole again; restore to pre-injury status to the extent monetary compensation can;
Tortfeasor must have acted voluntarily to be liable (ex. cannot be sleepwalking, medication, violent seizure, someone pushed him); minors generally can be held liable provided they satisfy the intent element.
Tortfeasor’s desire to do the act that gives rise to/forms the basis of the particular tort OR knowledge that the consequences are fairly certain.
1. Harmful or offensive contact;
2. Intent to bring about the contact;
3. Causation.
1. Reasonable apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiffs person; fear is irrelevant
2. Intent to bring about apprehension of immediate harm
3. Causation
Must prove all elements by a preponderance of the evidence.
Defendant liable for direct and indirect contact; liable if he sets in motion a force that brings about harmful or offensive contact.
Intential Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)
1. Extreme and Outrageous conduct. Extreme and outrageous conduct (must be truly extreme and outrageous beyond repair).

2. Intentional or reckless; Intent can be proven by recklessness, doctrine of transferred intent does not apply. Reckless - Acted in deliberate disregard of a high probability that the conduct will cause severe emotional distress.

3. Severe emotional distress. if P’s reaction goes beyond normal responses – cannot recover
False Imprisonment
1) Intent; Transferred intent does apply.

2) Unlawful- there is no liability if the restraint is lawful.

3) Confinement- restraint or detention - specific area plaintiff is completely prevented from leaving. there must be no reasonable means of escape. Not reasonable if unsafe. Credible, immediate threat of force
Trespass to Land
The intentional physical entry onto anothers real property/land without permission of the owner or without a legal privilege to be there.
Entry includes body or object
Trespass to Chattels
Intentional interference with chattel (personal property) of anther without their consent or a legal privilege to do so, resulting in damages or dispossession.
Intentional exercise of dominion or control over the chattel of another that seriously interferes with the owners right and damages that chattel
Defense to Intentional torts
Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of evidence every element of the offense. Defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence his defense
Absolute Defenses to Intentional torts
1. Consent
2. Authority of law
3. Public necessity
Defense of Mistake
Mistake is not a defense in an intentional tort case except when the mistake is made in connection with another defense such as self-defense or defense of property or public necessity. Mistake has to be objectively reasonable
Defense of consent
Consent won't destroy the wrongfulness of the actions of the tortfeasor. Consent is an absolute defense.
Express or actual consent
The plaintiff actually expresses or communicates consent to the tortfeasor.
Implied or apparent consent
Involves words, conduct, behavior or the lack thereof, that would lead a reasonable person to believe or infer that consent existed even when it didn’t. The court will imply consent.
Self Defense
People have a legal privilege to use as much force as is or reasonably appears necessary to protect themselves. Available when there is in fact a danger of being attacked or where there is a reasonable belief that such a danger exists even if it doesn’t (mistake). Mistake in self-defense will not destroy the tortfeasor’s ability to rely upon the defense – but it must be a reasonable mistake
Defense of others
A tortfeasor can come to the defense of others and not be held liable for a resulting intentional tort. Only reasonable force or the minimum amount of force needed to neutralize the threat can be used.
Defense of Property
Possessor of real or personal property is privileged to use reasonable force to protect that property. Cannot use deadly force.
Forcible retaking of Chattels
A person lawfully entitled to possess a chattel has a right to use force to get the chattel back when it has been wrongfully taken from him. This privilege is limited to instances in which there is hot pursuit. Cannot use deadly force, only reasonable force.
Forcible retaking of Real Property
No force can be used to retake real property. The tortfeasor must resort to the law if the land cannot be retaken peacefully.
Defense of Necessity
Absolute Defense. Privilege to use force in what would otherwise be an intentional tort in order to avoid a greater harm.
Defense of Public Necessity
A person is completely privileged to commit an intentional tort if it's or reasonably appears to be necessary in order to prevent a public disaster. Mistake is a defense. Absolute defense.
Defense of Private Necessity
Involves a danger only to the defendant’s property. It's an incomplete defense. Defendant will have to pay for whatever actual harm he caused.
Negligence definition
Focus on conduct, not of intent of tortfeasor. Negligence is conduct that falls below the applicable standard of care, creating an unreasonable risk of harm to people or property. Failure to exercise ordinary or due care.
General negligence
1. Duty of care;
2. Breach of reasonable person standard of care;
3. Causation in fact/actual cause;
4. Proximate cause/legal cause;
5. Actual Injury or harm.
Plaintiff must prove all five elements by a preponderance of evidence.
Standard of Care
Reasonableness under the circumstances; reasonable person standard
Rule of Sevens
Under age of seven, a child cannot be held liable for negligence; between 7 and 14, there is a rebuttable legal presumption that child can’t be held liable; plaintiff can present proof to overcome the presumption; between 14 and 21, there is a rebuttable legal presumption that child can be held liable.
Professionals Standard of Care
If tortfeasor has some learned skill or knowledge, he is held to standard of care for one who had that learned skill or knowledge (e.g. plumber, electrician, mechanic).

If tortfeasor is a professional, he is expected to posses the skill and knowledge of a reasonable member of that profession in the same or similar location. Specialists are held to the higher standard of care for the specialty nationwide (e.g. doctor, dentist, surgeon, lawyer, CPA). Tennessee is an exception to the nationwide rule; the specialist is expected to have same knowledge as person in the same or similar location. (Cardwell v. Bechtol)
Expert has to testify at trial that standard was breached.
Med Mal Informed Consent
1. That defendant didn’t provide information that a reasonably prudent specialist/professional would have provided;
2. That plaintiff would not have had the procedure had she been informed, and
3. Injury was caused by lack of informed consent.
Implied Consent
Tested by objective standard of “reasonably prudent person” because it's consistent with how other negligence cases are handled.
Medical Battery
Not Negligence. A patient doesn’t know that the doctor is going to perform a procedure and the patient did not authorize the procedure. Expert testimony not required.