Torts - Bar Exam Mind Outline Cards

Front 1

Intentional Torts to the Person - General observations

Back 1

1. Ignore hypersensitivity of P.
2. No incapacity defenses to intentional torts.
3. ALL of these require intent.
a. specific: the desire of D to produce the forbidden result; or
b. general: act with virtually certain knowledge that the result will come to pass.

Front 2

Battery - Elements

Back 2

1. D commits harmful or offensive contact; and
a. Offensive battery typically tested: "unpermitted": ie, not permitted by typical, normal, average person.
2. Contact must be with P's person
a. Anything holding/touching = P's person.

Front 3

Battery - Types

Back 3

1. Sexual harassment; groping, no informed consent medical procedure.

Front 4

Assault - Elements - 1/2

Back 4

1. D places P in reasonable apprehension; and
a. Not fear, but "knowledge of"
b. Look out for "David and Goliath problem, since it is not FEAR
c. Unloaded gun problem: use perspective of P

Front 5

Assault - Elements 2/2

Back 5

2. of an immediate batter (ie, harmful or offensive contact)
a. "words alone" lack immediacy; must be coupled with overt physical conduct
b. BUT, words can "negate" immediacy [conditional words; future threats]

Front 6

False Imprisonment - Elements 1/4

Back 6

1. D committed act/omission that;
a. Threats are sufficient if would confine a reasonable person;
b. Omission: D has duty to facilitate movement, but intentionally refused to aid = confinement;

Front 7

False Imprisonment - Elements 2/4

Back 7

2. Confines/restraints P to;
a. keeping someone OUT or denying admission is not false imprisonment

Front 8

False Imprisonment - Elements 3/4

Back 8

3. a bounded area; and

Front 9

False Imprisonment - Elements 4/4

Back 9

4. P must know of the confinement or suffer a harm

Front 10

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Elements 1/3

Back 10

1. D engages in extreme and outrageous conduct; and
a. Conduct exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in civilized society;
b. Mere insults generally not enough;
c. Plus factors;
i. Continuous, repetitive bad behavior
ii. D is common carrier or innkeeper
iii. P is a fragile class of person [children, elderly, pregnant, adults and sensitivities known to D]

Front 11

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Elements 2/3

Back 11

2. P suffers severe distress

Front 12

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Elements 3/3

Back 12

3. [NB: can be intentional or reckless act]

Front 13

Intention Torts to Property: Trespass to Land - Elements 1/3

Back 13

1. D enters the land intentionally (no awareness of crossing boundary line or defying property rights)
a. Epilepsy or accidental entry (eg, car accident) is not intentional entry

Front 14

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Land - Elements 2/3

Back 14

2. physical invasion of
a. D enters land; D propels a tangible object onto land;
b. Non-physical penetrations are not trespass, but are nuisance

Front 15

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Land - Elements 3/3

Back 15

3. P's real property
a. Includes air above and soil below for a reasonable distance

Front 16

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Chattels - Elements 1/3

Back 16

1. D intentionally interferes with
a. Interference: damaging or theft
b. Relatively small interference is trespass.

Front 17

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Chattels - Elements 2/3

Back 17

2. P's right of possession

Front 18

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Chattels - Elements 3/3

Back 18

3. in personal property

Front 19

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Chattels - Mistake of ownership

Back 19

1. no defense to trespass or conversion

Front 20

Intentional Torts to Property: Trespass to Chattels - Recovery

Back 20

1. actual damage to chattel or possessory right

Front 21

Intentional Torts to Property: Conversion - Elements

Back 21

1. D intentionally interferes with
a. significant harm is conversion
2. P's right of possession
3. in personal property
4. interference is so severe that it warrants requiring D to pay chattel's full value

Front 22

Intentional Torts to Property: Conversion - Special Remedy available

Back 22

1. can treat tort as a "sale" and recover item's full value, and not merely the cost of repair

Front 23

Defense to Intentional Torts - Consent

Back 23

i. Defense to ALL intentional torts
ii. Issues:
1. was consent valid?
a. Must have legal capacity to consent
2. did D stay within the bounds/scope of the consent?
a. If exceeded scope, then tort liability

