Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
213 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Basic torts analysis
|
- What causes of action exist and are the elements met?
- What defenses apply? - General considerations? |
|
|
categories of torts
|
- intentional torts
- negligence - strict liability - products liability - defamation - miscellaneous torts |
|
|
intentional torts: list
|
- battery
- assault - false imprisonment - intentional infliction of emotional distress - trespass to land - trespass to chattels - conversion |
|
|
battery
|
Affirmative act with intent to touch another resulting in actual harmful or offensive touching.
- affirmative act: voluntary act, absence of mistake, coercion, or duress - with intent to touch another: actual intent or substantial certainty - resulting in actual harmful or offensive touching (REASONABLE PERSON) - Eggshell plaintiff |
|
|
assault
|
- affirmative act
- w. intent to place P in apprehension - of an immediate - harmful or offensive touching |
|
|
false imprisonment
|
- act or omission that causes P's confinement to a particular area
- with intent to confine someone, resulting in - actual confinement of P (could not escape by reasonable means) - awareness or injury |
|
|
intentional infliction of emotional distress
|
Extreme & outrageous conduct with intent to cause severe emotional distress, or recklessness with regard to injuries, resulting in severe emotional distress.
- extreme & outrageous conduct--beyond all notions of common decency - w. intent (purposeful or knowing) to cause severe emotional distress or recklessness w. regard to injuries (no transfered intent) - resulting in severe emotional distress (physical injury not required) |
|
|
trespass to land
|
- affirmative intentional act
- which invades P's possessory interest - in land |
|
|
trespass to chattels
|
- affirmative intentional act
- interferes w. P's possessory interest - in movable personal property - resulting in injury - measure of damages: depends |
|
|
conversion
|
- act or omission
- w. intent to assert control - which in fact belongs to P - resulting in substantial injury to the chattel - measure of damages: full/fair value |
|
|
intentional torts: defenses
|
- consent
- defense of others - defense of property - defense of self - necessity - arrest |
|
|
intentional torts defense: consent
|
types:
- actual consent (words) - apparent consent (actions) - implied consent (law) - informed consent issues: - D's acts exceed scope of consent? - capacity to consent? - consent to criminal act? - fraud or duress? |
|
|
intentional torts defense: defense of others
|
MAJORITY RULE: D stands in the shoes of the protected party
MINORITY RULE: protects tortfeasor's reasonable mistake |
|
|
intentional torts defense: defense of property
|
- intrusion not privileged
- reasonably believed force necessary - demanded to stop (unless futile) - force will not cause serious harm |
|
|
intentional torts defense: recapture of property
|
- D entitled to immediate possession
- demanded return (unless futile) - fresh pursuit of another tortfeasor - recapture from dispossessor |
|
|
intentional torts defense: shopkeeper's privilege
|
- reasonable SUSPICION
- reasonable PERIOD OF TIME - reasonable FORCE - reasonable DETENTION |
|
|
intentional torts defense: privilege to reclaim property on another's land
|
- demanded permission to enter (unless futile or emergency)
- reasonable time & manner (if not, then you're liable for acts of God or 3rd party!) |
|
|
intentional torts defense: privilege to reclaim land
|
- self-help not privileged!
|
|
|
intentional torts defense: self-defense
|
- D reasonably believes she's in danger from P
- force used REASONABLY appears necessary to prevent harm (objective!) - no deadly force unless threat of death or great bodily injury - duty to retreat: MAJORITY: no! MODERN: yes, before using deadly force, unless in your own home - no defense for aggressor unless she withdraws |
|
|
intentional torts defense: necessity
|
- public purpose
- private purpose: liable for actual damage + abate nuisance: - D owns land affected - made immediate demand - REASONABLE force |
|
|
intentional torts defense: arrest
|
misdemeanor: non-deadly only!
