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
Reading...
Front

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

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/130

Click to flip

130 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Transferred intent may be invoked only where the tort intended and the tort that results are....
Assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels
Prima facie battery
1. Harmful or offensive contact to P's person
2. Intent on part of D to bring about such contact, and
3. Causation
Can get punitive damages...
if D acts with MALICE (in majority of jurisdictions)
Prima facie assault
1. Act by D that creates REASONABLE APPREHENSION in P of IMMEDIATE HARMFUL or OFFENSIVE CONTACT
2. Intent on part of D to bring about such apprehension in P, and
3. Causation
Apprehension of IMMEDIATE (not future contact)
Reasonabletess. Unless D knows of unreasonable fear in P and uses it to put P in such apprehension, court wont protect P against exaggerated fears.

Apprehension doesnt mean fear - just means EXPECTATION - you can reasonably apprehend immediate contact even if you belive you can defend yourself or otherwise avoid it.

D's APPARENT ABILITy to act is suffiicent - dont have to have actual ability to cause injury.

Some overt act is required - words alone not enough to constitute assault b/c can't create reasonable apprehensive of CONTACT
Prima facie false imprisonment
1. Act or omission by D that CONFINES or RESTRAINS P to a bounded area
2. Intent to do so, and
3. Causation
Methods of confinement/restraint for false imprisonment
Physical barriers, physical force directed at P, member of his family or his property, direct threats of force, indirect threats of force reasonably implied, failure to provide means of escape, invalid use of authority
shopkeeper's privilege
To avoid liability for false imprisonment, shopkepers may detain to investigate. Three requirements:
1. Must have reasonable belief as to fact of theft,
2. Detention must be condcuted in reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used, and
3. detention must be only for reasonable period of time and only for purpose of making an investiation
Prima face intentional infliction of emotional distress
1. EXTREME and OUTRAGEOUS act/conduct by D
2. Intent to cause P suffere SEVERE emotional distress or recklessness as to effect
3. Causation
4. DAMAGES - severe emotional distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress in BYSTANDER
P must be PRESENT when injury occurred to other person, P was CLOSE RELATIVE of injured person, and D KNEW P was present and a close relative

Note: P doesn't have to show presence or family rlshp if she shows D had a PURPOSE to cause severe distress to P
Intentional torts to PROPERT
1. Tresspass to land
2.Trespass to chattels
3. Conversion
Prima facie trespass to land
1. PHYSICAL INVASION of P's real property by D
2. D's INTENT to physically invade (mistake ast o lawfulness of entry NO DEFENSE)

No requirement of damages - damage is presumed
3. Causation
Who may sue for trespass to land?`
Anyone in actual or constructive poessession of land (even if possession is without title). If no one in possession, true owner presuemd in possession.

If ation by a lessee, may recover only to extent that the trespass damages the leasehold interests
If D accidentally but negligently hit P's building with tennis ball...
D not liable UNLESS P established damages as part of negligence prima facie case.

If D INTENDED to hit tennis ball against P's building, liable for trespass
Prima facie trespass to chattels
1. D interfere's with P's right of possession in chattel
2. Intent to perform act interfering right
3. Causation
4. Actual Damages (ile. loss of possession)

Mistake as to lawfulness of 's action is NO DEFENSE b/c intent to trespass is not required - intent to do the act of interference with the chattel is sufficient
Trespass to chattel versus Conversion
Conversion grants relief for interferences with a chattel so serious in nature or so serious in consequences as to warrant requiring D pay its FULL VALUE in damages

The longer the withholding period and the more extensive use of chattel, more likely it is conversion rather than trespass to chattel
Prima facie conversion
1. Act by D interfering w/ P's right of possession that is SERIOUS ENOUGH in nature or consequence to warrant that D PAY FULL VALUE of chattel (not just the damages)
2. INTENT to perform act
3. Causation
Sample acts of conversion
Wrongful acquisition (i.e. theft, embezzlement), wrongful transfer (selling, misdelivering, pledging), wrongful detention (refusing to return to owner), substantially changing, severely damaging or destroying, misusing the chattel

ACCIDENTALLY causing damage to or loss of another's chattel is NOT conversion, unless D was using it WITHOTU PERMISSION when accident occurred
Defenses to intentional torts
Consent, Self Defense, Defense of Others, Defense of Property, Reentry onto Land, Recapture of Chattels, Privilege of Arrest, Necessity, Discipline
Defense of property
First must request to desist BEFORE usign force (unless circumstances ake it clear the request would be futile or dangerous).

