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;
121 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
1. INTENTIONAL TORTS
a. 3 General Rules |
i. The extreme sensitivity of a victim is ignored in deciding the elements of a claim – we assume the P is a normal plaintiff
ii. NO incapacity defenses (Mentally ill, intoxicated, minor, disabled) iii. All intentional torts require intent. |
|
|
1. INTENTIONAL TORTS
b. Prima Facie Case |
i. Act by defendant – The act requires a Volitional Movement by the defendant.
ii. Intent – The intent may be either: 1. Specific – desires to produce the specific legally forbidden consequences 2. General – knows with substantial certainty that these consequences will result 3. Transferred Intent – If you intend any forbidden consequence, intent will be transferred to the injured victim. (Try to punch one person and hit another) a. Only applies to assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land and to chattel. iii. Causation 1. The result must be legally caused by the defendants act or something set in motion by him. Causation is satisfied if defendants conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Injury DOES NOT need to be foreseeable) |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
i. BATTERY 1. Harmful or offensive contact |
1. Harmful or offensive contact
a. Offensive – Reasonable person standard – Not permitted by an reasonable person (Sexual contact, spitting, tapping on shoulder for the time) b. Contact is NOT offensive if the plaintiff consented to it. c. There is implied consent for ordinary contacts of everyday life. d. Direct or Indirect – Can strike plaintiff (direct) or set a trap for the defendant to fall into later (indirect) (i.e. Does not have to be instantaneous – poisoning.) |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
i. BATTERY 2. With the plaintiffs person |
a. Anything plaintiff is holding, touching or connected to. (Cane, horse, plate, bag)
|
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
i. BATTERY 3. Intent / Causation |
*
|
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
ii. ASSAULT 1. An act by the defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff |
a. Apprehension is defined as knowledge and should not be confused with fear or intimidation (e.g. a weakling can cause apprehension in a bully)
b. Apparent ability – If the plaintiff reasonably believes that defendant has the apparent ability to commit the battery it is sufficient. (unloaded gun) |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
ii. ASSAULT 2. Of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person (battery) |
a. Words alone lack immediacy – For the defendant to be liable the words must be coupled with physical conduct.
b. Words can negate a reasonable apprehension / immediacy – i.e. the defendant shakes her fist and says “I will get you tonight at 5 pm” OR the defendant shakes her fist and says “If you weren't my BF I would hit you” c. Remember the requirement of immediacy. |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
ii. ASSAULT 3. Intent / Causation |
*
|
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
iii. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 1. An act or omission on the part of defendant that confines or restrains the plaintiff |
a. Sufficient acts of confinement or restraint
i. Physical barriers ii. Physical force / Threats of force 1. Not merely moral pressure or future threats 2. If D leaves door open and says if you leave this room I will kill your child. (good, if blow up Jupiter not good) iii. Failure to release (omission) – Pre-existing duty of D to help P move about (i.e. Ex: Disabled person left on plane by aircrew) iv. Invalid use of legal authority (wrongful arrest) b. It is irrelevant how short the period of confinement is. c. Plaintiff MUST either be aware of the confinement or harmed by it |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
iii. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 2. To a bounded area |
a. Freedom of movement must be limited in all directions – i.e. blocking path of travel in a single direction is not false imprisonment
b. There must be NO reasonable means of escape known to the plaintiff. i. Hidden, humiliating, dangerous, or disgusting means of escape are NOT reasonable. |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
iii. FALSE IMPRISONMENT 3. Intent / Causation |
a. Shopkeepers Privilege – To detain, shopkeeper must have reasonable grounds, investigation, force and time. (G.I.F.T.)
|
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
iv. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 1. Extreme and outrageous conduct |
a. Definition – Conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in a civilized society. i.e. NOT mere isolated insults. (Objective Standard)
i. It is continuous or repetitive in nature (i.e. phone call everyday at the same time threatening you to pay your bills) ii. Fragile plaintiff – i.e. children, elderly, known pregnant women, supersensitive adults (phobia) and the sensitivity is known by D. iii. Common carriers and innkeepers may be liable for even mere isolated “gross insults” b. Examples: false reports of death or false reports of HIV after intercourse c. Intent or Recklessness – Recklessness satisfies this cause of action i. Must intend the conduct or commit a reckless act – Merely not doing something will not raise to IIED. i.e. failing to wash the sheets |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
iv. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 2. Causation – Conduct must cause severe emotional distress. |
a. 3rd Party Causation – 3rd party may recover when:
i. The elements of emotional distress (prima facie case), OR ii. The defendant knew she was present when the injury occurred, AND the defendant knew that she is a close relative of the injured person. |
|
|
c. Intentional Torts to the PERSON
iv. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) 3. Severe emotional distress results (NOT mild irritation, slightly annoyed) |
a. Actual damages, not nominal damages, ARE required. (Ridicule, embarrassment in front of numerous people)
b. Proof of physical injury is NOT required. |
|
|
d. Intentional Torts to PROPERTY
i. TRESPASS TO LAND 1. Physical Invasion of the plaintiff’s Real Property |
a. The invasion may be by a person or object. (i.e. walking/driving, etc. onto the property [not being pushed onto or enter by a startled horse] or throwing a baseball onto the property or watering another’s land)
b. If intangible matter (i.e. vibrations, odor, or light) sue in nuisance. c. Real property includes land, air above, and soil below to a useable / reasonable distance. i. i.e. kid throwing a ball over your land and landing on the street |
|
|
d. Intentional Torts to PROPERTY
i. TRESPASS TO LAND 2. Intent |
a. Defendant need intend only to enter on that particular piece of land.
i. i.e. mistake is no defense b. Non negligent entry – (Accidental) – No liability – i.e. hitting a ball that deflects off a tree landing in another’s land. c. If negligence or recklessness, no liability unless damages occur d. Trespass may occur by refusing to leave. |
|
|
d. Intentional Torts to PROPERTY
i. TRESPASS TO LAND 3. Causation – trespass MUST cause damages |
a. Potential Plaintiffs – Anyone in actual or constructive possession of the land may maintain this action. (Lessee’s can bring an action)
b. Damages – Nominal Damages will suffice |
|
|
d. Intentional Torts to PROPERTY
ii. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS |
1. Intentional Interference with plaintiff’s right of possession
a. Two types of interference – The interference may either be intermeddling (i.e. damaging) or dispossession (i.e. stealing) 2. Causation 3. Damages – Actual damages to a possessory right are required. (damages are not necessary to chattel) – Will usually recover reasonable rental value or diminished value. |
|
|
d. Intentional Torts to PROPERTY
iii. CONVERSION 1. Intentional Interference with plaintiff’s right of possession |
a. Only tangible personal property and intangibles that have been reduced to physical form (promissory note) are subject to conversion.