serious felony: deadly ok, if suspect poses serious harm - with warrant (if fair & properly executed) + w/o warrant: - felonies: need probable cause - misdemeanor: only if committed in arrestor's presence |
|
|
negligence
|
Breach of duty of due care which is the actual & proximate cause of P's injuries
|
|
|
negligence defense
|
DUTY
majority: duty only to foreseeable P or zone of danger minority: all members of society look for special duties |
|
|
list of duties
|
duty to:
- control third persons - owner of land - lessee/vendee - auto driver - aid others - unborn child - negligent emotional distress |
|
|
duty to control third persons
|
where D has actual ability & authority:
- D holds public premises open to public - D is liable as parent for failing to control child |
|
|
duty: owner of land
|
depends on character of land and P's status:
- P outside D's land, tort caused by natural conditions: no duty - artificial condition: D has duty to inspect & maintain - artificial condition or dangerous activities: D has duty to warn if knows or should know of P's presence - attractive nuisance: D has duty if knows/should know that kids will trespass, kids wouldn't realize risk, and danger outweighs burden of eliminating danger - gratuitous licensee: duty to warn of nonobvious dangers - invitee: duty to inspect, warn of nonobvious dangers, and make safe - gov't employees during normal hours count as invitees |
|
|
duty to lessee/vendee
|
- outside land: duty limited to conditions involving unreasonable risk of harm until transferee has chance to discover & fix
- no duty after transfer (but must warn of unreasonable obvious dangers) - 3rd persons coming on land without consent: - MAJORITY: no duty! - MINORITY: same duty as vendee/lessee |
|
|
duty to auto passenger
|
- if passenger paid: invitee
- if guest: warn of nonobvious defects & drive carefully - modern law: only liability to guest if gross or wanton negligence |
|
|
duty to aid others
|
- inkeeper
- common carrier - jailor - D caused P's peril or injuries - rescuer |
|
|
duty to fetus?
|
MAJORITY: only viable fetus
MINORITY: nonviable fetus too |
|
|
negligent infliction of emotional distress: duty
|
duty of care not to subject others to emotional distress that could foreseeably cause them physical injury through physical impact or threat of impact.
No duty for fear for another's safety unless: - inside zone of danger - close relative - D had knowledge of third party's presence & relationship to injured party |
|
|
negligence: standard of care
|
REASONABLE PERSON
Exceptions: special knowledge / disability (eg. doctor or small child) |
|
|
res ipsa loquitur
|
- type of accident does not occur unless someone was negligent
- D had exclusive control over instrumentality - P not contributorily negligent MAJORITY: creates an inference of negligence MINORITY: rebuttable presumption of negligence |
|
|
negligence: causation (who is at fault?)
|
- cause-in-fact
- but for rule - substantial factor rule - alternative cause approach - proximate cause |
|
|
negligence causation: alternative cause approach
|
2 people negligent. P proves ONE OF THEM caused the injury. Burden shifts to D to prove it wasn't him.
|
|
|
negligence: damages
|
Proof of actual damages required!
- past damages - future damages - duty to mitigate not recoverable: - punitive - pre-judgment interest - attorney fees |
|
|
negligence: defenses
|
- duty
- contributory negligence (but remember Last Clear Chance doctrine!) - comparative negligence (pure, 50%, 50% or less) - assumption of the risk |
|
|
strict liability
|
Liability imposed for a breach:
- absolute duty to make safe - actual and proximate cause of P's injuries |
|
|
strict liability: abnormally dangerous activities
|
- value of activity to community
- location of activity - risk cannot be eliminated by due care - not a matter of common usage - probability of serious harm to others |
|
|
strict liability: causation
|
MAJORITY: same rules as negligence
MINORITY: not even act of God excuses liability |
|
|
strict liability: defenses
|
- assumption of risk: yes
- contributory negligence: only if P knew of danger - comparative negligence: some states ok |
|
|
products liability: issues
|
- misrepresentation
- breach of express warranty - strict products liability - implied warranty - negligence |
|
|
products liability: misrepresentation
|
- misrepresentation of a material fact
- P relied on it - made by D or fairly chargeable against him - intended/expected to reach P - commercial supplier of chattels Damages: personal injury or property loss Defenses: - assumption of risk: yes - misuse: yes - contributory negligence: no |
|
|
products liability: breach of express warranty
|
- same as misrepresentation
- anyone who could be expected to be personally injured by the goods - entity can sue Damages: personal injury, property damage, economic losses Defenses: same as misrepresentation, plus failure to give notice and adequate warning |
|
|
strict products liability: restatement
|
- D caused product to be placed on market
- when it contained unreasonably dangerous defect - P hurt while using it in INTENDED and FORESEEABLE manner - D engaged in business of selling/supplying product |
|
|
strict products liability: california
|
- product does not meet consumer expectation
- risk of harm outweighs benefit to society |
|
|
strict products liability: feasible alternative test
|
- DANGER imposed
- OBVIOUSNESS of danger - COST of improved design/practicability - BENEFIT of product - ALTERNATIVE design - TECHNOLOGY |
|
|
strict products liability: defenses
|
- contributory negligence: no
- assumption of risk: yes - misuse of product: yes - not following instructions: yes - state of the art defense |
|
|
strict products liability: state of the art defense
|
- did safer mechanism exist?
