Torts

Front 1

breach
-2nd restatement

Back 1

Foreseeability
-an ordinarily reasonable person ought to foresee that his conduct will expose another to an unreasonable risk of harm
Unreasonableness
-magnitude of risk outweighs the utility of the conduct

Front 2

Risk Factors
-2nd restatement

Back 2

Risk
1. social interests imperiled
2. Likelihood of invasion of interests
3. Likely extent of harm
4. Likely number whose interests are harmed

Front 3

Utility Factors
-2nd Restatement

Back 3

Utility
1. Interests advanced by conduct
2. Likelihood interests are advanced
3. Likely success of alternatives

Front 4

Breach
-3rd restatement

Back 4

Primary factors in determining whether an actor's conduct is unreasonable:
-Foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm
-Foreseeable severity of any harm that may ensue
-Burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the harm.

Front 5

No duty rule exceptions

Back 5

1. actor's prior conduct
2. special relationship
3. undertaking to assist another
4. taking charge
5. statutes

Front 6

excuses to certain violations of statutes

Back 6

1. violation is reasonable because of actor's incapacity
2. actor neither knew, nor should have known of occasion for compliance
3. actor unable, after reasonable care to comply
-actor violated statute even when using reasonable care
4. actor is confronted by an emergency not due to his own misconduct
5. compliance would involve a greater risk of harm to others`

Front 7

Res Ipsa
-traditional

Back 7

-event must be of a sort that does not occur in the absence of negligence
-the instrumentality causing injury to the plaintiff must have been within the exclusive control of defendant
-the plaintiff must not have contributed (or negligently contributed) to the occurrence of the plaintiff's injury

Front 8

Res Ipsa
-2nd restatement

Back 8

-the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence
-other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third persons are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence

Front 9

Res Ipsa
-3rd restatement

Back 9

-the accident causing the plaintiff's physical harm is a type of accident that ordinarily happens as a result of negligence
-of a class of actors which the defendant is the relevant member

Front 10

factual cause

Back 10

run the counter-factual hypothetical, but-for test, and determine if after removing the act, the injury does not occur, then the act is a factual cause of the injury. `

Front 11

Firefighter's Rule

Back 11

1. firemen (police)
2. brought into contact
3. with an emergency situation
4. because of his status as a firemen
5. was injured
6. performing duties
7. cannot recover against the person whose ordinary negligence created the emergency

Front 12

concert actions of torts

Back 12

-2 defendants working in tandem to achieve one purpose

Front 13

sudden emergency doctrine

Back 13

-person in an emergency situation or situation of peril
-not created by own fault
-use care of person of ordinary prudence would in same situation

Front 14

Risk approach
-restatement 3rd

Back 14

-The actor;s liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious
-an actor is not liable for physical harm when the tortious aspect of the actor's conduct was of a type that does not generally increase the risk of harm
-when a force of nature or an independent act is also a factual cause of physical harm, an actor's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious.

Front 15

foreseeability / risk hybrid

Back 15

-was the result foreseeable?
-is the result within the scope of risks by reason of which the actor is found to be negligent.

Front 16

attractive nuisance doctrine

Back 16

1. foreseeability of child trespasser. (knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass)
2. foreseeability of injury. (unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children)
3. children don't appreciate the danger. because of their youth, they do not discover or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it
4. risk greater than utility. the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved
5. no reasonable care. the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children