Reasonable mistake ok as to owner's right to use force in defending property where mistake invovles whether an intrusion has occurred or whether a reuqest to desist is required. But mistake not ok where ntrant has a privilege to enter the property that supersedes defense of property right in which case owner liable for mistakenly using force against a privielged entrant unless entrant himself aused the mistake.

Used to PREVENT COMMISSION of a trot thus once the D has been permanenty dispossed of the property and commission of trot is compelete, cant use force to recapture (unless in hot pursuit)
Reentry on land
a CL privilege - a person who had been tortiously dispossed from her land by fraud or force could use reasonable force to regain possession if acted promptly upond discovering.

DOES NOT exist under modern law - most states have summary procedures for recovering possession of real property thus resort to self help no longer allowed.
Recapture of chattels
Wher antoehr's possession began lawfully (i.e. conditional sale), can only use peaeful means to recover it but force may be used when in HOT PURSUIT only. Must make demand to return it before use of force unless clear demand futile or dangerous.
Necessity defense
You may interfere w/ real or personal property of another where interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force and when such injury is more serious than the invasion
Public necessity defense
where act is for public good (i.e. shooting a rabid dog), defense is absolute
Private necessity defense
Where act to benefit ANY PERSON (actor, owner of land, some other 3rd party) or to protect any property from destruction or serious injuyr (tying up to a dock in a storm), defnse is qualified (actor must pay for any injury or damage he auses)
Prima facie defamation
1. Defamatory lanuage on part of D
2. Such language is of or concerning the P (identify P to reasonable reader, listener, viewer)
3. Publication of such langauge to third person, and
4. DAMAGE to reputation of P
Defamation of public figure
1. Defamatory lanuage on part of D
2. Such language is of or concerning the P (identify P to reasonable reader, listener, viewer)
3. Publication of such langauge to third person, and
4. DAMAGE to reputation of P
5. Falsity of language
6. Fault on D's part
Statement of opinion is actionable as defamation only if...
it appears to be based on specific facts and an express allegation of those facts would be defamatory
Repetition of defamatory statements
If original defmation is libel, any repetition (even if oral) also libel.

If slander repeated in wrriten form, libel.
slander per se
injury presumed if the spoken defamation fals within 1 of 4 categories:
1. Business or Profession
2. Loathsome disease
3. Crime involving moral turpitude
4. Unchastity of a woman
Even where astatement is true, it may still give rise to liability if it is uttered under circumstnaes sufficient to constitute...
intentional infliction of severe emotional distress or invasion of right to privacy

BUT if P is a publi figure who would be barred on 1st Am grounds from recovering for defamation, can't rely on these other tort theories
Public officials may not recover for defamatory words relating to his official condut in absence of clear and convincing proof that the statement was made with...
MALICE (knowledge that statement was false or reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity)

Recklessness is SUBJECTIVE (not reasonable person standard) - D in fact subjectively entertained serious doubts as to truthfulness of publication


same for public FIGURES
Who is a public figure
Has achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purpsoes and contexts or where he voluntairly assumes a central role in particular public controversy
matters of PUBLIC CONCERN for purposes of defamation?
Defamation actions brought by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS are subject to limitations only when defamtory statment involves public concern.

Prohibits liability without fault and restricts recovery of presumed or punitive damages
Defenses to defamation
Consent, Truth (in cases of purely private concern where P not required to prove falsity, truth is a complete defense), absolute privilege (judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings, executive proceedings, compelled broadcast or publication, communication btwn spouses), qualified privilege
Invasion of Privacy - 4 kinds of wrongs
1. Appropriation by D of P's picture or name for D's COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGE
2. Intrustion by D upon P's affairs or seclusion
3. Publication by D of facts placing P in FALSE LIGHT
4. Public disclosures of private facts about P by D
Appropriation of P's Picture or Name
Unauthroized use by D of P's pic or name for D's commercial advantage

Limited to use of P's picture or name in connection with promotion or advertisement of a product or service.