b. Potential Plaintiffs – Anyone with an immediate right to possession. 2. The interference is so serious that it warrants payment of the chattels full value. a. Matter of degree – The longer the withholding period and the more extensive the use / destruction, the more likely it is to be a conversion. A less serious interference is trespass to chattels. 3. Causation a. Subsequent purchasers (even in good faith) are liable for conversion, but the plaintiff may only collect once. 4. Damages – Plaintiff may recover damages (fair market value at the time of conversion) (forced sale of chattel) or possession (replevin) 5. Acts of Conversion: wrongful acquisition (theft), wrongful transfer, wrongful detention, and substantially changing, severely damaging or misusing a chattel. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
i. CONSENT – |
P’s consent to D’s conduct is a defense, BUT one cannot consent to a criminal act.
|
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
i. CONSENT – 1. Express Consent – Exceptions: |
a. Mistake if defendant knew and took advantage of the mistake (STD)
b. Consent induced by fraud or duress is void |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
i. CONSENT – 2. Implied Consent – |
Apparent consent is that which what a reasonable person would (1) infer from the usage/custom or (2) infer from plaintiffs conduct.
a. Infer from usage/custom – i.e. inherent contacts in a contact sport (what normally happens in the game – Foul vs. punch in face), being touched by doctor in a physical exam, bumped on a public bus, walking up front walk b. Infer from plaintiffs conduct – i.e. kiss at the end of a date. i. Test – Must look at the objective conduct of the plaintiff, NOT the plaintiff’s subjective interpretation. (D’s reasonable interpretation of P’s conduct) |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
i. CONSENT – 3. Consent Implied by Law |
arises when action is needed to save a person’s life or some other important interest in person or property.
a. i.e. if operating in stomach the Dr. can remove a cyst that he sees. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
i. CONSENT – 4. Capacity required |
Individuals without capacity are deemed incapable of consent. (i.e. incompetents, drunk persons, and young children) (children can consent to age appropriate activities)
|
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
i. CONSENT – 5. Exceeding the scope of Consent |
– may be liable. (i.e. doctor can only operate on the consented part of the body)
|
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
ii. SELF DEFENSE (Defense of others / defense of property) 1. Self Defense |
a. Must act with proper timing – The threat must be imminent or in progress.
i. i.e. already committed torts do not qualify, no revenge b. The Defendant must have a good faith, reasonable belief in the genuineness of the threat. (ex. Burglar alarm) i. i.e. A reasonable mistake as to the existence of the danger is allowed. c. Degree of Force – Can only use force necessary to prevent the harm under the circumstances. If excessive force is used, the defense is lost. d. Retreat – One need NOT attempt to retreat, but there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force if it can be done safely, unless in your home. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
ii. SELF DEFENSE (Defense of others / defense of property) 2. Defense of Others |
a. One may use force to defend another when the actor reasonably believes that the other person could have used force to defend himself
b. Mistake – A reasonable mistake as to whether the other person is being attacked or has a right to defend himself is permitted. c. Force – Can use the same force that he could have used if the force were directed upon him. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
ii. SELF DEFENSE (Defense of others / defense of property) 3. Defense of Property / Recapture of Chattel |
a. Reasonable Force – May use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against her real or personal property.
b. Demand – A request to desist or leave must first be made UNLESS it would clearly be futile or dangerous. c. The defense does NOT apply once the tort has been committed but MAY use reasonable force while in hot pursuit. d. Mistake – A reasonable mistake IS allowed as to whether the intrusion has occurred or whether a demand to desist is required but NOT as to whether an entrant has a privilege (i.e. necessity) e. Force – Reasonable force may be used but NOT deadly force or force that entails a serious threat of bodily harm (NO vicious guard dog,traps,etc.) i. Deadly force can only be used when a person is threatened. f. Entry on Land to Remove Chattel – The owner is privileged to enter another’s land to reclaim his chattel at a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner, after first making a demand for their return UNLESS the chattel is on the land through the owner’s fault (i.e. wandering cattle). i. Must pay for actual damages when entering innocent party’s land. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
iii. PRIVILEGE OF ARREST |
1. The privilege of arrest carries with it the privilege to enter another’s land for the purpose of effectuating the arrest.
2. Subsequent Misconduct – The actor may still be liable for subsequent misconduct after the arrest. (Unduly detaining the property, failing to bring to the jail) 3. Misdemeanor – Privileged only for a breach of peace AND if the action takes place in the arresting party’s presence. 4. Felony – Police officer must reasonably believe that a felony has been committed and that the person be arrested has committed it. (May make a reasonable mistake) a. Citizens may make a reasonable mistake regarding the identity of the felon, but not regarding whether the felony occurred. 5. Force – Reasonable force. No deadly force in misdemeanor arrests. Deadly force allowed in felony arrests IF the suspect possesses a threat of serious harm. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
iv. NECESSITY |
The defendant MAY interfere with the plaintiff’s real or personal property when it is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury to:
1. Public – When the defendant acts for the community as a whole or a significant group of people it is a complete/absolute defense. (Batman) 2. Private – D invades property in an emergency to protect an interest of his own. When the defendant acts solely to benefit any person or property from destruction or serious injury, the actor must pay for any injury/actual fault (compensatory damages) he causes but is NOT liable for nominal or punitive damages. a. Only a defense to property torts. b. So long as the emergency continues the private property owner must let the defendant remain on the property in a position of safety until the threat has passed. Owners of property can be held liable for the additional damages to the person or property if they wrongfully eject defendants in an emergency. |
|
|
e. DEFENSES to Intentional Torts
v. DISCIPLINE |
A parent or teacher may use reasonable force in disciplining children.
|
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION i. Defamatory Statement |
Language tending to adversely affect the plaintiffs reputation.