- why didn't D use it? - would adversely affect benefit of product - feasibility / scientific knowledge / practicality |
|
|
products liability: breach of implied warranties
|
- warranty of merchantability
- warranty of fitness - damages - defenses |
|
|
warranty of merchantability
|
guarantees that goods are fit for ordinary purposes for which those goods are used where D is a merchant of such goods
|
|
|
warranty of fitness of a particular purpose
|
seller recommends particular product after being told of P's needs. Doesn't matter whether D is merchant!
|
|
|
breach of implied warranties: damages
|
same as express warranty
|
|
|
breach of implied warranties: defenses
|
- assumption of risk
- misuse of product - failure to follow directions - failure to complain to seller within reasonable time |
|
|
products liability: negligence
|
same as regular negligence, but:
DUTY: commercial sellers have duty to any foreseeable P! STANDARD OF CARE: - manufacturer: reasonable care - wholesalers: no duty to inspect - retailer: duty to inspect if they know product is defective! |
|
|
defamation
|
- defamatory:
TRADITIONAL: exposes P to public hatred, contempt, ridicule RESTATEMENT: adversely affects P's reputation - P published to 3rd person - understood by 3rd person to apply to P |
|
|
defamation: causation
|
same as negligence
|
|
|
defamation: damages
|
libel or written: general damages
slander per se: general damages slander: special damages |
|
|
slander per se
|
- affects P's business
- constitute a serious criminal offense - loathsome communicable disease - unchaste |
|
|
defamation: defenses
|
- absolute privilege
- qualified privilege - retraction |
|
|
defamation defenses: absolute privilege - list
|
- truth
- judicial: must be related - legislative: absolutely privileged - made to official: must be related to duty - husband & wife - political broadcast - consent |
|
|
defamation defenses: qualified privilege - list
|
- First Amendment
- opinion - protection of private interest - public interest - published as report of public proceeding |
|
|
defamation defenses: retraction
|
full/fair retraction will mitigate damages or negate malice
|
|
|
miscellaneous torts: list
|
- invasion of privacy
- nuisance - harm to P's business relations - misrepresentation - malicious prosecution - wrongful civil proceedings |
|
|
invasion of privacy: issues
|
- intrusion
- public disclosure of offensive private facts - placing P in false light in public eye - appropriation of P's name or likeness for commercial advantage |
|
|
invasion of privacy: defenses
|
- consent: yes
- newsworthy: yes - truth: no! - inadvertence: no - good faith: no - lack of malice: no |
|
|
nuisance
|
PUBLIC: unreasonable interference with public interest in use of land that offends public's sense of value
PRIVATE: unreasonable interference with individual's use of land TEST: balance harm vs. utility DEFENSE: coming to the nuisance |
|
|
harm to P's business relations: list
|
- injurious falsehood
- interference with contract - interference with economic advantage |
|
|
misrepresentation
|
INTENTIONAL or NEGLIGENT
- material fact - D intends that P will rely on statement - P justifiably relied on statement - P was damaged by reliance |
|
|
malicious prosecution
wrongful civil proceedings |
- initiation of proceeding
- without probable cause - with malicious intent - terminated in favor of D - resulting in actual damage |
|
|
abuse of process
|
D's misuse of legal process for ulterior purpose causing actual injury
|
|
|
torts: general considerations
|
- vicarious liability
- immunity - recovery for injury to another - multiple defendant problems - statute of limitations |
|
|
vicarious liability
|
- parent-child
- owner of vehicle - respondeat superior - joint enterprise - alcohol seller - independent contractor: inherently dangerous duty non-delegable! |
|
|
who has immunity?