Mere fact that D is using P's picture or name for own pwersonal profit not alone suffiicent (so the use of a person's name in a magazine story, even if motivated by proit, is not actionable)
Intrusion on P's affairs or seclusion
Act of prying or intruding on affairs or seclusion, intrusion is smthg that would be objectionable to a reasonable person, and thing to which there is intrusion or prying is PRIVATE
False light
Publication of FACTS about P by D placing P in false light in public eye, the false light is smthg that would be objectionable to reasonable person under circumstances, and MALICE on part of D where the published matter is in PUBLIC INTEREST

There must be publicity conerning false light facts - need more than publication than in defamation

False light is a fact if it attributes to P a view that he does not hold or actions that he did not take....FALSITY...if it affects P's reputation, defamation
Publci disclosure of private facts about P
Publication or public disclosure by D of PRIVATE info about the P and the matter made public is such that a reasonable person would object to having made public. If fact is in public record, this is not private.

Even if fact is TRUE, liability
Constitutional privilege to public disclosure of private facts abotu P
If matter is one of legitimate public interest, publicaiton is privileged if made WITHOUT MALICE.

Mere passage of time doesnt preclude public interest - the life of one formerly in public eye is still public property

Absolute privielge if matters republished were from official public records (i.e. rape victim's name obtained from police records or court proceedings used in a newspaper article)
Special damages in invasion of privacy
Proof not required as long as elemetns are present. Emotional distress and mental anguish are sufficient
DEFENSES to invasion of privacy
1. CONSENT (unless exceeded scope of consent)
2. Defamation Defenses - absolute and qualified privilege are aplicable to invasion of right to privacy actions based on publication grounds (false light, public disclosure of private facts)

Note: TRUTH is NOT A DEFENSE, inadvertence, good faith, lack of malice not good either.
MI Consent defense to invasion of privacy
o MI says consent can be express or implied as a defense. Implied consent requires clear unequivocal decisive act.
o
MI Statutory cause of action for invasion of privacy (in addition to common law tort)
Statutory cause of action (in addition to common law tort of invasion of privacy) – MI prohibits installation of devices that observe, photograph, eavesdrop in private place w/o consent of persons entitled to privacy of that place.
Intentional misrepresentation, fraud or deceit
1. Misrepresentation made by D
2. Scienter
3. Intent to induce P's reliance
4. Causation (actual reliance)
5. Justifiable reliance
6. Damages
Misrepresentation
No general duty to disclose material fact or opinion to one is imposed UNLESS

1. D and P have fiduciary rlshp hence duty of disclosure
2. D selling real property nows P unaware of and cannot reasonably discover material info about transaction
3. Where D speaks and her utterance deceives P, she will be under duty to inform P of the true facts

Active concealment of a material fact - duty to disclose
Scienter for misrepresentation
P must prove D made the representation knowing it to be false or made with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity

If no scienter, D may be liable for NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
Exception to requirement that you have to intend to induce reliance on your misrepresentation
Continuous deception
Third party reliance on misreprsentation
D communicates directly to one person and another relies upon the misrepresentation. D is viewed as intending to deceive the person who relies upon the misrepresetnation IF the D could REASONABLY FORESEE tha the P will have such reliance. (i.e. D intentionaly sent false profit statement to a stockbroker and a customer relied on the statement to his detriment - liability)
Justifiable reliance on a misrepresentation
Even if it was intended by D that P rely on the representation, P must nonetheless prove it was JUSTIFIED. Usualy always justified. Only where the fats are obviously FALSE is there no justifiable reliance.

