Torts

Front 1

intentional torts

Back 1

battery, assault, FI, Tres to land, tres to chattels, conversion

Front 2

battery

Back 2

the intentional unlawful harmful or offensive touching of the person of another

Front 3

assault

Back 3

intentional threatening of another with a bettery and the creating of apprehension of immediate bodily harm in the victim

Front 4

transferred intent doctrine

Back 4

while in the process of committing a battery if one unintentionally causes the harful touching of a third party, the wrongful intent is transferred to the third party and they can bring suit against defendant for battery.

Front 5

substantial certainty doctrine

Back 5

the assumption of intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with substantial certainty the effect would occur as a result of his action.

Front 6

false imprisonment

Back 6

the intentional confinement of someone without consent or legal priviledge

Front 7

trespass to land

Back 7

entry upon land of another without consent or privilege

Front 8

trespass to chattels

Back 8

the intentional taking or damaging of personal property in the possession of another, without consent and without legal privilege

Front 9

conversion

Back 9

An intentional act by defendant that causes an interference with plaintiff’s possessory interest in chattel so severe as to warrant a forced sale

Front 10

trespass ab initio

Back 10

an entry upon the land in possession of another under a conferred legal right, and the subsequent abusing of that conferred legal right through the commission of an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or trespass

Front 11

private nuisance

Back 11

an act or conduct by the defendant which unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of one's property.

Front 12

public nuisance

Back 12

an act or conduct by the defendant which is injurious to the public in general.

Front 13

Defenses to Intentional Torts

Back 13

consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, prevention of crime, recovery of property, legal authority, and necessity

Front 14

consent

Back 14

relates to the plaintiff's state of mind and the existence of express or implied willingness that the defendant should act in the complained of manner

Front 15

self defense

Back 15

a person who reasonably believes himself to be threatened with immediate bodily harm may use whatever degree of force is apparently necessary to protect himself or herself.

Front 16

defense of others

Back 16

a person who believes another to be threatened with immediate bodily harm may use whatever degree of force is apparently necessary to protect the personal safety of the other person.

Front 17

step-in-shoes jurisdiction

Back 17

defense of others can only be used where person being defended was not the aggressor and has the right to self defense

Front 18

reasonable appearance jurisdiction

Back 18

if the person defending another person doesn't know they were the aggressor and not entitled to use self defense the interference is nevetherless justified when acting upon reasonable appearances.

Front 19

defense of property

Back 19

a person may be priviledged to use reasonable force to protect his or her possession of real or personal property.

Front 20

prevention of crime defense

Back 20

any person, police or private person, is privileged to use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime which is apparently being attempted in his or her presence

Front 21

defense of recovery of property

Back 21

a person is privileged to commit an act which would otherwise constitute an intentional tort if they are acting for the purpose of regaining possession of his or her property. there are 3 aspects to this re-entry upon land, recapture of chattel and shopkeepers rule.

Front 22

re-entry of land

Back 22

the privilege to use force to re-enter land only if the taking of the land was tortious or wrongful and the entering party is entitled to immediate possession.a demand for occupier should be made unless such an attempr would be futile. force used must not be deadly or able to cause serious bodily harm.

Front 23

recapture of chattel

Back 23

using reasonable force to defend against chattels being taken from possession if such force is not likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

Front 24

shopkeeper rule

Back 24

the privilege to detain suspected thiefs

Front 25

fresh pursuit

Back 25

the recapture of chattel or shopkeepers rule must take place without reasonable delay after promptly discovering loss

Front 26

legal authority defense

Back 26

one is privileged in making a tortious act if it is done under legal process or authorized by law.police or private citizens making arrest use this when charge of FI are leveled.

Front 27

defense of necessity

Back 27

the proposition that a person may commit an act that may otherwise be torious if that person is acting is an emergency situation to protect himself or others threatened from a threatened injury to person or property. a person may act on appearances, a reasonable mistake is permitted.

Front 28

reasonableness

Back 28

a concept that permeates a defenses to torts. it is the standard by which the amount of force and/or time, manner of re-entry, recapture or detention is judged.

Front 29

negligence

Back 29

requires a duty of care owing the plaintiff by defendant, a breach of that duty by a failure to exercise due care, a causal connection between the breach and the harm to the plaintiff in terms of actual and proximate negligence and damages must be proved.

Front 30

general duty

Back 30

everyone holds a duty to exercise due care so as not to subject others to unreasonable risks of harm

Front 31

Cardozo rule on duty

Back 31

Palsgraf v LI rail defendant owes duty to of due care only to those persons to whom the defendant can reasonably forsee some injury to by reason of said defendants negligent act.no duty is owed to persons in apparent safety.orbit of danger test.

Front 32

andrews rule on duty

Back 32

the defendant owes a duty of care to the whole world.

Front 33

duty owed to a rescuer

Back 33

a plaintiff rescuer may proceed against a defendant on negligence if the plaintiff is injured during a rescue brought on by a negligent act by the defendant that created the necessity of the rescue.

Front 34

duty owed a guest passenger

Back 34

the driver owes a duty of due care to persons riding in car. however some jurisdictions have statutes that forbid recovery unless operator is guilty of willful misconduct, recklessness or intoxication.

Front 35

duty owed those injured by drunk driver

Back 35

a person who serves a drunk is not liable unless a statue states otherwise. Dram Shop Acts statutes hold a bartender or other persons serving alcohol to intoxicated persons liable for the foreseeable damage caused by drunkard.

Front 36

owner liability statutes

Back 36

statutes that impose liability upon vehicle owners for the tortious acts committed by persons whom the owner intentionally furnishes the vehicle to.

Front 37

family purpose doctrine

Back 37

a parent who furnishes a vehicle to family members for customary convenience assumes liability for the tortuous acts committed by those persons when the car is being driver for family purpose.

Front 38

duty owed to a good samaritan

Back 38

A person who embarks upon the performance of services for another, whether gratuitously or for consideration, is under a duty to render those services with due care. and under no duty to complete the performance of the services unless abandonment of such performance would prejudice the other party's position. The rendering of aid in an emergency is a form of rendering services and imposes certain duties upon the person who undertakes to render such aid. Some jurisdictions have enacted statutes designed to encourage the rendering of emergency aid by physicians by limiting the liability that could otherwise be imposed upon them. Generally speaking, liability can only be imposed upon them for reckless or wanton misconduct.

Front 39

omission to act

Back 39

An _________, or nonfeasance as it is sometimes called, creates no tort liability where the defendant fails to act to prevent injury to the plaintiff unless, because of a special relationship or special circumstance the defendant has an affirmative duty to protect the plaintiff. Such a relationship or circumstance might arise out of the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, hotel keeper and guest, common carrier and passenger, or by way of a statutory duty such as the duty imposed by hit and run statutes which require drivers of vehicles involved in an accident to stop and aid one who has been injured.

Front 40

business invitee

Back 40

one who has an express or implied invitation to enter certain business property to do business with the land occupier thereon

Front 41

public invitee

Back 41

one who enters land of another for the purpose which the land is held open to the public.

Front 42

licensee

Back 42

one who enters the land of another with express or implied permission of land occupier

Front 43

trespasser

Back 43

one who enters the real property of another without express or implied consent to do so.

Front 44

constant trespasser on a limited area

Back 44

a person who enters the real property of another without express consent, however, the land owner knows or should know the presence of the trespasser because of the trespasser repeated acts of trespassing.