|
- government agent
- charity (not any more?) - inter-family (not any more?) |
|
|
recovery for injury to another
|
- spouse: loss of services/consortium
- tort lawsuit survives death - wrongful death - wrongful life: no! - wrongful birth: yes! |
|
|
multiple defendant problems
|
- several liability: distribute damages among D's
- joint liability: each D liable for entire judgment - satisfaction: full acceptance of compensation - release: P surrenders claim against party - indemnity: D who pays may recover from another - contribution: all parties are liable! |
|
|
statute of limitations: when does it start tolling?
|
TRADITIONAL: runs from time of injury, not time of D's tort
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: runs from time of discovery MODERN: everything runs from time of discovery |
|
|
torts remedies: checklist
|
- damages
- restitution - injunction |
|
|
torts remedies: damages
|
- compensatory
- punitive - nominal & limitations on damages |
|
|
torts remedies: restitution - types
|
- replevin
- ejectment - quasi-contract - constructive trust - equitable lien |
|
|
torts remedies: injunction
|
- inadequate remedy at law
- property right - feasibility - balancing hardships - defenses - parties bound - enforcement |
|
|
torts remedies: damages must be . . .
|
- foreseeable
- unavoidable - causation - certain (damages can't be speculative) |
|
|
injunction: inadequate remedy at law
|
- threat of multiplicity of suits
- damages too speculative or small - P will suffer irreparable injury |
|
|
remedies: feasibility problems
|
- court must have personal jurisdiction
- problems with supervising - negative or mandatory injunction? |
|
|
remedies: when to balance the hardships
|
not when D's conduct is willful!
if D's conduct innocent: - weigh & balance creatively - encroachment & nuisance: weigh in favor of P |
|
|
preliminary injunction
|
P must show:
- likelihood of success on the merits - need to maintain status quo - balancing hardships |
|
|
injunction: defenses
|
- laches: you're too late!
- unclean hands - freedom of speech - freedom of association - injunction against criminal act - injunction against prosecution of a crime |
|
|
injunction: parties bound
|
non-parties acting independently are free to ignore injunction and cannot be held in contempt.
EXCEPTION: IN REM INJURY RUNS WITH THE LAND! |
|
|
injunction: what is the purpose?
|
CIVIL: purpose is to coerce D, not punish
CRIMINAL: purpose is to punish! yeah baby! |
|
|
types of consent
|
- actual consent (words)
- apparent consent (actions) - implied consent (law) - informed consent |
|
|
consent: considerations
|
- D's acts exceed scope of consent?
- capacity to consent? - consent to criminal act? - fraud or duress? |
|
|
intentional torts defense: necessary to abate nuisance
|
- D owns land affected
- made immediate demand - REASONABLE force |
|
|
owner of land duties: list of conditions
|
- natural conditions
- artificial conditions - attractive nuisance |
|
|
owner of land duty to P outside D's land, tort caused by natural conditions
|
no duty
|
|
|
owner of land duty: artificial conditions / dangerous activities
|
- duty to inspect & maintain
- duty to warn if knows or should know of P's presence |
|
|
owner of land duty: attractive nuisance
|
D has duty if:
- knows/should know that kids will trespass - kids won't realize risk - danger outweighs burden of eliminating danger |
|
|
owner of land duty: gratuitous licensee
|
duty to warn of nonobvious dangers
|
|
|
owner of land duty: invitee
|
duty to inspect, warn of nonobvious dangers, and make safe
|
|
|
owner of land duty: gov't employees during normal hours
|
count as invitees. duty to inspect, warn of nonobvious dangers, and make safe
|
|
|
duty to lessee/vendee outside land
|
duty limited to conditions involving unreasonable risk of harm until transferee has chance to discover & fix
|
|
|
duty to 3rd persons coming on land without consent
|
- MAJORITY: no duty!