1. Statement of opinion is NOT actionable unless it is based on specific facts. (reasonable listener would assume it was fact based) 2. Mere insults or name calling are NOT actionable. 3. If the statement is not defamatory on its face, plaintiff may plead additional facts to establish defamatory meaning by “innuendo” 4. Any living person may be defamed. a. Defamation of a deceased person is NOT actionable. b. Corporations or partnerships MAY be defamed. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION ii. “Of or Concerning” the Plaintiff |
1. Plaintiff must establish that a reasonable reader, listener, or viewer would understand that the defamatory statement referred to the plaintiff.
2. If the statement does not refer to the plaintiff on its face, extrinsic evidence may be offered to establish that the statement refers to the plaintiff. 3. Group defamation a. If the statement refers to ALL members of a small group – Must prove you are a member of the group to recover. (i.e. everyone wins) b. If the statement refers to only SOME members of a small group, P can recover if a reasonable person would view the statement as referring to P. c. If it is a large group, NO member can prove that the statement is “of or concerning him. (i.e. nobody wins) |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION iii. Publication – Communication to at least one person OTHER than the plaintiff. |
1. The publication can be made either intentionally or negligently.
2. It is the intent to publish, NOT the intent to defame that is the requisite intent. 3. Each repetition is a subsequent publication. However, multiple copies of newspapers or magazines are considered a “single publication.” 4. Subsequent publishers are liable if they know or should know of the defamatory content even if they state the source or state that they don’t believe it. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION iv. Damages to the Plaintiffs Reputation – Depends on the type of defamation. |
1. Libel – Written or printed defamatory language (Including radio and television broadcasts) – Plaintiff does NOT need to prove special damages and general damages are presumed.
2. Slander – Spoken defamation – Plaintiff must prove special damages (economic damages – Not feelings hurt) UNLESS defamation falls within slander per se: a. Adversely reflect on one’s conduct in a business or profession b. One has a loathsome disease (leprosy and venereal disease) c. One is or was guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude (embezzlement, sexual abuse, etc.) d. Unchastely of a woman (had sex before marriage) |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION v. First Amendment Concerns |
1. When the defamation involves a matter of public concern, PLAINTIFF must prove constitutional restrictions, in addition to the common law elements:
a. Falsity of the statement (Both private and public persons must prove) b. Fault on the part of the defendant (degree of fault depends on P’s status) i. Public Figure or Official – Malice must be proved by clear and convincing evidence – The defendant knew that the statement was false or with reckless disregard of its truth. (Subjective test) 1. Public figure – General fame or notoriety or voluntarily involvement public controversy (must relate to controversy) 1. Defendant’s spite or ill will is not enough to constitute malice. Negligence (e.g. failure to check facts) not sufficient 2. Deliberately altering a quote may constitute malice if the alteration causes a material change in the meaning. ii. Private Persons – Negligence must be proved in addition if the statement involves a matter of public concern. iii. Malice – (for public or private persons) When malice is found damages are presumed and punitive damages are allowed. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION vi. Defenses to Defamation |
1. Consent – Consent is a complete defense (see above)
2. Truth – Defendant may prove truth as a complete defense. a. Note – plaintiff must prove falsity in a constitutional defamation case, but does not need to under common law. 3. Privilege a. Absolute Privilege – Can never be lost i. i.e. Between spouses, legislators in debate, by federal executive officials in the course of their duty, in “compelled” broadcasts, during judicial proceedings, judicial papers. b. Qualified Privilege – Can be lost through Abuse. i. Public interest OR interest of others in encouraging candor – i.e. letters of recommendation, statements made to police investigating a crime, socially useful. 1. Privilege may be lost if (1) the statement is NOT within the scope, or (2) is shown that the speaker acted with malice. 2. Speaker must (1) have a reasonable belief that the information is accurate and (2) cannot inject irrelevancies, must limit the speech to the topic or subject matter at hand. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
a. DEFAMATION vii. Mitigating Factors |
1. No malice, retraction by publisher, and provocation by plaintiff may be considered by the jury on the damages issue. They are NOT a defense to liability.
|
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY i. Appropriation of Plaintiff’s Name or Likeness (Picture or name) – |
Unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s picture, name or voice, for the defendants commercial advantage.
1. Liability is limited to advertisements or promotions of products or services. Mere economic benefit to defendant (not in connection with promoting a product or service) by itself is not sufficient. 2. Newsworthy exception 3. Does not have to be a celebrity. Any person can bring suit. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY ii. Intrusion upon Plaintiff’s Affairs or Seclusion – |
Invasion of P’s seclusion in a way that would be objectionable to a reasonable person. An act of prying or intruding into the solitude or seclusion of another that is objectionable to a reasonable person.
1. The plaintiff must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (Photos taken in a public place are not actionable. Key hole or peering through a high window is. Also, unauthorized videotaping/wiretapping or taking of emails, etc. is.) a. Trespass to land is not necessary but can occur. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY iii. Publication of Facts Placing Plaintiff in False Light – |
Occurs when one attributes to plaintiff views that he does not hold or actions he did not take. Widespread dissemination about a major falsehood of PL that is objectionable to a reasonable person. (i.e. embezzling money from employer – false light and defamation)
1. Must be objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances. 2. For liability there must be publicity (widespread dissemination, not mere single publication) 3. If the matter is in the public interest, malice must be proved. 4. Not limited to defamatory statements. (i.e. mischaracterization of political/religious beliefs – favor abortion but don’t, Catholic but your Jewish, etc.) 5. Reasonable belief/honest mistake is NOT a defense. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY iv. Public Disclosure of Private Facts about the Plaintiff – |
Widespread dissemination of confidential/private information about P that is objection to a reasonable person.