NO DUTY ON P TO INVESTIGATE VERACITY OF D'S REPRESENTATION OF FACT EVEN IF IT IS ESY FOR P TO DO SO. HOWEVER< if P does investigate, may not rely on representations by D inconsistent with facts reasonably ascertainable form such investigation.
Reliance on OPINION usually not justifiable unless...
1. D has superior knowledge of subject matter
2. D is a lawyer who made as tatement of law hence has superior knowledge or if the D is a homeowner who falsely states that hte house she is offering for sale conforms to city requirements
3. Statmeents of FUTURE EVENTS are viewed as opinions and not reliable unless characterized as a statement of PRESENT INTENT (i.e. D promises to pay P 50/month for next two years)
Damages for intentional misrepresentation
P may recover ONLY if suffered ACTUAL PECUNIARY LOSS
Negligent Misrepresentation

Hint: Confined only to commercial transactions and only if reliance by P could be contemplated (duty owed to P)
1.1. Misrep made by D in BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY
2. Breach of duty toward particular P
3. Causation
4. Justifiable reliance
5. Damages

Foresee ability that it will be relied upon THIRD PERSONS not applicable here but it is for deceit
Malicious prosecution
1. institution of criminal proceedings against P
2. Case terminated in favor of P
3. Absence of probable cuase for prosectuion
4. Improper purpose of D
5. Damages

Prosecutor immune from malicious prosecution claims even if acted in bad faith without probable cause
Abuse of Process
It's a tort to use any form of process, civil or criminal, to bring about a result other than that for which form of process was intended (i.e. D garnished an account to force P to sign a lease)

Wrongful use of process for ulterior purpose, some definite act or threat against P to accomplish ulterior purpose

Not malicious prosecution
Interference with Business Relations (K, prospective economic advantage)
1. Existence of valid K rlshp btwn P and third party or valid business expectancy
2. D's knowledge of rlshp or expectancy
3. Intentional interference by D that induces breach or termiantion of rlshp or expectancy
4. Damage to P

D must INTEND to interfere - no recovery for negligent interference with K in absene of some independent tort such as negligent misrepresentation

MUST have atual damages and may recover in addition to, distress and puntiive damages

UNLESS THERE IS A PRIVILEGE
NEGLIGENCE
1. Duty of D to conform to specific standard of condcut
2. Breach
3. Actual and proximate cause of injury
4. Damage to P's person or proerty
General duty of care
One of ordinary, prudent, reasonable person to take precautions against unreasonable risks of injury to other persons
To whom is duty owed?
FORESEEABLE PLAINTIFFS
If P is unforeseeable....
Problem arises when D breaches a duty to P1 and also causes injury thereby to P2 to whom a foreseeable risk of injury MAY OR MAY NOT have been created at time of original act

Depends on whether P2 was in ZONE OF DANGER
Standard of negligence for CHILDREN
Child required to conform to standard of care of a child of LIKE AGE, EDUCATION, INTELLIGENCE, and EXPERIENCE

This is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation
Children engaged in adult activities
Required to conform to same standard of care as an adult in such an activity (i.e. driving a car, flying a plan, driving a boat)
Negligence duties for common carriers and innkeepers
Required to exercise very high degree of care toward their passengers and guests
Guest statutes
Driver's only duty to a NONPAYING rider is to refrain from gross or wanton and willful miscondcut

Does not apply to passengers (riders who contribute toward expense of ride - owed duty of oridnary care)
Duty of possessor to those off the premises

Natural Conditions
Owner owes NO DUTY to protect one outside premises from natural conditions on the land except for decaying trees next to sidewalks or streets in URBAN areas
Duty of possessor to those off the premises

Artificial Conditions
NO DUTY for artifical conditions btu 2 exceptions

1. UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS CONDITION - owner liable for dmage caused by unreasonably dangerous artificial condtiions or structures abutting adjacent land
2. Duty to protect passerby - owner has duty to take due precautions to protet persons passing byf rom dangerous conditions (i.e. erecitng a barricade to prevent people from falling into an excavation at edge of property)
Duty of possessor to those off the premises
Conduct of persons on property
Owner has duty to exercise reaosnable care w/ respect to his own activities on the land and to control condcut of others on his property so as to avoid unreaosnable risk of harm to others outside the property
Duty of Possessor to those ON THE PREMISES

To an undiscovered or discovered TRESPASSER
Owner owes NO DUTY to undiscovered trespasser, but once he discovers presence of a trespasser, under duty to exercise ordinary care to WARN trespasser or to MAKE SAFE, ARTIFICIAL CONDITIONS known to the owner that involve RISK OF DEATH or SERIOUS BODILY HARM and that the trespasser is unlikely to discover. B
Duty of Possessor to those ON THE PREMISES