- MINORITY: same duty as vendee/lessee |
|
|
product liability - misrepresentation: elements
|
- misrepresentation of a material fact
- P relied on it - made by D or fairly chargeable against him - intended/expected to reach P - commercial supplier of chattels |
|
|
product liability - misrepresentation: damages
|
personal injury or property loss
|
|
|
product liability - misrepresentation: defenses
|
- assumption of risk: yes
- misuse: yes - contributory negligence: no |
|
|
products liability: breach of express warranty
elements |
+ same as misrepresentation:
- misrepresentation of a material fact - P relied on it - made by D or fairly chargeable against him - intended/expected to reach P - commercial supplier of chattels - anyone who could be expected to be personally injured by the goods - entity can sue |
|
|
products liability: breach of express warranty
damages |
personal injury, property damage, economic losses
|
|
|
products liability: breach of express warranty
defenses |
same as misrepresentation:
- assumption of risk: yes - misuse: yes - contributory negligence: no plus failure to give notice and adequate warning |
|
|
is contributory negligence a defense to strict liability?
|
no
|
|
|
is assumption of the risk a defense to strict liability?
|
yes
|
|
|
is misuse of product a defense to strict liability?
|
yes
|
|
|
is not following instructions a defense to strict liability?
|
yes
|
|
|
definition of "defamatory" (for defamation)
|
TRADITIONAL: exposes P to public hatred, contempt, ridicule
RESTATEMENT: adversely affects P's reputation |
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? truth
|
absolute
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? judicial
|
absolute - must be related
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? legislative
|
absolute
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? made to official
|
absolute - must be related to duty
|
|
|
defamation: what kind of privilege is it? husband & wife
|
absolute
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? political broadcast
|
absolute
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? consent
|
absolute
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? 1st Amendment
|
qualified
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? opinion
|
qualified
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? protection of private interest
|
qualified
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? public interest
|
qualified
|
|
|
what kind of privilege is it? published as part of public proceeding
|
qualified
|
|
|
is consent a defense to invasion of privacy?
|
yes
|
|
|
is newsworthiness a defense to invasion of privacy?
|
yes
|
|
|
is truth a defense to invasion of privacy?
|
no
|
|
|
is inadvertence a defense to invasion of privacy?
|
no
|
|
|
is good faith a defense to invasion of privacy?
|
no
|
|
|
is lack of malice a defense to invasion of privacy?
|
no
|
|
|
several liability
|
distribute damages among D's
|
|
|
joint liability
|
each D liable for entire judgment
|
|
|
multiple defendants: satisfaction
|
full acceptance of compensation
|
|
|
multiple defendants: release
|
P surrenders claim against party
|
|
|
multiple defendants: indemnity
|
D who pays may recover from another
|
|
|
multiple defendants: contribution
|
all parties are liable!
|
|
|
Can you EVER use deadly force to protect property?
|
NO
|
|
|
Can an electric company keep the voltage running simply to prevent theft?
|
NO - can't use deadly force to protect property
|
|
|
Does a pharmaceutical insert count as proper warning for medication?
|
NO - doctor has to warn!
|
|
|
Doctor has liability for taking someone off medication?
|
If it's REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that it could cause harm
|
|
|
Doctor videotapes patient without their knowledge
|
Intruded upon patient's physical seclusion
|
|
|
Is smoke blowing in the backyard a private nuisance?
|
Only if it would disturb a person of ordinary sensibilities in the community.
|
|
|
Duty DURING rescue
|
Reasonable prudent rescuer standard!
|
|
|
Employer liability if employer gives an ex-con a gun and he shoots someone when he's off duty?
|
If a reasonable employer would have discovered the prior convictions
|
|
|
D is driving too fast sees a tree in the road swerves to avoid it and damages P's property as a result. What theory of liability?
|
INTENT - trespass trespass to chattels or conversion!
|
|
|
Law designed to protect child. Mother violates law child hurts SOMETHING ELSE. Does violation of negligence establish negligence per se?
|
NO. Statute was designed to prevent harm to CHILD not harm to other things.
|
|
|
Warheads made by O. Stored by D. Harms P. Can P sue O?
|
YES.
|
|
|
Intentional infliction of emotional distress: do you need physical injury?
|
NO.
|
|
|
Is an employer liable for the torts of an employee traveling to and from work?