1. Information is true but must be confidential/private. 2. Matters of public record are not sufficient (Criminal record) 3. Newsworthy exception – The news can publish any newsworthy facts as long as they are true. (Enquirer) |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY v. Causation – |
The invasion of the plaintiff’s interest in privacy must have been proximately caused by the defendants conduct.
|
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY vi. Proof of Special Damages unnecessary – |
Plaintiff need NOT plead or prove special damages. Emotional distress and mental anguish are sufficient.
|
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY vii. Defenses |
1. Consent to all & Privilege for false light & disclosure
2. Truth, inadvertence, good faith, or lack of malice are NOT good defenses. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
b. INVASION OF RIGHT TO PRIVACY viii. Right to Privacy – |
– The right to privacy is a personal right and does not extend to members of a family, does not survive the death of the plaintiff, does not apply to corporations and is not assignable.
|
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
c. MISREPRESENTATION i. Intentional Misrepresentation (Fraud / Deceit) |
1. Misrepresentation of a material fact – Silence is generally not enough
2. Scienter – i.e. knew or believed the statement was false when made. 3. Intent – Intent to induce plaintiff to act or refrain from acting 4. Causation (Actual reliance) 5. Justifiable Reliance – Must be a statement of fact and not opinion. 6. Damages – Actual pecuniary harm. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
c. MISREPRESENTATION ii. Negligent Misrepresentation |
1. Misrepresentation by defendant in a business or professional capacity
2. Breach of duty toward a particular plaintiff 3. Causation (Actual reliance) 4. Justifiable Reliance – Liability will attach only if reliance by the particular plaintiff could be contemplated. |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
d. Wrongful Institution of Legal Proceedings i. Malicious Prosecution (Criminal) Wrongful Civil Proceedings (Civil) |
1. Institution of criminal proceedings against P (i.e. filing complaint with police)
2. Termination in Plaintiff’s Favor 3. Absence of Probable Cause – i.e. insufficient facts for a reasonable person to believe that the plaintiff was guilty OR the D did not believe the P was guilty. 4. Improper Purpose – i.e. other than bringing the person to justice 5. Damages a. Prosecutors are immune from liability |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
d. Wrongful Institution of Legal Proceedings ii. Abuse of Process |
1. Intentional misuse of legal processes (i.e. depositions, subpoenas)
2. for a primarily ulterior purpose resulting in damage to the P. a. No need to await outcome of the underlying proceedings b. Doesn’t matter who ultimately wins in the underlying proceedings 3. Act or threat to accomplish purpose |
|
|
2. HARM TO ECONOMIC & DIGNITARY INTERESTS
e. Interference with Business Relations |
i. Existence of a valid contractual relationship between plaintiff and a third party OR valid business expectancy of plaintiff
ii. Defendant’s knowledge of the relationship or expectancy iii. Intentional interference by defendant iv. Inducing a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy v. Damages 1. Privilege – Privilege exists where it is a proper attempt to obtain business for itself or protect its interests. (especially for prospective business) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
a. Prima Facie Case |
i. Duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct,
ii. Breach of that duty by the defendant, iii. Causation – The breach is the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, AND iv. Damages |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE i. Foreseeable Plaintiff |
A duty of care is ONLY owed to all foreseeable victims
1. Cardozo View (Majority) – Foreseeable Zone of Danger – Victim can recover only if she can establish that a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of injury to her under the circumstances. i.e. she was in the zone of danger. 2. Andrew View (Minority) – Everyone is Foreseeable 3. Specific Situations a. Rescuers – Foreseeable when D caused the peril. (Danger invites rescue) b. Prenatal Injuries – Duty of care is owed to a viable fetus. (wrongful birth cases) c. Intended Beneficiaries of Economic Transactions – a third party for whose economic benefit a legal or business transaction was made. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 1. Basic Standard – |
Reasonable Prudent Person acting under similar circumstances
a. Objective test – Conduct is measure against an average person. b. Mental – Mental deficiencies and inexperience are NOT taken into account. (Stupidity / Beginner is no excuse) c. Physical – Physical characteristics are taken into account. i. However, if one acts with knowledge of the physical handicap he will be held to a standard of care of a person with such knowledge. d. Special Knowledge – Where the defendant possesses special knowledge or skills, the standard becomes a reasonably prudent person with that knowledge or information. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care a. Professionals – |
A professional or someone with special occupational skills is required to possess the average knowledge and skill of a member of the profession or occupation in similar communities. (i.e. malpractice)
i. Medical specialists will be held to a national standard of care. ii. Cardiologist = cardiologist, primary care Dr. = primary care Dr. iii. Use an expert witness to educate the jury on the duties of the professional. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care b. Children (4-18) – |
Children are held to the standard of a child of like age, education, intelligence, and experience under similar circumstances.
i. This is a subjective test (Look for stupid or uneducated) ii. A child under 4 is usually without capacity to be negligent. iii. Children involved in adult activities may be required to conform to an “adult” standard of care. (Anything with an ENGINE) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care c. Common Carriers and Innkeepers – |
Held to a very high degree of care. i.e. they are liable for slight negligence. (P must be passenger or guest)
|
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care d. Automobile Driver to Guest – |
Guest in an automobile is owed a duty of ordinary care. (Only liable for recklessness in a minority of states)
|
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care e. Bailment Duties i. Duties owed by BAILOR |
1. Gratuitous bailment – Must warn of known dangerous defects in the chattel
2. Bailment for hire – Must warn of defects which he IS or should be aware of. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care e. Bailment Duties ii. Duties owed by a BAILEE – Who benefits? |
1. Sole benefit of BAILOR – Low standard of care
2. Sole benefit of BAILEE – High standard of care 3. Mutual benefit – Ordinary standard of care |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 2. Particular Standards of Care f. Emergency Situations – |
A defendant must act as a reasonable person would under the same emergency conditions.
i. *Emergency is not to be considered if D created it. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) a. Duty of a Possessor to those OFF Premises |
i. NO duty to protect from natural conditions unless the landowner had reasonable notice. i.e. liable for falling branches.