To an anticipated trespassor
An anticipated trespasser is where owner knows or should know of presence of trespassers who constantly cross over a section of his land (but if owner posted no trespassing signs, this converts them to undiscovered trespassers)

Same duty to discovered trespassers in most states
Infant trespassers - attractive nuisance doctrine
owenr has duty of oridnary care to avoid reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to children caused by artificial conditions on his property - to assess this special duty on owner or occupier of land in regard to children, P msut show:

1. Dangerous ondition on land of which owner is or should be aware
2. owner knows or should know that young person frequent the vicinity of dangerous condition
3. condition is likely to cause injury (is dangerous) b/c of child's inability to appreciate the risk
4. expense of remedying is slight compared to magnitude of risk
Duty of easement and license holders to trespassers
EEs and independent contractors acting on behalf of landowner have status of landowner, persons with EASEMENT or LICENSE to use the land DO not have status as landoner - they must exericse reasonable care to protect trespasser

ex. power company's liable for injury to an undiscovered trespasser
Licensee
One who enters on the land with landowner's PERMISSION, express or implied, for her own purpose or business rather than for landowner's benefit

ex: social guests
Duty owed to licensee
Duty to warn licensee of dangerous condition KNOWN to owenr or occupeir that creates unreasonabel risk of harm to licensee and that licensee unlikely to discover

NO DUTY TO INSPECT for defects nor to repair known defects
Invitee
Person who enters onto premises in response to an express or implied invitation of the landowner. Two types:
1. Those who enter as members of public ofr apurpsoe for which land is held open to public (museums, churches, airports, hotles)
2. Those who enter for purose connected with the business or other interests of landowner or ocupier (store customers, employees, making deliveries)
Firefighters Rule
Police officers and firefighters generally treated like licensees rather than invitees based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds - cant recover for landowner's failure to inspect or repair dangers conditions that are inherent risk of law enforcement or firefighting activity
Reversion to licensee
Scope of invitation - person loses status as invitee if she exceeds scope of invitation
Duty owed to invitee
general duty to use reasonable ordinary care in keeping propery reasonably safe for benefit of invitee - includes duty to warn of nonobviosu dangerous conditions known to landowner plus duty to INSPECT dangerous conditions

Warning may suffice

Duty to warn does not exist where dangerous condition is so obvious that the invitee should reasonably have been aware of it
Uses of recreational land
If owner or oupier of open land permits public to use it for recreational purposes without charging a fee, owner not liable for injuries UNLESS he willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of dangersou condition or activity
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
D creates foreseeable risk of physical injury to P by causing a threat of physical impact that leads to emotional distress or directly causign severe emotional distress that by itself likely to result in physical symptoms

P must suffer physical injury, be within target zone or zone of danger

Special situatiosn where physical injuyr not required - cases where D's negligence creates GREAT likelihood of distress such as errneous report of a relative's death or the mishandling of a relative's corpse
Tort of neglgient infliction of emotional distress not only way to recover damages for emotional distress. I fP is victim of another tort that causes physcal injury..
P can tack on damages for emotional distress as a PRASITIC element of his physical injury damages
MI law on conversion of money...
D mus thave obligation to return the specific money that was entrustd to his care
MI statutory conversion
IN addition to a CL action agianst the converter, MI provides statutory cause of action against those who AID in conversion of property. Remedy against anyone who (a) steals, embezzles, or converts property to her own use, or (b) buys receives or aids in the concealment of stolen, embezzled or converted property with the knowledge that the property is stiolen, embezzled or converted

Actual knowledge is required!

P can recover three times amount of actual damages plus costs and atty fees
MI self-defense to intentional torts
Duty to retreat before using deadliny force unless can't be done safely or actor rightfully in own home
MI defense of others
allowed if based upon reasonable blief that third person would have right of self defense
MI defamation
requires showing of fault in all defamation cases
MI damages rules for libel
MI treats libel like slander -s pecial damages are required unless the statement falls into one of four slander per se categories
MI consent defense to invasion of privacy
consent can be express or implied if clear, unequivcoal and decisive
MI statutory cause of action for invasion of privacy
prohibits installation/placement of any device that observes, photographs, eavesdrops in private place withotu consent of persons entiteld to privacy
MI innocent misrepresentation doctrine
Action for fraud doesnt require scienter IF the parties are in privity of K and loss of party deceived inures to benefit of misrepresetning party

