• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/138

Click to flip

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;

138 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Main Characteristics of Intentional Torts
1) D must have been voluntary act
2) D must have intended the consequence of the act (D acted with actual desire or substantial certainty)
3) Intent can be proven by transferred intent (tort to tort, person to person)
4) Motive is not relevant
5) Mentally incompetent adults and Children can be held liable for intentional torts
6) Causation- D act was a "substantial factor"
7) Actual Damages NOT needed
8) Possibility of punitive damages
9) D is liable for ALL harm caused, even if not foreseeable.
Transferred Intent- Tort to Tort
if intent is proven for one intentional tort (assault), intent may be proven for another intentional tort (battery)
Transferred Intent- Person to Person
if intent is proven to one plaintiff, intent is proven as to all plaintiffs
Possibility of Punitive damages
1) for willful, wanton, and malicious conduct.
2) Punitive are to punish
3) Amount is determined by wealth of D, reprehensibility of D's Misconduct, and actual harm caused
Intentional Tort List
1) Assault
2) Battery
3) False Imprisonment
4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
5) Trespass to Land
6) Conversion and Trespass to Chattel
Assault- Definition
Plaintiff's reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive conduct, plus Defendant's intent and Causation
Apprehension Means
Expectation of
Actual Contact?
no actual contact is needed
Words alone?
Words alone are not sufficient to prove assault. There must be some physical act by Defendant. Exceptions: if the Plaintiff is blind or in dark room, words alone may constitute assault.
assault
Conditional Threat
Is not defense "Your money or your life" satisfies assault.
assault
Apprehension of who ?
The Plaintiff, not someone else, even if that someone else is a family member.
assault
Immediate?
Yes the apprehension must be immediate "ill spit on you next week" is not enough for assault.
assault
Awareness? ?
Yes the plaintiff needs to be aware of the Defendant's Act. Sleeping or unconscious persons cannot win assault cases.
assault
Actual or apparent ability?
Defendant must have the actual or apparent ability to cause the harmful or offensive contact. Apparent ability is sufficient. The unloaded gun that Plaintiff does not know is unloaded satisfies assault.
assault
Burden of Proof and Standard?
The plaintiff must prove that a reasonable person would have been in apprehension. Objective standard.
assault
Extra Sensitivity of Plaintiffs?
Not considered unless the Defendant is aware or knows of Plaintiff's extra sensitivity.
assault
Actual Damage?
Not Needed
Transferred intent and assault
yes.
Battery- Definition
Defendant's harmful or offensive contact with Plaintiff plus intent and causation
Battery
Intent
Must intend to cause harmful or offensive contact
Battery
intent of assault transferred ?
The intent to commit assault (apprehension) will satisfy intent for battery under transferred intent when the contact is made accidentally.
Battery

What type of contact?
Contact can be with Plaintiff's body or something connected to the Plaintiff's body, like a hat. Battery can also be moving something that causes harm, like removing a chair when someone is trying to sit down.
Legal Standard of Battery?
Based on a reasonable person standard.
Battery

and the Extra sensitive plaintiff
only consider when Defendant knew Plaintiff's sensitivity.
Battery

Plaintiff's awareness needed?
No.
False Imprisonment
1) Defendant's act must confine or restrain Plaintiff to a bounded area. D's act must be voluntary and with intent to confine or restrain.
2) Confinement or restraint includes physical barrier (locking a door) physical force, and threats of immediate physical force.
False Imprisonment

Bounded Area Means...
No reasonable exit. Being excluded from an area is NOT false imprisonment.
False Imprisonment

Length of Confinement...Relevant?
The length of confinement is usually not relevant to prove false imprisonment although it may be relevant for damages purposes.
False Imprisonment

Plaintiff's Awareness?
Yes Plaintiff must be aware. Exception is if the Plaintiff mentally incapable of awareness, and there is actual harm (like an infant).
False Imprisonment

Transferred Intent
Yes. If you lock up the wrong person, still liable.
False Imprisonment

Motive
Not relevant
False Imprisonment

Actual Damages
Not needed.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Definition
Defendant's intentional or reckless extremely outrageous behavior which causes Plaintiff severe emotional Distress.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
1) must be extreme and outrageous
2) but words alone or threat of future outrageous behavior MAY prove the tort
3) P sensitivity not considered unless the D knew.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Identity of D relevant?
Yes. Common Carriers and innkeepers are more likely to be viewed as outrageous.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

P identity relevant?
Yes. A P who is Pregnant, elderly, or very young is more likely to win in these cases.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Are nominal Damages enough?
No. there has to severe emotional stress and damages.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