ii. One must carry on activities on property so as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others outside the property. 1. i.e. hitting baseballs out of the park. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) b. Duty of a Possessor to those ON Premises |
i. Duty owed depends upon how P is hurt - two ways
1. Encounter dangerous static condition (Premises Liability) a. Ex: Light falls and hits you on the head 2. Activity occurring on property a. Ex: Hot coffee is spilled on you. b. Duty – Duty of reasonable care except for undiscovered trespassers (no duty) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) ii. Trespassers |
1. NO duty to an Undiscovered trespasser.
2. Duty to WARN Discovered/Anticipated trespasser of: (known manmade death traps on land) a. Artificial Conditions – Not natural conditions b. Highly Dangerous – Capable of killing or maiming c. Concealed – (hidden, secret, or concealed) – if open and obvious they can protect themselves d. Knowledge – D (possessor) must know about the condition (prior knowledge - no duty to inspect) e. Anticipated – if someone trespassed in the past, anyone on that part of the land becomes an anticipated trespasser |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) iii. Licensees (Social Guest) - permission for own purpose or business 1. Duty to WARN of: (known traps) |
a. Dangerous Conditions – Artificial or natural
b. Concealed – (hidden, secret, or concealed) – if open and obvious they can protect themselves c. Knowledge – D must know about condition (prior knowledge – NO duty to inspect or repair!) d. i.e. guests, people selling that come to front door |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) iv. Invitees – benefit to possessor OR open to the public (Business) 1. Duty to WARN or MAKE SAFE for: |
(reasonably known traps)
a. Dangerous Conditions – Artificial or natural b. Concealed – (hidden, secret, or concealed) – if open and obvious they can protect themselves c. Know of or Should Know of through Reasonable Inspection (Must thereafter make them safe) i. Reasonable inspection is measured by an objective reasonably prudent person. ii. Can lose invitee status if she exceeds the scope of the invitation. d. i.e. customers, or open to the public |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) v. Notes: |
1. Modern Trend – Eliminate categories.
2. Firefighters and Police Officers are generally treated as licensees – Don’t recover in negligence for injuries related to inherent risk of their job. (A/R) 3. Lessor / Lessee – Lessee has a general duty to maintain premises. Lessor must warn of known, unreasonably dangerous, latent defects. If the lessor covenants to repair or voluntarily repairs and does no negligently, he is liable. 4. Realtors – Realtors must warn of known, unreasonably dangerous, latent defects. 5. Recreational Activity – A landowner who holds his land open to the public for recreational purposes without charging a fee is NOT liable for injuries to a recreational user unless the landowner willfully and maliciously failed to warn of a dangerous condition or activity |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) v. Notes: 6. Attractive Nuisance Doctrine |
Child trespasses and is injured by artificial condition, child is owed duty of reasonably prudent person.
a. Knowledge of the Dangerous Condition that owner should be aware of b. Knowledge of Frequency – Owner knows or should know children frequent the vicinity (swimming pool) c. Condition is likely to cause injury (Child cannot appreciate the risk) d. Expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk i. The attractive nuisance does not have to injure the child (Can be a hole in ground) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 3. Owners and/or Occupiers of Land (premises liability) v. Notes: 7. Satisfaction of Duty |
a. Repair / Make Safe – Pad under rug, repair bridge
b. Warn – Makes concealed danger open and obvious |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE ii. Standards of CARE 4. Criminal Statutory Standards of Care (Violation = NEGLIGENCE PER SE) |
a. An unexcused statutory violation conclusively establishes duty and breach of duty. (However, compliance will not necessarily establish due care)
b. Requirements (class of person/class of risk test) i. Statute provides for a criminal penalty ii. Clearly defines the standard of conduct iii. P is within protected class iv. Statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered c. 2 Exceptions i. Excuse for Violation – Statutory compliance would be more dangerous than statutory violation. ii. Compliance is impossible – Ex: Dave is driving through city, has heart attack. The car goes through intersection and hits pedestrian. Cannot borrow red light statute bc compliance to stop at the red light was impossible due to the heart attack. Left to reasonable person standard. But can be breached with addition of more facts – i.e. if D should have taken medication but failed to. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE iii. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Distressed but not physical injured) 1. Near Miss |
a. D was negligent under some duty
b. Must have been in zone of physical danger produced by D’s carelessness (no physical contact needed) i. Near MISS or Close Call! Almost got hurt. c. Subsequent physical manifestation of the distress – one second after, few hours, or few days (flows from and gives evidence of underlying distress) i. Ex: Car runs through intersection and misses P by a foot AND P 1. has heart attack, has miscarriage, breaks out in hives, etc. 2. Things that are self reported do not count (i.e. nightmares) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE iii. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Distressed but not physical injured) 2. Bystander cases – must show: |
a. Close familial relationship of injured party (Spouse or child)
b. P must be physically present at incident c. P must has observed or perceived the injury (must be contemporaneous eye-witness) d. Subsequent Physical manifestation of the distress |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE iii. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Distressed but not physical injured) 3. Preexisting Relationship – When P and D were in a... |
a. Preexisting relationship, and
b. It is foreseeable that careless conduct by D might cause emotional distress i. Erroneous report of a relative’s death OR mishandling of a relative’s corpse. ii. Physical symptoms are NOT required. iii. i.e. doctor patient relationship – false report of cancer or HIV |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE iv. Affirmative Duties to Act 1. NO affirmative duty to Act |
a. Ex. No duty to rescue – Cruel man sees child drowning and flailing and does nothing. No liability because there is no duty to act.
|
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
b. DUTY OF CARE iv. Affirmative Duties to Act 2. Exceptions |
a. Assumption of duty by Action – Once defendant undertakes to aid someone, he must do so with reasonable care.
i. Good Samaritan statute – immunizes rescuers from liability b. Peril due to defendants conduct – Duty to assist someone that she negligently or innocently placed in peril. c. Special Relationship between parties – Family member (relative), common carrier, inn-keeper, shopkeeper, land possessor to invitee, employee to employer have a duty to act with reasonable care (Don’t have to put your own life in jeopardy) d. Duty to control 3rd parties – No duty to prevent a 3rd party from injuring another. i. Exception – One who has the actual ability and authority to control a person’s action, and knows or should know the person is likely to commit acts that would require exercise of this control. 1. Ex. School teacher who sees a knife in a kids backpack has a duty to take control of the knife or call for help. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
c. BREACH OF DUTY i. Breach – |
P must identify the specific wrongful behavior of P and explain WHY it falls beneath the standard of care. (i.e. unreasonable or violation of statute)
1. *i.e. The D’s breached his duty WHEN…and this was unreasonable BECAUSE… |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
c. BREACH OF DUTY ii. Res Ipsa Loquitur – P lacks information about what D did wrong |
1. The accident that occurred is Normally associated with negligence
a. Normally - logical probability - need not rule out all possibility of no fault, but more likely than not it is due to some negligence 2. Associated with defendant – this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the negligence of someone in the defendant’s position. 3. Exclusive control of the object a. Establishing Res Ipsa Loquitur gets you to the jury. (No directed verdict) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION i. ACTUAL Cause 1. 'But for' test – |
Cause (Causation in Fact) – Establishment of breach was factual cause (not D)
1. 'But for' test – Injury would not have occurred but for the act. a. D will argue 'Even if'’ test. b. Ex: But for you not looking... Even if I wasn't looking I would have. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION i. ACTUAL Cause 2. Substantial Factor test – |
Multiple Defendants (Merged causes) – If each breach alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury then both defendants are jointly liable.