Front 24

Defense to Intentional Torts - Types of consent

Back 24

1. Express
a. Exceptions: fraud or duress to obtain the consent invalidates the consent; mistake of P known and taken advantage of also invalidates
2. Implied
a. based on custom and usage (eg, body contact consented to in contact sports)
b. D's reasonable interp of P's objective conduct

Front 25

Defenses to Intentional Torts - Self-defense, defense of 3rd persons, defense of property -
To establish this defense, D must show

Back 25

1. acted with proper timing; and
a. ie, threat was in progress or imminent
2. reasonable belief that threat is genuine
a. Defense of Property: shopkeeper's privilege is exception to this, assuming action is reasonable [stopping all blacks, teens is not reasonable'

Front 26

Self-defense, defense of 3rd persons, defense of property - Limitations on these protective privileges

Back 26

1. strength of response must be appropriate to threat
2. deadly force never permitted to defense property

Front 27

Defense to Intentional Torts: Necessity

Back 27

i. Only a defense to PROPERTY torts

Front 28

Defense to Intentional Torts: Necessary - Public Necessity

Back 28

1. D invades P's personal/real property in an emergency to protect the community as a whole or a significant group of people

Front 29

Defense to Intentional Torts - Necessary: Private Necessity

Back 29

1. D interferes with P's property in an emergency to protect an interest of his own
2. Consequences:
a. D must pay for actual harm inflicted;
b. D is not liable for nominal or punitive damage;
c. As long as emergency persists, the P can not expel D from his land [ie, sanctuary

Front 30

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Elements 1/3

Back 30

1. D makes a defamatory statement that is of or concerning P;
a. Defamatory: tends to adversely affect reputation --
i. Mere insults not defamatory
ii. Allegations of "fact" are paradigm of defamation
1. opinion: if listener would assume it is based on fact, then defamatory
b. P must be alive

Front 31

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Elements 2/3

Back 31

2. that is published to a 3rd party
a. can be negligent publication

Front 32

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Elements 3/3
Damages 1/3

Back 32

a. Libel cases (written or permanently memorialized):
i. P's don't have to prove damages to get to jury

Front 33

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Elements 3/3
Damages 2/3

Back 33

b. Slander (spoken defamation)
i. Slander per se: same damage approach as libel
1. statement concerning business or profession
2. statement that P committed crime of moral turpitude
3. statement imputing unchastity to a woman
4. statement that P suffers from a loathsome disease (leprosy, venereal disease)
ii. All other slanders:
1. must prove damage

Front 34

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Elements 3/3
Damages 3/3

Back 34

c. Damages mean
i. Economic harm

Front 35

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Defenses 1/3

Back 35

1. Consent

Front 36

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Defenses 2/3

Back 36

2. Truth

Front 37

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Defenses 3/3

Back 37

3. Privilege

Front 38

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Defenses 3/3 - Privilege 1/2

Back 38

1. Absolute: associated with status of D
i. communication between spouses
ii. officers of 3 branches of govt engaged in official duties
1. eg, anything said in courtroom (including by lawyers)

Front 39

Dignitary and Economic Torts: Defamation - Defenses 3/3 - Privilege 2/2

Back 39

b. Qualified: when/why statement is made
i. socially valuable statements: letters of rec; statements to police. D must show:
1. any error was made in good faith
2. material must be relevant to socially valuable purpose of speech

Front 40

Dignitary and Economic Torts: First Amendment Issues 1/2

Back 40

1. if the defamation involves a matter of public concern, then P must prove 2 additional elements:
a. falsity of the defamatory language; and
b. fault on the part of D

Front 41

Dignitary and Economic Torts: 1st Amendment Issues 2/2

Back 41

2. Level of Fault depends on status of P
a. Public official must prove actual malice, meaning
i. Knowledge that statement is false; or
ii. Reckless disregard as to whether it was false
b. Private person can show
i. actual malice, or negligence: and evidence of actual injury
c. Damages presumed where malice show