How is intent proven?
Intent is proven not only by actual desire and substantial certainty, but also reckless behavior.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Transferred Intent?
As a general rule? No. But minority may permit onlookers to collect if family member is target of the outrageous conduct.
Trespass to land
1) involves D's Vol. and intentional physical invasion of P's Land
2) includes airspace to a reasonable height
3) P can be a tenant (superior possessory interest) to D
4) D's good faith, honest, reasonable belief that the land belong to D is NOT relevant
5) D must have intent to physically invade, but not need to prove intent to trespass.
Trespass to land

invasion includes
1) D's personal entrance
2) throwing tangible objects on P's Land
3) D's remaining on P's land after being told to leave
4) D's leaving objects on P's land after being told to remove them
conversion
1) intentional destruction or wrongful possession for a significant (long) period of time of another's personal property
2) Remedies- damages (FMV) or replevin
and trespass to chattel
1) involves less harm or short wrongful possession on another's personal property
2) Remedies- requires actual damages, usually reduction in value or value of loss of use.
Any Defense? Reasonable belief?
Nope. No defense that there is a reasonable belief that the chattel belongs to D.
Defenses-
1) consent
2) self-defense
3) Defense to other persons
4) Defense of land or Chattels
5) Necessity
6) Discipline
7) Merchant's Privilege
Defenses- consent
1) defense to all torts
2) based on duress is invalid
3) based on P's mistake is invalid if D was aware of P's mistake
4) If consent was based on misrep. going to the essence of the touching, consent is not a valid defense. If express consent was based on a misrep. as a collateral matter, consent=valid.
5) Consent can be implied. (like an emergency situation; activities involving physical contact)
6) Valid if D reasonably believed P consented, even if wrong
7) Capacity to consent- must have the capacity to understand the consequences
Defenses- self-defense
1) entitled to use reasonable force to prevent an intentional tort that D reasonably believes is about to be committed to D.
2) valid defense if reasonable and still wrong
3) amount of force must be reasonable. Too much- then invalid defense.
4) G/R- no duty to retreat. Modern trend if self defense force causes death or serious bodily injury- retreat unless D in own house
5) NOT retaliation
6) Injured bystanders- defense transferred if valid to initial self defense.
Defenses- Defense to other persons
1) Reasonable force may be used to protect 3rd persons even a stranger.
2) even if defender mistaken, right to self defense, defender not liable for battery as long as reasonable belief that 3rd person had a right to self defense.
Defenses- Defense of land or Chattels
1) Reasonable, nondeadly force
2) Retailiation NOT allowed, only to prevent
4) chattel located on land of wrongdoer, owner of chattel have right to enter land and reclaim chattel.
Reasonable nondeadly to regain possession if:
1) original taking was illegal
2) in fresh pursuit
3) request for return is useless or dangerous.
Defenses- Necessity
Defense to trespass to land, trespass to chattel and conversion.

Public- if D acts, although tort, avoided greater injury to the public, there is NO liability

Private- if D acts, although tort, avoided greater injury to a small # of persons, D only liable for any actual damage caused.
Defenses- Discipline
Persons in charge of children are permitted to use reasonable force to control a child.
Defenses- Merchant's Privilege
Defense to false imprisonment. Shop owner is NOT liable if reasonable belief that person detained has shoplifted even if no shoplifting actually occurred.
Defamation
1) Slander
2) Libel
3) Statements must be defamatory. Defamatory means it lowers P's Rep. in the community (respectable society)
4) Whether stmt is defamatory is based on whether a reasonable person would find the stmt defamatory, NOT P's subjective reaction.
Defamation

Slander v. Libel
slander- purely spoken

Libel- is written. Stmts, oral repetitions of a libel, and written repetitions of a spoken stmt are all viewed as libel (everything libel unless purely spoken).
Defamation

Facially Defamatory, Inducement, Innuendo
Facially Defamatory- on face.

Inducement- the pleading of extrinstic facts before defamatory

Innuendo- plea of defamatory meaning of the stmt.
Defamation and opinion
involves a stmt of fact, not opinion. A stmt is not an opinion just b/c it begins with "in my opinion".
Plaintiff must prove...

Colloquium
that a reasonable reader or listenter must understand the stmt to concern P. If the P's identity is not obvious, P must plead extrinstic facts.

Colloquium- the pleading of extrinstic facts to prove that the stmt concerns P.
Group defamation
if a group is defamed, an individual member of a group can only bring an individual defamation action if the group is small. NO BRIGHT LINE exists as to what size group is too large.
Dead People
No defamation to dead plaintiffs.
Publication
A defamation action requires publication which means communicated to a 3rd party. If D only tells P , there is no publication
Republication
A person who repeats a defamatory stmt is ALSO liable for defamation. Moreover, the republisher can increade the liability of the original defamer if republication was intended or reasonably foreseeable.
Presumed Damage
At C/l- if the statement was defamatory damages were presumed. P did not have to prove any actual damages.
Exception to Presumed damages-
SLANDER- Special damages are needed for slander. Special damages mean economic damages. However, if slander concerns a crime of moral turpitude, business misconduct, sexual misconduct, or "loathsome disease, "special damages" are NOT needed.
Libel per quod
NEVER AN ANSWER-
Defamation and truth
Under C/L defamation, truth is a DEFENSE for Def. to prove. P is not required to prove falsity.
Defamation and Constitutional Limitation
1st amendment involved when
1) plaintiff is a public person or
2) when the matter involves an issue of public concern
"public plaintiffs"
to win must prove by clear and convincing evidence
1) D acted with malice (D knew the stmt was false or acted with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity)
Two groups of public plaintiffs
1) government officials
2) celebrities