a. Ex: 2 separate fires lit by A & B merge and burn down P’s home. P will establish factual cause if each D was a substantial factor in causing the damage to P’s house. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION i. ACTUAL Cause 3. Summers V. Tice – |
Alternative causes (unascertainable) – If NOT ascertainable which act caused the injury, then the burden shifts to Ds to prove his negligence is NOT the cause.
a. A, B & C go hunting. A & B shoot at the same time and injure C. C is uncertain who shot him. The burden shifts to the D's to show why their breach did not cause the injury. b. If neither can explain their way out - then they are each jointly liable. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION ii. PROXIMATE Cause (Legal Causation) (Foreseeablity) 1. Rule – |
Limitation on liability for unforeseeable or unusual consequences.
a. i.e. Not fair to hold people liable for unforeseeable consequences. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION ii. PROXIMATE Cause (Legal Causation) (Foreseeablity) 2. Direct cause fact patterns – |
Liable for ALL foreseeable harmful results, regardless of unusual manner or timing and NOT liable for unforeseeable results.
a. Ex. P hit D with car, D breaks leg – foreseeable – Not liable for any freakish and bizarre circumstances. (fireworks in trunk of car in accident) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION ii. PROXIMATE Cause (Legal Causation) (Foreseeablity) 3. Indirect cause fact patterns – (Later actions undertaken due to accident) a. Intervening Force – |
D is liable for Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable OR Unforeseeable Intervening Forces
i. Dependent Intervening Force – D liable for foreseeable responses 1. Subsequent medical malpractice, (Dr. is also liable) 2. Negligence of rescuers, 3. Protection of person or property of oneself or another, 4. Injuries cause by “reacting” to the defendant’s actions, 5. Subsequent disease / injury caused by weakened condition ii. Independent Intervening Force – D is liable for a foreseeable risks 1. Ex. Negligent, criminal, or intentional acts of 3rd parties and acts of God (Except for unforeseeable crimes or torts) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION ii. PROXIMATE Cause (Legal Causation) (Foreseeablity) 3. Indirect cause fact patterns – (Later actions undertaken due to accident) b. Superseding Force – |
Breaks the causal connection. D is NOT liable for unforeseeable results from foreseeable or unforeseeable forces
|
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
d. CAUSATION ii. PROXIMATE Cause (Legal Causation) (Foreseeablity) 3. Indirect cause fact patterns – (Later actions undertaken due to accident) c. NOTE – |
Ask yourself if the harm is foreseeable in your mind based upon the action of D…if so, then call D is the proximate cause.
|
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
e. DAMAGES – Damages are an essential element of Negligence. (i.e. will NOT be presumed) |
i. Recoverable Items – Property, Personal, and Punitive Damages.
ii. Non Recoverable Items – Prejudgment interest & Attorneys fees iii. Remember – Duty to mitigate & collateral sources rule (and joint tortfeasor exception) iv. Eggshell Skull Rule – once D has committed the other elements of negligence, then D is liable for all damages suffered by P, even if the damages are surprisingly great in scope (take the P as you find him) (applies to all torts on the exam) |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
f. DEFENSES to Negligence i. Contributory Negligence – |
(Minority) (i.e. don’t use on essay)
1. Any contributing negligence is a complete bar to recovery 2. NOT a defense to intentional torts (i.e. wanton or willful conduct) 3. Last Clear Chance – The person with the last clear chance to avoid an accident who fails to do so is liable. (only applies to contributory negligence) 4. Imputed – The contributory negligence of a 3rd party will be imputed to the plaintiff if the plaintiff was in a fiduciary relationship with the 3rd party. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
f. DEFENSES to Negligence ii. Assumption of the Risk – |
(1) Knew of, AND (2) voluntarily encountered the risk.
1. Complete bar to recovery 2. May be express agreement or implied (minority) – Risk is one that an average person would clearly appreciate. 3. NOT a defense to intentional torts but IS a defense to wanton or reckless conduct. |
|
|
3. NEGLIGENCE
f. DEFENSES to Negligence iii. Comparative Negligence – |
D must show evidence that P failed to take proper care for his own safety (Standard – reasonable prudence or possibly statute)
1. P’s recovery is reduced by percentage of his own fault (damage reduction) a. Ex. Failing to buckle up in a car accident. 2. Two different types of comparative fault a. Pure – (Default on MBE) P always recovers something based on fault b. Partial or Modified comparative - P's fault under 50% reduces recovery, but P's fault over 50% is an absolute bar to recovery (gets zero!) |
|
|
4. STRICT LIABILITY (Liability without fault)
a. Liability for Animals i. Domestic Animals – |
not strictly liable, must prove owner was negligent
1. EXCEPTION – knowledge of vicious propensity creates strict liability. a. i.e. Bite 1 you are vulnerable to negligence, Bite 2+ you are strictly liable |
|
|
4. STRICT LIABILITY (Liability without fault)
a. Liability for Animals ii. Trespassing Animals – |
strict liability for reasonably foreseeable damages.