|
NO.
|
|
|
If an employee is technically off duty but "on call " is his employer still liable for torts?
|
NO.
|
|
|
If the defect existed when the product left the factory is a commercial seller strictly liable?
|
YES.
|
|
|
Private plaintiff sues for defamation in a matter of public concern what is the standard?
|
At least negligently (preferably with malice). No strict liability!
|
|
|
Defamation of a public figure: what does P need to prove?
|
(1) falsity (2) actual malice
|
|
|
Is compliance with state regs a defense to negligence?
|
NO - you can be negligent if there were special circumstances that required heightened caution. (Eg. hotel maintaining its locks.)
|
|
|
Can the manufacturer of a defective product seek indemnity from the person who negligently designed the product?
|
YES.
|
|
|
Negligent infliction of emotional distress: who can collect inside the zone of danger?
|
ANYONE - don't have to be related!
|
|
|
If you commit larceny and then return it later is it still larceny?
|
YES.
|
|
|
What do you need to sue for slander?
|
Special damages! Ordinary slander is not actionable without special damages!
|
|
|
When do you have to ask someone to leave your property?
|
Only for torts against the property. Don't have to ask someone to leave for torts against your person.
|
|
|
If someone is comitting a tort against you on your property, can you commit a tort against them?
|
NO. Eg. slamming door on the bullhorn: you're liable for that.
|
|
|
State of mind for larceny:
|
INTENT. If you accidentally take something and then later decide to keep it it's not larceny! Have to have intent when you took it!
|
|
|
Prevailing rule: duty to retreat?
|
NO. Nowhere nohow. Kick his ass.
|
|
|
If you are vicariously liable but the other person is 100% actually liable and you seek indemnification how much can you get from them?
|
100%. Even if you're liable for damages if they are 100% at fault then you can seek 100% indemnification from them.
|
|
|
Can you EVER use deadly force to protect property?
|
NO
|
|
|
Can an electric company keep the voltage running simply to prevent theft?
|
NO - can't use deadly force to protect property
|
|
|
Does a pharmaceutical insert count as proper warning for medication?
|
NO - doctor has to warn!
|
|
|
Doctor has liability for taking someone off medication?
|
If it's REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that it could cause harm
|
|
|
Doctor videotapes patient without their knowledge
|
Intruded upon patient's physical seclusion
|
|
|
Is smoke blowing in the backyard a private nuisance?
|
Only if it would disturb a person of ordinary sensibilities in the community.
|
|
|
Duty DURING rescue
|
Reasonable prudent rescuer standard!
|
|
|
Employer liability if employer gives an ex-con a gun and he shoots someone when he's off duty?
|
If a reasonable employer would have discovered the prior convictions
|
|
|
D is driving too fast sees a tree in the road swerves to avoid it and damages P's property as a result. What theory of liability?
|
INTENT - trespass trespass to chattels or conversion!
|
|
|
Law designed to protect child. Mother violates law child hurts SOMETHING ELSE. Does violation of negligence establish negligence per se?
|
NO. Statute was designed to prevent harm to CHILD not harm to other things.
|
|
|
Warheads made by O. Stored by D. Harms P. Can P sue O?
|
YES.
|
|
|
Intentional infliction of emotional distress: do you need physical injury?
|
NO.
|
|
|
Is an employer liable for the torts of an employee traveling to and from work?
|
NO.
|
|
|
If an employee is technically off duty but "on call " is his employer still liable for torts?
|
NO.
|
|
|
If the defect existed when the product left the factory is a commercial seller strictly liable?
|
YES.
|
|
|
Private plaintiff sues for defamation in a matter of public concern what is the standard?
|
At least negligently (preferably with malice). No strict liability!
|
|
|
Defamation of a public figure: what does P need to prove?
|
(1) falsity (2) actual malice
|
|
|
Is compliance with state regs a defense to negligence?
|
NO - you can be negligent if there were special circumstances that required heightened caution. (Eg. hotel maintaining its locks.)
|
|
|
Can the manufacturer of a defective product seek indemnity from the person who negligently designed the product?
|
YES.
|
|
|
Negligent infliction of emotional distress: who can collect inside the zone of danger?
