Torts

Front 1

Elements of an intentional tort

Back 1

a voluntary act, intent, causation, harm, lack of privilege or defense

Front 2

intent

Back 2

a desire to cause a certain outcome or knowledge with substantial certainty that a certain outcome will occur

Front 3

incompetency in intentional torts

Back 3

mental incompetency or minority does not excuse an actor from liability in intentional torts, as long as the actor intended to cause some a tort

Front 4

transferred intent

Back 4

when a defendant acts with intent to inflict certain intentional torts towards one person but causes injury to another, intent can transfer to the actual victim of the tort

Front 5

causation

Back 5

defendant's act or a force set in motion by that act must cause the plaintiff's injury

Front 6

elements of battery

Back 6

(1)intentional act that (2)causes harmful or offensive contact (3)with the plaintiff or with something closely connected thereto (4)knowing that such contact is substantially certain to occur.

Front 7

harmful or offensive contact

Back 7

satisfied when contact would inflict pain or impairment of any body functions, or if a reasonable person would regard it as offensive

Front 8

assault

Back 8

(1) an intentional act (2)that causes the plaintiff to experience reasonable apprehension (3)of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. (4)Defendant must act with the desire to cause an immediate harmful or offensive contact or (5) must know with substantial certainty that such contact is likely to occur.

Front 9

false imprisonment

Back 9

(1)an intentional act (2)that causes plaintiff to be confined or restrained (3) to a bounded area (4) against the plaintiff's will, (5) and the plaintiff knows of the confinement.

Front 10

intentional infliction of emotional distress

Back 10

(1)an intentional or reckless act (2) amounting to extreme or outrageous conduct (3)that causes the plaintiff severe mental distress

Front 11

trespass to land

Back 11

(1)an intentional act (2)that causes a physical invasion (3) of a plaintiff's land

Front 12

trespass to chattels

Back 12

(1) an intentional act (2) by the defendant (3) that interferes with the plaintiff's chattels, (4) causing harm

Front 13

chattel

Back 13

tangible personal property or intangible property that has a physical representation

Front 14

conversion

Back 14

(1) an intentional act (2)by a defendant (3) that causes the destruction of or a serious and substantial interference with (4) the plaintiff's chattels

Front 15

"destruction" or "serious and substantial interference" examples

Back 15

wrongful acquisition, wrongful transfer, wrongful detention, loss, destruction, severe damage, material alteration, significant misuse

Front 16

privilege

Back 16

under certain circumstances, a defendant may not be liable for conduct that would ordinarily subject him to liability

Front 17

consent

Back 17

a privilege. Defendant will not be liable for certain torts where a plaintiff has consented to the action

Front 18

express consent

Back 18

exists where the plaintiff affirmatively communicates permission for a defendant to act

Front 19

implied consent

Back 19

exists under circumstances where a reasonable person would interpret the plaintiff's conduct as evidencing permission to act

Front 20

defense of others

Back 20

a defendant is entitled to defend another person from an attack by the plaintiff to the same extent that the third person would be lawfully entitled to defend himself from that plaintiff

Front 21

self-defense

Back 21

a defendant charged with an intentional tort may defend on the grounds that he used reasonable force to prevent the plaintiff from engaging in an imminent and unprivileged attack

Front 22

defense of property

Back 22

a defendant is permitted to use reasonable force to prevent a plaintiff from committing a tort against the defendant's property

Front 23

necessity

Back 23

a defendant is permitted to injure the plaintiff's property if this is reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the public, to himself, or to his property

Front 24

duty

Back 24

an obligation, recognized by law, requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risk

Front 25

foreseeable plaintiff

Back 25

Justice Cardozo, in Palsgraf, articulated a rule that a defendant only owed a duty to a foreseeable plaintiff.

Front 26

misfeasance

Back 26

improperly performing a legal act that results in harm to another party

Front 27

nonfeasance

Back 27

failure to act that results in harm to another party

Front 28

negligent omission

Back 28

when the defendant negligently fails to do something that a reasonable person would have done

Front 29

special relationship

Back 29

when the defendant occupies a position of power over the plaintiff, there is a duty to take action.

1. employer-employer in scope of employment

2. common carrier- and innkeeper-customer

3. school-pupil

4. parent-child

5. business-patron

6. jailer-prisoner

Front 30

wrongful life

Back 30

claim of the parents for the birth of an unhealthy child. Generally against physician's failure to diagnose disability in the fetus. Many claims do not recognize wrongful birth.

Front 31

wrongful life

Back 31

child's action for being born unhealthy. Most courts will not award damages for wrongful life.

Front 32

invitee

Back 32

a person who enters onto the defendant's land at the defendant's express or implied invitation, and who enters for a purpose relating to the defendant's interests or activities.

Front 33

business invitee

Back 33

an invitee who enters onto the defendant's land for a purpose related to the defendant's business activities or interests.

Ex. Customers and persons accompanying them, delivery persons, salespersons, and job applicants

Front 34

public invitee

Back 34

a member of the public who enters onto the defendant's land for a purpose as to which the land is held open to the public.

Ex. visitors to airports and visitors to churches

Front 35

licensees

Back 35

a person who enters onto the defendant's land with the defendant's express or implied permission, and who does not enter for a purpose benefiting the defendant or the defendant's activities.

Ex. visiting relatives, social guests, door-to-door salespersons

Front 36

trespassers

Back 36

those plaintiffs that enter onto a defendant's land without permission or without privilege to so enter

Front 37

standard of care:

reasonably prudent person

Back 37

applied as though the reasonable person possessed the same physical characteristics as the defendant. The trier of fact assesses what conduct a reasonable person of the same height, weight, ability to see or hear, and disabilities as the defendant would have engaged in under the circumstances.

Front 38

res ipsa loquitur

Back 38

Negligent conduct that falls below the standard of care by law. Generally, it can be proven by looking at the facts.

Ex. Barrel falling from a window was caused by negligence because the barrel would not have fallen from the window but for negligence.

Front 39

cause-in-fact

Back 39

(actual cause) ties the defendant's breach of duty to the plaintiff's injury.

Front 40

"but-for" test

Back 40

a defendant's conduct was the cause-in-fact of an event if that event would not have occurred but for the existence of the conduct

Front 41

"substantial factor" test

Back 41

a defendant's conduct is also the cause-in-fact of a plaintiff's injury if the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. 2+ defendants results in plaintiff's injury but actions of any 1 defendant would have caused the injury.

Ex. Fires that combined to burn down a house when both would have done so by themselves

Front 42

alternative liability theory

Back 42

where a plaintiff's injury arises from the negligent conduct of 2+ independently acting defendants, only one of whom can actually be responsible, and the plaintiff is unable to establish which defendant is responsible, each and every defendant's conduct is regarded as a cause-in-fact unless the defendant can prove otherwise.

Ex. quail hunting

Front 43

proximate cause

Back 43

legal cause

Front 44

zone of danger

Back 44

under the circumstances, a reasonable defendant would have foreseen a risk of harm to the plaintiff

Ex. Woman at the train station that was hurt when weight fell after fireworks explosion was not in the zone of danger

Front 45

unforeseeable extent of harm

Back 45

if the defendant's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to another, the mere fact that the defendant neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm does not prevent him from being liable.

Front 46

thin-skulled or eggshell plaintiff rule

Back 46

a defendant is liable for the full consequences of a plaintiff's injury, even though, due to plaintiff's susceptibility to harm, those consequences were more severe than they would have been in a normal person

Front 47

superseding cause

Back 47

an unforeseeable, intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation between the initial wrongful act and the ultimate injury, and thus relieves the original tortfeasor of any further liability.