Also, intent to induce reliance automatically satisfied if in privity of K
MI malicious prosecution
With respect to favorable termiantion elemetn, the following do NOT satisfy it:

1. compromise or settlement, 2. action by accused as a favor that brings about termination of criminal proceedings or 3. act by accused that prevents litigation
MI - wrongful birth
not recognized. Cant recover cost of raising a healthy child in a wrongful pregnancy where the doctor negligently performed sterilization procedure
MI - in med mal cases, general practitioners are held to standard of...
reasonable care in same or similar community
MI - in med mal cases, specialists are held to standard of...
care within that specialty considerin gthe facilites avialable int he community or reasonably available
MI - loss of chance
In me dmal, P cannot recover for deceden's loss of oppty to survive UNLESS expert testimony shows that the chance of survival absent the alleged negligence would have been greater than 50%
MI - patient abandonment
When a medical professional terminates the physician-patient rlshp withotu providing patient reasonable time to find another meidcal professional to provide treatment
MI limits on noncominc loss in med mal cases
Jury may nto award more than $280,000 (adjusted annually). But limit is 500,000 if P is partly paralyzed, if injury to P's brain or spinal cord, if P can no longer procreate or injury to P's mental abilities is such that P can no longer care for himself.

No cap on economic damages.
MI - minimum age for children capacity to be negligent
A child under age of SEVEN is incapable of negligence as a matter of law.
MI - duty owed to INVITEE
MI does not extend invitee status to members of the public who enter on land for purpose for which land is held open to the public (museums, churches).

Invitee status must be founded on COMMERCIAL PURPOSE for visiting owner's premises.

This is unliek general definition of invitee status
MI's version of firefighter's rule
Fighrefighters and police officers cannot recover against landowerns for dangerous conditions on land that cuase injuries to them in cours eof their regular authorized duties. But they can recover ONLY IF:

1. LO caused injury by conduct that was intential, willful, gorssley negligent OR
2. LO caused injury by negligent condcut AFTER arrival of firefighter or police officer on sene
MI duty owed to invitee and obviousness of danger
LO has no duty to invitees for conditions on land that are so open and obvious that the invitee should be expected to discover them, but if special aspects of condition make it unreaosnably dangers, duty to undertake reasonable precautions (i.e. visibly slippery stairway was only exit from premises)
MI - uses of recreational land
LO liable to respasser or licensee only for owner's gross negligence or wanton and wilful condcut where trespasser or licensee was on land for purposes of outdoor recreation, using a public trail or gathering agricultural products
MI statutory duty of owners of leased residential property
Owners of leased residential property obligated by statue to keep premises in reasonable repair and comply with health and safety laws of the state and local govts. If an invitee is injured as a result of an owner's failure to comply with this stautory duty, owner is liable even if the danger is open and obvious.
MI - negligent infliction of emotional distress
Bystanders can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress resulting in phsical injury even though not within the target zone. To recover P must show that (1) severe distress was reasonaby foreseeable due to gravity of the harm inflicted on the victi, (2) P was present at time of peril or suffered shock contemporaneously and (3) P is member of viitm's immediate family.a
MI good samaritan act
health care provider immune from liability for oridnary negligence if had good faith belief that a life threatening emerency existed

subjective test
MI - res ipsa loquitor
Must be supported by expert testimony or within common understanidng of jury
MI - damages for negligence
P must show a present physical injury to a person or property and economic losses resulting from injury (economic losses relatied to medical monitoring to detect a possible future injury not sufficent)
MI - punitive damages
No permitted. Exemplary damages are a type of compensatory recovery for injuyr to feeling and available only where D acted intentionally and maliciously
MI - partial comparative negligence
Only bars recovery of nonecomic damages. If P's fault was greater than 50% of total fault, P cannot recover for NONECONMIC DAMGES, but may still recover economic damages reduced by her relative degree o fault in all tort actions.
MI - effect of intoxication on partial compartive negligence
If P foudn to hav ebeen 50% or more at fault AND under influence of drugs or alcohol, cannot recovery ANY damages
MI - dog bite statute
imposes SL if injured person was in a public place or lawfully in a private place (not a trespasser).