Front 42

Invasion of Right to Privacy - Appropriation

Back 42

1. Elements:
a. D's unauthorized use of P's name or picture
b. for a commercial purpose

2. Exception: newsworthiness

Front 43

Invasion of Right to Privacy - Intrusion upon private affairs

Back 43

1. Elements:
a. Invasion by the D of
b. P's solitude
c. In a way that would be objectionable to an average person
2. Cautions
a. P can only recover if he has a REP
b. Does NOT require trespass

Front 44

Invasion of Right to Privacy: False Light - Elements

Back 44

a. D makes a widespread dissemination;
i. This element distinguishes it from defamation
b. Of a major falsehood about P;
i. Need not be defamatory
c. That would be objectionable to an average person

Front 45

Invasion of Right to Privacy: False Light - Damages

Back 45

a. Unlike defamation, permits recovery for emotional damages

Front 46

Invasion of Right to Privacy: NB

Back 46

This is not an intentional tort
a. Negligence and inadvertence are actionable.

Front 47

Invasion of Right to Privacy: Public disclosure of private facts - Elements

Back 47

a. A widespread dissemination of;
b. Confidential information of P;
i. Financial, academic, medical
c. That would be objectionable to an average person.

Front 48

Invasion of Right to Privacy: Public disclosure of private facts - Cautions

Back 48

a. There is a newsworthiness exception here
b. Facts in question must be genuinely confidential

Front 49

Invasion of Right to Privacy: Defense to Privacy Torts

Back 49

1. consent is a defense to all
2. privilege (absolute and qualified) are defenses to false light and disclosure only

Front 50

Inducing a Breach of Contract/Intl Interference with Business Relations

Back 50

i. Existence of a valid contract.
ii. Defendant's knowledge of that contract.
iii. D's intentional interference w/K inducing breach or termination
iv. damages

Front 51

Intentional Misrepresentation/Fraud

Back 51

i. Misrepresentation of a material fact
ii. D's knowledge or belief the fact was false.
iii. Intent to induce P to act/refrain from acting in reliance on the misrep
iv. Actual reliance (ie, causation)
v. P's justifiable reliance on the statement
vi. damage

Front 52

Negligence - Elements

Back 52

i. Duty
ii. Breach
iii. Causation
iv. Damages

Front 53

Duty 1/5

Back 53

i. An obligation to take risk reducing precautions; to whom is it owed?

Front 54

Duty 2/5

Back 54

ii. Owe to foreseeable victims
1. therefore, no duty owed to unforeseeable victims and always lose on the bar exam

Front 55

Duty 3/5

Back 55

iii. Who is foreseeable?
1. person within the zone of danger (ie, if you are very far away, you can't recover)
a. minority view: everyone is foreseeable
2. the size of the zone depends on the activity in which D is engaged
3. EXCEPTION:
a. Rescuer is foreseeable victim where D negligently put himself or a 3rd person in peril

Front 56

Duty 4/5

Back 56

iv. What is the Standard of Care?
1. give the amount of care that a reasonable prudent person would acting under similar circumstances
a. don't forget "similar circumstances" part
b. standard is objective: thus inflexible, can be harsh
i. applies to the retarded; the mentally ill

Front 57

Standard of Care - Exceptions

Back 57

a. If D has superior knowledge, that will be incorporated into the standard of care
i. Skills: Thus, held to higher standard of care (eg. reasonable prudent NASCAR driver)
ii. Fact Nugget: driver knows that certain area has bad visibility, so held to have this extra knowledge
b. Includes physical characteristics of D, if relevant

Front 58

Special Standards of Care: Children as D

Back 58

a. Under 4, no duty; incapable of negligence
b. 4 and over: owe care of hypothetical child of similar age, education, experience, and intelligence acting under similar circumstances (a subjective stnd - very generous, pro D)
c. Exception: Adult Activity
i. Held to normal reasonable person stnd (generally operating something with a motor)

Front 59

Special Standards of Care: Professionals

Back 59

a. Def: provide services to public, have special skill/training, and licensed by state [archit, enginer, health care]
b. Std: provide care of average (not "reasonable") member of their profession practicing in a similar community.
i. Average: compare to real world colleagues, not a hypothetical professional (ie, empirical std); ie, custom of the profession sets the std of care
1. thus, P, will need to put on EXPERT testimony
ii. Specialists: expected to use even higher care
c. Informed consent
i. If undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in patient's position would have withheld consent, doctor has breached duty.