|
ANYONE - don't have to be related!
|
|
|
If you commit larceny and then return it later is it still larceny?
|
YES.
|
|
|
What do you need to sue for slander?
|
Special damages! Ordinary slander is not actionable without special damages!
|
|
|
When do you have to ask someone to leave your property?
|
Only for torts against the property. Don't have to ask someone to leave for torts against your person.
|
|
|
If someone is comitting a tort against you on your property, can you commit a tort against them?
|
NO. Eg. slamming door on the bullhorn: you're liable for that.
|
|
|
State of mind for larceny:
|
INTENT. If you accidentally take something and then later decide to keep it it's not larceny! Have to have intent when you took it!
|
|
|
Prevailing rule: duty to retreat?
|
NO. Nowhere nohow. Kick his ass.
|
|
|
If you are vicariously liable but the other person is 100% actually liable and you seek indemnification how much can you get from them?
|
100%. Even if you're liable for damages if they are 100% at fault then you can seek 100% indemnification from them.
|
|
|
If you settle without judgment, can you get contribution from co-tortfeasors?
|
Yes. Usually. Every jx is different but you can assume yes.
|
|
|
If you sell a defective product, are you liable to someone who is harmed even if they didn't pay for it?
|
YES - you're strictly liable to everyone.
As long as: - you're engaged in the business of selling such product - it is expected and does reach the user without substantial change in condition |
|
|
are you liable to someone who voluntarily chooses to rescue you and is harmed?
|
YES - original wrongdoer is still liable. Cardozo: "The emergency begets the man."
|
|
|
Are you liable for installing something that was already defective (ie. glass door)?
|
No! Product liability only extends to persons engaged in the business of selling products for use or consumption.
|
|
|
assumption of the risk
|
Plaintiff KNOWINGLY exposes himself to a known risk of harm. If you get into a situation not knowing what will happen, it's not assumption of the risk. (ie breaking up a fight)
|
|
|
can landowner liability be delegated?
|
NO - landowner is still liable!
|
|
|
causation: legal cause
|
This means he's legally liable.
|
|
|
causation: cause in fact
|
This means he actually caused it (whether or not he's legally liable).
|
|
|
difference between cause in fact and legal cause
|
cause in fact: he actually caused it
legal cause: he's legally liable |
|
|
Is 30 minutes a reasonable amount of time for a shopkeeper detention?
|
NO. 30 minutes is an unreasonably long period of time.
|
|
|
Joint venture
|
- agreement (express or implied)
- common purpose - community of pecuniary interest - equal voice |
|
|
Does wrongful death require fault?
|
YES - wrongful conduct or negligence
|
|
|
Original tortfeasor has nothing to do with rescuer (ie. hole in the ground and someone else falls in). Is original tortfeasor still liable to rescuer?
|
Yes!
Cardozo: "The risk of rescue, if only it be not wanton, is born of the occasion. The emergency begets the man." |
|
|
Chair thrown out of unidentified hotel window. Res ipsa loquitur?
|
NO. P must prove it was in D's control. That chair could have been thrown by a guest.
|
|
|
Liability for keeping dangerous animals
|
Strict liability for harm caused by the animal's NORMALLY DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES.
Eg: If a shark eats you, strict liability. If the shark splashes you, that's not normally dangerous so not strict liability! |
|
|
Invasion to right of privacy
|
Actually four torts:
- appropriation of name/likeness - intrusion upon seclusion - public disclosure of private facts - false light |
|
|
Nuisance
|
Invasion of one's possessory interest in land
|
|
|
Modified comparative negligence: unit rule
|
P's negligence is compared to all defendant's put together!
|
|
|
Private nuisance: reasonableness
|
Conduct is only unreasonable if the gravity of the harm caused outweighs the utility of the conduct
|
|
|
Landowner liability for escaped fire
|
Only if negligent!
|
|
|
Trespass to chattels: level of intent
|
Must be intentional! Negligent conduct does not satisfy trespass to chattels!
|
|
|
Trespass to land: level of intent
|
Intent, negligence, or recklessness!
|
|
|
Land dedicated to city. Is the developer still liable?
|
YES - you can't avoid liability just by dedicating land to the city.
|