Also SL for harm from domestic animals when D is owner or keeper of animal, D knew of anima's dangerous propensity and harm results from such propensity
MI product liabiltiy
To recover from manufacturer or seller for a defective product that caused death or injury, P must prove product was not reasonably safe at time it left control of manufacture or seller

Reaosnable safety of product determiend from general industry production practices
MI - to recover damages for a design defect, P must prove that accoridng ot production practices generally acecpted in that industry
1. there was techincially feasiable and practical alternative to design
2. alternative was reasonably avialable at time product left manfuacturer's control
3. use of altenrative would've prevented injury that P sustained, and
5. the alternative wouldnt have significantly compromsied usefullnes or desirability of product
MI - rebuttable presumption that if a product complied with recognized industry or govt standards, the product was safe
Conversely, fat tha ta product does NOT comply with recognized standard doesnt raise presumption that it is unsafe

If a drug is approved by FDA, there is irrebuttable presumption that the drug is safe unless manfuacturer withheld information from the FDA
MI - cap on noneconmoic damages in product liability actions
280,00 unless product caused eath or permanent loss of vital body function in which case damges limited to 500,000
MI defenses to product liability D
MI's comparative fualt statute appleis to product liability actions and also provides a COMPLETE DEFENSE if:

1. harm was caused by subsequent alteration of product that wa snot reasonably foreseeable
2. product was misued in a way that was not reasonably foreseeable
3. P knew product create dunresasble risk of injury and voluntairly expoed to risk
4. product by its nature is inherently unsafe and cannot be made safe withotu susbtantially comrpomising its utility or desirability
Mi products liability - failure to warn
no liability for failure to warn if danger was obvious, product provided for sophisitcated users or danger was not known an dreasonably couldnt have been known at time it left D's control
MI products liability - defenses to the seller
Seller who is not a manufacturer has no liability for a defective product unless he failued to use reaosnabel care including breach of implied warranty in its selling or seller made and breached express warranties
MI implied warranty of merchantability and fitness
MI requires horizontal privity - implied warranty extends to buyer's family househould and guests
MI coming to the nuisance
Right to Farm Act - farm over has the coming to the nusiance defense against surroundign landowners when land use of area changes and farm not a nuisance when the land use changed
MI vicarious liability of parent for child
Parent liable for up to 2500 for child's malicious injury to persons or property
MI permissive use statute
car owner VL for damages negligently caused by driver of owner's car if driver used car with owner's knowledge or consent

Owner's liability applies even when damage is caused by a mechanic to drove the car inside a repair shop
MI - joint liability
abolished except in med mal cases where P not at fault

Jury must allocate % of liability among parties AND nonparties

A finding of fault against a nonparty tortfeasor not admissible against him in a later suit against him
MI - release
The release of one party does NOT release any other tortfeasor at least where tortfeasors are independently liable.

But if liability based on respondeat superior, release of agent releases principal.

If a D gets a release or covenant not to sue is discharged from all liability for contribution to toher Ds who subsequently have to pay a judgment to P
MI - indemnity
Allowed under active passive negligence doctrine
MI comparative contribution
Based on relative fault of joint tortfeasors but depends on degrees of fault
MI wrongful death and survival act
combiens into one cause of action any actions for damages suffered by a decedent prior to his death and damages by the spouse and next of kin as a result of death

PR sues on behalf of surviving spouse, next of kin an destate
MI - intra family tort immunities
MI abolished interspousal immunity

Also abolished parent child immunity except for exercise of reasonable parently authority and discretion in providing care
MI govt immunity
Retains immunity for exercise and discharge of GOVT FUNCTIONS

No immunity for proprietary functions

Operation of a public hospital, city parking lot and garbage collection are governmental functions
MI exceptions to govt immunities
HIghway safety - govt agency with jurisdition over highway has duty to keep it reasonably safe and liable for damages caused by unreasonably dangerous defets in the highway if the govt agency knew or should'e known

Govt owned cars - govt agency liable for damages resutling from negligent operation of agency's car by govt employee or agent

public buildings - govt agency has obligation to repair and maintain public buildings under their contorl if building is for use by the public, injury from dangerous or defective condition, they had actual or constructive knowledge and failed to take action