|
|
|
4. STRICT LIABILITY (Liability without fault)
a. Liability for Animals iii. Wild Animals – Strictly liable - safety precautions don’t matter |
1. Liable for only the type of harm of the particular SPECIES (Lions bite)
2. Strict liability is NOT available to trespassers, only negligence (May be liable of an intentional tort for a vicious guard dog) 3. Not liable if the injured person brought about the injury. |
|
|
4. STRICT LIABILITY (Liability without fault)
b. Abnormally Dangerous Activities |
i. Activity creates a foreseeable risk serious risk of harm
ii. Activity cannot be made safe even when reasonable care is exercised iii. Activity is NOT a matter of common usage in the community 1. Ex. Blasting or explosives, hazardous/toxic chemical, biological agents, nuclear energy/radioactive material iv. Duty – Absolute duty to make safe – No amount of reasonable care will relieve him of liability. v. Causation / Damages 1. Defenses – Contributory negligence is NOT a defense but comparative negligence is a defense. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
a. Theories – |
(1) Intent [battery],
(2) negligence, (3) strict liability, (4) implied warranties of fitness and merchantability, (5) express warranties / misrepresentation. i. Bar Tip – MBE answer according to theory in question (i.e. if it says negligence, then use negligence. In an essay assert – intent, negligence, warranty, and strict liability ii. Strict Liability – Any foreseeable Plaintiff may Sue – Any foreseeable plaintiff may bring a products liability action. Privity between P and D is not required (i.e. bystander can sue) 1. Strict duty to deliver safe products iii. Negligence – standard of care – reasonably prudent manufacturing company under same circumstances. (Zone of danger, all foreseeable P’s can bring suit) |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
b. DUTY – D must be a MERCHANT (i.e. Routinely deals in goods of this type) |
i. Casual sellers (you and me selling on internet) are NOT merchants, therefore no strict liability (maybe negligence);
ii. Service providers (selling that type of product is not their primary business) are NOT merchants – i.e. restaurant selling chairs, go to doctors and chair breaks the chair is incidental to their services provided. iii. Commercial Lessors ARE merchants, even though they do not part with title (rental car company, lessors of computer equipment) can be strictly liable. iv. EVERY merchant in distribution chain IS liable, not just the merchant that sold to P (no privity of contract requirement) 1. Merchants are liable even if they have NO opportunity to inspect the product. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
c. BREACH – Product must be DEFECTIVE i. Manufacturing Defect – |
Differs from all the others that came off the same assembly line in a way that makes it more dangerous than consumers would expect. (Outliner, One in a million)
1. Consumer Expectation Test – P must show that the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect. 2. D’s level of care is irrelevant |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
c. BREACH – Product must be DEFECTIVE ii. Design Defects – |
All products are manufactured the same but has a dangerous propensity due to a defective design.
1. P must show that there WAS a safer alternative design available when marketed: a. Safer than the marketed version b. Economical – cost same or close to same c. Practical design – doesn't impair the utility of the product. 2. Note – Non compliance with government safety standards establishes product defectiveness but compliance is only evidence that the product is not defective. 3. Note – punitive damages are available for intentional unsafe products but the usual tort is battery for intentional products liability. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
c. BREACH – Product must be DEFECTIVE iii. Inadequate Warning – Failure to give adequate warning or instruction |
1. If product has residual risks that cannot be eliminated by a safer design AND the residual risks are not obvious to consumer’s the product the product will be defective unless there is an adequate warning.
2. If there IS a safer design, then a warning will NOT be sufficient. 3. Not liable for unavoidably unsafe products (knifes) 4. Warning must be prominent and understandable 5. Cannot escape liability by putting a warning sign on a dangerous product must use the safer design. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
d. CAUSATION i. Product has NOT been ALTERED – |
(Actual cause) Product must have been defective when it left the defendant’s control. Product presumed not altered if it moved through normal channels of distribution.
|
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
d. CAUSATION ii. P must be making FORESEEABLE USE of product when injured |
(Proximate cause)
1. Ex. Many abuses and misuses of products are often predictable and foreseeable and therefore will still recover under strict liability (i.e. Standing on chair) |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
e. DAMAGES – |
Personal injury and Property Damage are recoverable
i. NO recovery for economic loss standing alone. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
f. Defense |
i. Assumption of the risk
ii. Misuse of product iii. Comparative Fault (Minority) –Knew of the Danger and was the very cause of the abnormally dangerous activity miscarrying. Damages reduced by P’s conduct. iv. NOT contributory negligence |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
g. Implied Warranties i. Merchantability – |
Implied warranty by merchants that goods are to be of average acceptable quality AND are fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used.
|
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
g. Implied Warranties ii. Fitness for a Particular Purpose – |
Implied warranty by ALL sellers which arises when the seller knows of or has reason to know the particular purpose for which the goods are required AND that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill and judgment in selecting the goods.
1. Who can sue? – Buyer, family, household and guests can sue for personal injuries 2. Fault – Plaintiff does not have to prove any fault on behalf of the defendant. 3. Causation – Must show actual and proximate cause (standards from negligence) 4. Damages – Property, personal injury, AND purely economic loss are recoverable. 5. Defenses – Assumption of the risk (knowingly using the product in breach of warranty) AND failure to give notice of the breach, AND unreasonable misuse 6. Limitations on remedies – Rejected in personal injury cases but upheld for economic loss. 7. Disclaimers are valid. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
h. Representation Theories i. Express Warranty – |
Any affirmation of fact or promise concerning goods that becomes part of the “basis of the bargain” creates an express warranty.
1. Who can sue? – Any consumer, user or bystander may sue but must show that someone relied on the representation. 2. Fault / Causation / Damages / Defenses are the same as implied warranties. 3. Disclaimers – Disclaimers are ineffective. |
|
|
5. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
h. Representation Theories ii. Misrepresentation of Fact – |
A seller is liable for misrepresentations when:
1. The statement was of a material fact 2. concerning the quality or uses of goods (mere puffery is insufficient), AND 3. The seller intended to induce reliance by the buyer in a particular transaction. 4. Justifiable Reliance – The representation was a substantial factor in inducing the purchase. (Need not be the victims, may be a prior purchaser. 5. Damages – Must show property or personal injury damages. Purely economic loss is not recoverable. a. Defenses – Comparative fault. Assumption of the risk is NOT a defense because the P is entitled to rely on the misrepresentations. |
|
|
6. NUISANCE (Type of harm, Not a separate tort in itself) (can be done intentionally, negligently or without fault)
a. Private Nuisance |
i. A substantial and unreasonable interference
1. Substantial interference – interference that is offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. (Objective test) a. Not substantial if it is merely the result of the plaintiffs hypersensitivity or specialized use of the own property. 2. Unreasonable Interference – The severity of the inflicted injury must outweigh the utility of the defendant’s conduct. ii. with P's private use and enjoyment of his land. 1. P must actually possess the land or have a right to immediate possession. 2. No entry needed like trespass. Just an interference with use and enjoyment. |
|
|
6. NUISANCE (Type of harm, Not a separate tort in itself) (can be done intentionally, negligently or without fault)
b. Public Nuisance |
i. An act that unreasonably interferes
ii. with the health, safety, or property rights of the community. 1. In public nuisance cases, only a public authority or a private party who has suffered some unique damages can seek an injunction or abatement. |
|
|
6. NUISANCE (Type of harm, Not a separate tort in itself) (can be done intentionally, negligently or without fault)
c. Remedies – |
Generally Damages will be awarded. If damages are unavailable or inadequate then an injunction MAY be awarded after balancing the hardships.