Front 60

Owner/Occupier of Land: Determining Std:
1. How did entrant on land get hurt?

Back 60

1. activities being conducted by land occupier or his agents; OR
2. accident caused by hazardous conditions on the land

Front 61

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - Undiscovered trespasser

Back 61

No permission to enter AND occupier has no awareness of entrant
a. Duty owed: NONE

Front 62

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - Discovered trespasser

Back 62

status at time of accident; includes "anticipated" trespassers
a. Activity duty: reasonable care
b. Condition of duty: protect only from condition meeting a 4 part test:
i. Artificial condition
ii. Highly dangerous
iii. Concealed from naked eye
iv. Occupier has advance knowledge

Front 63

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - Licensee

Back 63

enter with permission onto land not generally open to everyone (eg, social guest)
a. Activity duty: reasonable care
b. Condition duty: warn & protect from condition meeting 2 part test:
i. Concealed/hidden
ii. Occupier has advance knowledge

Front 64

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - Invitee

Back 64

enter land open to large portion or all of the public
a. Activity duty: reasonable person
b. Condition duty: duty if meet 2 part test:
i. Concealed/hidden
ii. Occupier either has advance knowledge OR could have discovered it through a reasonable inspection
c. NB: if person wanders into an off limits area, then duty only to limit willful or wanton misconduct

Front 65

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - Firefighters & Cops

Back 65

considered licensees, but never recover for injuries that are inherent risk of their job

Front 66

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - Child Trespassers

Back 66

entitled to reasonable care, regardless of facts
1. the more likely it is that kids will trespass, the higher degree of care (eg, attractive nuisance)

Front 67

Owner/Occupier of Land: Categorize the Entrant - If duty owed for a condition to anyone, occupier can satisfy duty in 2 ways:

Back 67

1. eliminate the condition; or
2. give a warning

Front 68

Statutory Standards of Care 1/4

Back 68

1. typically, a criminal, quasi-criminal, or regulatory statute not providing for express tort liability
a. negligence per se: breach of statute creates conclusive presumption of duty and breach of duty

Front 69

Statutory Standards of Care 2/4

Back 69

2. So, when do we borrow a statutory std? Two-part "class of person, class of risk" test:
a. P is member of class of persons that the statute seeks to protect: AND
b. Harm that occurred is what statute sought to prevent

Front 70

Statutory Standards of Care 3/4

Back 70

3. If cannot borrow the statute, then go ahead under reasonable person standard

Front 71

Statutory Standards of Care 4/4 - Exceptions

Back 71

Exceptions to class of person, class of risk test:
a. If compliance would be more dangerous than violation, we don't use as std of care, even if 2 part test satisfied.
b. If compliance was impossible under circumstances, don't borrow the statute.

Front 72

Affirmative Duty to Act

Back 72

1. General Rule: No duty to act affirmatively.
a. EXCEPTIONS:
i. Pre-existing relationship (eg, familial, common carrier/innkeeper, business invitees)
ii. D caused peril
iii NB: duty to rescue is only what would be reasonable under the circumstances
iv. If error during rescue, then liability for negligence

Front 73

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Elements 1/3

Back 73

a. No direct physical trauma

Front 74

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Elements 2/3

Back 74

b. Negligence occurs under one of the other standards above

Front 75

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: Elements 3/3

Back 75

c. And
i. P was in "zone of physical danger" (ie, near miss or close call fact pattern") and
1. Also, recovery in Bystander situation
a. Witness to injury of a close family member (50% states)
ii. Subsequent physical manifestations of the distress (ie, an injury requirement)

Front 76

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - Also, recovery in Bystander situation

Back 76

a. Witness to injury of a close family member (50% of states)

Front 77

Breach 1/3

Back 77

i. Identify the specific wrongful conduct of P and explain why it is wrongful

Front 78

Breach 2/3

Back 78

ii. If duty standard is specific (eg, custom, usage, statute), breach is easy to explain. If duty standard is general, then more difficult (ie, under RPP)
1. eg: D was unreasonable when he <facts>. This is unreasonable because reasonable drivers in these circumstances <standard>.

