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

16 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
  • 3rd side (hint)
Under tort law DEFAMATION is a false statement of material fact published to others about the plaintiff causing damage to reputation. A defamation may be SLANDER, an oral statement, or LIBEL, a written statement.
Libel or Slander per se
At common law an injury to reputation was presumed in the case of LIBEL or SLANDER PER SE. SLANDER PER SE was when a false statement alleged the plaintiff engaged in criminal behavior, had a loathsome disease, engaged in unchaste behavior or engaged in improper business practices.
Under tort law NEGLIGENCE is a failure to exercise that degree of care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same situation. A prima facie case of negligence requires showing there was a DUTY, BREACH, ACTUAL and PROXIMATE CAUSATION and DAMAGES.
Actual Cause
Under tort law the breach of duty by the defendant must be the ACTUAL CAUSE of injury to the plaintiff. ACTUAL CAUSATION means that but for the acts of the defendant the plaintiff would not have been injured or else the defendant's act was a SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR causing the injury. SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR means 1) the plaintiff was injured by one of two or more defendants, 2) there would have been no injury if none of the defendants had acted, and 3) no evidence proves the defendant did not cause the injury.
Proximate Cause
Under tort law PROXIMATE CAUSE means that the plaintiff's injury was a direct and natural result of the defendant's act through an unbroken chain of causation so near in time and place and uninterrupted by independent intervening events that the law will hold the defendant liable for the result.
False Imprisonment?
Intentional Act causing a person to actually be Aware they are Confined to an enclosed area with no apparent, reasonable means of escape.
A CONFINEMENT Can Involve Anguish
Tortious Assault
Under tort law ASSAULT is an intentional act to cause apprehension of a battery, and which actually does cause apprehension.
Tortious Battery
A BATTERY is a harmful or offensive touching of the person.
An act is INTENTIONAL if done for the purpose or with knowledge with reasonable certainty that the result will occur.
Under tort law CONVERSION is a substantial interference with chattel causing a deprivation of possession. The damage award for conversion is that the defendant is required to purchase the chattel interfered with in a forced sale.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Under tort law INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS is an intentional, outrageous act that causes the plaintiff SEVERE emotional distress.
Under tort law a proof of DECEIT requires showing 1) a false statement of material fact or an affirmative act to conceal a material fact 2) by the defendant, made with knowledge it was false 3) and/or intent to deceive, 4) which was reasonably relied upon by the plaintiff, 5) causing the plaintiff injury.
Product Liability
Under tort law anyone who releases an unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce is liable for personal injury or property damage caused. Whether a product is UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS depends on a balancing of the dangers it poses against the social utility of the product and the economic feasibility of making the product substantially safer. Product liability may be based on any of five possible theories: 1) BATTERY, 2) BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, 3) BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY, 4) NEGLIGENCE and 5) STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT.
Breach of Express Warranty
Under a BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY theory the plaintiff must show the defendant 1) sold the product by making false, express representations of material facts that 2) made the product unreasonably dangerous , 3) the buyer of the product reasonably relied on the defendant's misrepresentations, 4) and that was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff, who is 5) the buyer or a person in close privity with the buyer of the product.
Breach of Implied Warranty
Under a BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY theory the plaintiff must show the defendant 1) sold the product by representing they were safe for its ordinary use, or 2) sold the product a) knowing the buyer's specific intended use and b) that the purchaser was reasonably relying on the defendant's expertise, 3) but the goods were unreasonably dangerous for the intended use, and 4) that was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff who is 5) the buyer or a person in close privity with the buyer of the product.
Strict Liability
Under a STRICT LIABILITY theory the plaintiff must show 1) the defendant was a commercial supplier who 2) released the unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce, causing injury to the plaintiff, but 3) no economic damages can be awarded on a strict liability theory.