i. Abatement by Self Help – In the case of a private nuisance, self help abatement is available after notice has been given to abate and D refuses act. 1. Only necessary force may be used. |
|
|
6. NUISANCE (Type of harm, Not a separate tort in itself) (can be done intentionally, negligently or without fault)
d. Defenses |
i. Legislative Authority – Zoning ordinance for nuisance activity is persuasive.
ii. Conduct of Others – Only liable for their individual conduct if there are multiple actors. iii. Contributory Negligence – Is NOT a defense. iv. Coming to the Nuisance – Is NOT a defense. You may still file a lawsuit for nuisance unless you came to the nuisance for the purpose of bringing a harassing lawsuit. |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) i. Respondeat Superior – |
An employer is liable for tortious acts committed by the employee while in the course and scope of employment.
1. Detour – An employee making a minor deviation from his employers business for his own purpose is still within the scope of employment. 2. Frolic – Not liable for substantial deviations in time or geographic area. 3. Intentional Torts – NOT liable for the intentional torts of an employee except reasonably foreseeable: a. Force is authorized in the employment (bouncer) b. Friction is authorized in the employment (bill collector, repo man) c. Furthering the business of the employer (Physically removing guest) 4. Employer Liable for Negligence – The employer may still be held liable for his own negligence by negligently selecting or supervising the employees. |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) ii. Independent Contractor – Principal will NOT be held liable except: |
1. The IC is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity (blasting, excavating)
2. The duty is non-delegable (building a fence around excavation site) a. Note – Principal may still be liable for negligent selection of IC. 3. Land possessor is V/L for injuries caused by an IC to an invitee |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) iii. Partners and Joint Venturers – |
Partners are liable for tortious conduct of another member committed while in the course and scope of their affairs.
|
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) iv. Automobile Owner for Driver – |
The automobile owner is NOT liable for the tortious conduct of another person driving his automobile.
1. Ex: I lend you my car and you hit a pedestrian, I am not liable. (Ignore insurance) If I lend you my car to do an errand for me I am liable under a principal and agent relationship and you will be liable under another theory (i.e. battery, negligence) 2. Family Car – In many states the owner is liable for the conduct of immediate family or household members who are driving with the owner’s permission. 3. Negligent Entrustment – An owner may be liable for her OWN negligence in entrusting the car to a driver (Drunk person) (Not vicarious liability) |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) v. Bailor – Bailee – |
The Bailor is NOT liable for the tortious conduct of his bailee.
1. Note – Negligent entrustment may still apply (Gun to drunk person) |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) vi. Parent – Child – |
NOT vicariously liable for torts of their children. (modernly governed by statutes)
1. Liability when children are acting as an agent for the parents (Joey steal that purse) 2. Note – Parents remain liable for their own negligence (negligent entrustment or negligent supervision) Ex: loaded gun on table - liable if they shoot someone a. Ex. Allowing your child to play with kids who he a history of attacking. |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
a. Vicarious Liability (Principal ALWAYS remains liable for their OWN negligence!!!) vii. Tavernkeepers – |
At common law, NO liability was imposed for injuries resulting from the customer’s intoxication. Modernly, Dramshop Acts OR negligence suits are used.
|
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
b. Multiple Defendant Issues |
i. Joint and Several Liability – Actors who are jointly and severally liable are EACH liable for the ENTIRE amount of damages incurred.
1. Satisfaction – Until the debt is completely satisfied the P may proceed against all jointly liable parties. 2. Release – At common law, release of one joint tortfeasor, releases ALL joint tortfeasors. Modernly this rule has been abolished. 3. Contribution – If the injury is divisible, each D is liable for their identifiable portion of fault and may seek contribution from the other jointly liable parties after satisfying the debt. (apportions responsibility) 4. Indemnity – Indemnity involves shifting the entire loss between or among tortfeasors. Indemnification is available: a. By contract b. In vicarious liability situations (i.e. Employer who has to pay for an employee’s intentional tort may seek indemnification against the employee) c. In strict products liability. (i.e. non manufacturer (retailer) get indemnification from the manufacturer) |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
c. Survival and Wrongful Death |
i. Survival of Tort Actions – Survival acts allow ones cause of action to survive the death of one or more of the parties. The acts apply to actions involving torts to property and torts resulting in personal injury. (common law torts die at death)
1. Note – Torts involving intangible property interests (defamation, invasion of privacy, malicious prosecution) expire upon death. ii. Wrongful Death – Grants recovery for pecuniary injury resulting to the spouse and next of kin. 1. A decedent’s creditors have no claim against the amount awarded. 2. A decedent’s comparative negligence will still be taken into account. |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
d. Tortious Interference with Family Relations |
i. Husband – Wife – uninjured spouse gets second and separate cause of action against D
1. Loss of services – domestic services (i.e. fix garage door) 2. Loss of society – companionship 3. Loss of consortium – sex ii. Parent – child – A parent may maintain an action for loss of a child’s services as a result of defendant’s tortious conduct BUT a child may NOT sue for a parent’s loss of services. |
|
|
7. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALL TORT CASES
e. Tort Immunities |
i. Intra-Family Tort Immunities – One member of a family cannot sue another in tort for personal injury except:
1. Husband and wife 2. Parent child suits (excluding negligent supervision) ii. Sovereign Immunity – The US and states has waived immunity for many tortious acts. 1. Immunity is NOT waived for assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel and slander, misrepresentation, and interference with contractual rights. 2. Immunity is not waived for discretionary acts but is for ministerial acts. 3. Public officials are immune from tort liability for discretionary acts done without malice or improper purpose. ALSO, no immunity for proprietary functions. iii. Charitable Immunity – Majority of jurisdictions have eliminated charitable immunity. |