Front 79

Breach 3/3

Back 79

iii. Res Ipsa Loquitur: when lack of info about what D did wrong
1. P must show:
a. Accident which occurred would not normally occur in absence of negligence; and
b. This type of accident normally occurs because of negligence of someone in D's position
2. Thus, can get to jury without direct evidence of breach
a. No directed verdict available to D (see CMR p. 28)

Front 80

Causation: Actual Cause/Factual Causation

Back 80

D's breach <state facts> was a cause in fact of P's injuries because "but for" that action, P would not have been hurt. This is b/c
a. D's defense: even if I had been prudent, you would have still been hurt. Therefore, but for test fails.

Front 81

Causation: Multiple Defendants Problem - Mingled Causation

Back 81

we use the substantial factor test:
i. Did each D contribute to injury in a significant or substantial way?

Front 82

Causation: Multiple Defendants Problem - Unascertainable Cause

Back 82

Normally burden on P to show each factor of case, but burden shifts to Ds to show they were not the cause of the injury [Summers v. Tice]

Front 83

Causation: Proximate Cause/Legal Cause 1/2

Back 83

This is a "fairness" doctrine

Front 84

Proximate Cause/Legal Cause 2/2 - Two ways to test

Back 84

a. Direct cause questions
b. Indirect cause questions

Front 85

Proximate Cause - Direct cause

Back 85

D breaches and P is injured immediately
i. If resulting harm unforeseeable, no liability

Front 86

Proximate Cause - Indirect Cause questions

Back 86

D breaches, and no/minor injury occurs, and intervening forces happen leading to greater injury

Front 87

Proximate Cause - Indirect Cause: Liability is fair where intervening act is foreseeable

Back 87

The well settled rules:
1. intervening medical negligence
2. intervening negligent rescue
3. intervening protection/reaction forces
4. subsequent disease or accident
ii. if not in 4 above, ask "what is it about this conduct that makes me call it a breach?"
1. then, ignore everything else, and look at P at end of story.
2. if it seems fair to punish D, then impose liability

Front 88

Damages - Eggshell Skull

Back 88

if all other elements satisfied, D must pay for all damages suffered, even if surprisingly great in scope
ii. "Take P as you find him." <- applies to EVERY tort (personal or property damage), not just negligence

Front 89

Defenses to Negligence: Traditional contributory negligence (rare)

Back 89

1. any negligence on P's part completely barred recovery
a. unless "last clear chance applicable

Front 90

Defenses to Negligence: Implied assumption of the risk

Back 90

1. P must have known of the risk
2. P voluntarily went ahead in face of the risk
3. UNLESS
a. common carrier or public utility invovled
b. statute enacted to protect P's class
c. Fraud, force, emergency
4. NOT a defense to intentional torts

Front 91

Defenses to Negligence: Comparative Fault (modern doctrine)

Back 91

1. D must show P is guilty of fault
a. ie, P failed to use relevant degree of care for his own safety (usually RPP, but may be statute (eg, jay-walking)
2. Then, jury instructed to comparative fault of the parties
3. Then, P's recovery is reduced based on percentages
4. Types of Comparative Fault:
a. Pure comparative fault: go strictly by jury number, and P will always recover something [unless no D has greater negligence % than P]
b. Partial/modified comparative fault: P's fault of less than 50% results in reduction of recovery; P's fault over 50% bars recovery

Front 92

Strict Liability: Injuries caused by animals

Back 92

i. Domesticated animals
1. General Rule: no strict liability for injuries caused by animals
2. Exception:
a. strictly liable if knowledge that pet has "vicious propensities" (usually a previous bite)
ii. Trespassing Livestock
1. strict liability
iii. Wild Animals
1. strict liability

Front 93

Strict Liability: Ultrahazardous Activities - Test

Back 93

1, activity cannot be made safe
2. poses a risk of severe harm
3. activity is uncommon in the area where it is being conducted
ii. Eg, blasting/explosives, chemical/biological agents, nuclear materials

Front 94

Strict Liability: Products Liability - Causes of action

Back 94

Injury by product, leads to many causes of action: negligence, warranty in contract, battery?, fraud?, etc.

Front 95

Products Liability: Elements - 1/4

Back 95

1. D was a merchant (deals in goods of the kind);
a. Casual sellers NOT merchants
b. Service providers NOT merchants of goods incidental to services
c. Commercial lessors (eg, rental car companies) ARE considered merchants
d. All merchants in chain of distribution subject to strict liability

Front 96

Products Liability: Elements 2/4

Back 96

P shows that the product is defective;
a. Manufacturing defect; or
i. Product in question differs from all others that came off assembly line that makes it more dangerous than consumer would expect
b. Design defect
i. There is hypo alternative design that meets the following tests:
1. safer than current version;
2. economical; and
3. practical (product utility not impaired)
ii. If test met, current version is defective and vendor must pay damages
iii. Product info is considered part of design
1. warnings: failure to warn = liability
a. prominent, calculated to come to attention of user
b. easy to understand
2. instructions
3. THEREFORE, if product can't be physically made safer, we can give better warnings or instructions that will make it safer

Front 97

Products Liability: Elements 3/4

Back 97

P demonstrates that defect existed when it left D's hands
a. Never an issue with design defects
b. Manufacturing defects: could defect have been due to rough treatment by someone other than the person being sued?
1. RULE: P gets presumption that defect existed in D's hands, if product traveled in ordinary channels of distribution (ie, BOP on P)
1. eg, buy second hand product at garage sale does NOT permit the presumpton

Front 98

Products Liability: Elements 4/4

Back 98

P must be foreseeable user of product making a foreseeable use
a. Not limited to intended users of the product

Front 99

Product Liability - Defenses

Back 99

i. comparative fault
ii. assumption of the risk
iii. contributory negligence, IF P knew of risk and didn't guard against it.

Front 100

Nuisance - Private nuisance

Back 100

Elements:
1. Interference with P's ability
2. To use and enjoy his land
3. To an unreasonable degree
ii. Incompatible land use or spiteful neighbors
iii. RULE: D is liable if unreasonable degree of interference
1. Balancing test:
a. D's right to use land
b. P's right to be free from annoyance

Front 101

Nuisance - Public Nuisance

Back 101

Elements
1. act that unreasonably interferes with
2. the health, safety, or property rights of
3. the community

private party can only recover if directly affected by nuisance. Normally resolved by nuisance/abatement action brought by govt

Front 102

Vicarious Liability

Back 102

Predicated on relationship between active tortfeasor and passive party
1. employer-employee
a. course and scope issue: generally, intentional torts are outside scope of employment
i. BUT, if job description involves use of force, probably within the scope
ii. OR act by employee designed to serve employer's interests
b. Minor frolic and detour does not eliminate VL
2. Independent K-hiring party
a. no vicarious liability
i. EXCEPT: land occupier liable if IK hurts invitees on the land
ii. IK engaged in inherently dangerous activities; or
iii. Duty of care is nondelegable due to public policy reasons
3. auto owner - auto driver
a. No vicarious liability
i. EXCEPT: if doing errand for owner, then driver is agent for the owner
4. parent-child
a. No vicarious liability

Front 103

Reconciling Rights of co-defendants

Back 103

i. Comparative contribution
1. each co-D is assigned a % by jury and out of pocket D recover based on these percentages
ii. Indemnification
1. vicarious liable party can get all $ back from active tortfeasor
2. non-manufacturer held strictly liable can get all $ back from the manufacturer
3. Where joint tortfeasors, if one negligent and one intentional, the negligent torfeasor can get all $ back from intentional tortfeasor

Front 104

Loss of consortium

Back 104

i. Victim of ANY tort must be married
ii. Uninjured spouse has a separate cause of action for loss of consortium
iii. Allows recovery for three types of damages:
1. loss of services (fix things, doing dishes)
2. loss of society (companionship, friendship)
3. loss of sexual activity