must prove malice in ALL cases
Limited Purpose Public Plaintiffs
Pl. must prove clear and convincing evidence of falsity and malice in only those defamation cases INVOVLING THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE CONTROVERSY in which they have voluntarily assumed a public role, but NOT in defamation cases unrelated to the particular public controversy.
"Private person.public concern" plaintiff
This is a P not a government official or celebrity, but whose defamation action involves a matter of public concern. A private person/public concern P is NOT required to prove malice, but must prove D made a false stmt. and that D acted negligently. However "private person/public concern" plaintiffs must prove malice to collect punitive damages.
Just a private person
in a matter not of public concern need not prove falsity, malice, or negligence.
Absolute privilege
There is no defamation liability for stmts made by one spouse to another; statements made in judicial proceedings; statements made by executive branch officials; and statements made by legislators in hearing or floor debates.
Qualified privilege-
There are various situations where a speaker is entitled to a qualified privilege. Look for employers and professors giving recommendations; persons reporting crimes; and credit bureau reports. If a D has a qualified privilege, D is only laible if
1) D acted with malice; or
2) engaged in excessive publications
3) if the stmt is unrelated to the policy of the qualified privilege.
Defamation

Defense
Consent is a defense to defamation. P cannot sue for defamation if P consented to have D make the defamatory statement about P.
Invasion of Privacy- Types (four branches)
1) misappropriation of P's picture or name for commercial advantage (exception newspaper)
2) Unreasonable intrusion into P's affairs or seclusion (wiretapping) - no comm to 3rd parties needed
3) Public disclosure of private facts about P: that a reasonable person would not want to become public.
4) False Light- false attribution of a belief or action which a reasonable person would find objectionable that is publicized in a very public way.
Invasion of Privacy- Types (four branches)

defense
Consent- only actual consent is a valid defense, not reasonable belief of consent.
deceit- False Misrep
1) False misrep.- of a mat'l fact
2) G/R- opinions and silent CANNOT be the basis of deceit
3) Can be based on expert opinion, silence of a fiduciary, or duty to correct earlier misinfo.
4) D must have scienter (intent to deceive)
5) Transferred intent does NOT apply. Only is reasonably foresee reliance on stmt
6) P must prove reasonable reliance and actual damages
Negligent Misrep
1) of fact as a result of D's negligence
2) narrow
3) of business or profession
4) only to persons D knew would rely
5) P must prove reasonable reliance and actual damages
Tortious interference with contract
1) P must prove a valid K.
2) P must prove that 3rd party knew about valid K
3) that D intentionally interfered with valid K
4) that P suffered actual damages
Interference with at will K only liable if D used wrongful tactics
Rules of Negligence- Duty
1) R#1- Everyone has a duty not to affirmatively act in a manner to create an unreasonable risk of harm to others
2) R#2- there is no duty to take precautions against events that are not reasonably foreseeable
3) R#3- Duty is only owed to foreseeable Ps
4) R#4- Rescuers are foreseeable as long as the rescue is reasonable (exception- firefighters and police)
5) R#5- There is no duty to aid someone in need of help.
6) R#6- there is no duty to control a third person and prevent that third person from committing a tort.
Exception to the rule that there is no duty to help others- Special relationship
If:
1) special relationship- parent, hotel-guest, employer-employee, common-carrier-passenger, business person-customer, social host-guest
2) puts another in peril or injury
Good Samaritan Law
a person who begins to help must complete the help with reasonable care. Some states have stauttes limiting liability of Good Samaritans to gross negligence. Note doctors are not treated differently. Doctors have no duty to come to help injured persons.
Standard of Care
1) G/R- objective standard (reasonable person- the ordinary, prudent person, whether or not D did his best)
2) Less bright less experienced adults are not held to a lower standard
3) but greater knowledge taken into account
4) physical disability are considered in deciding reasonableness
5) Child standard- reasonableness of child with lige age, ability and experience
6) Child engaged in adult activity held to adult standard
7) Professional's Standard- avg. member in profession with good standing
8) Standard for specialist- national standard of that specialist field.
Guest Statute- only if say is one passenger suing driver.
Duty owed by owners and Occupiers of Land
1) P injured off land
2) P injured on D's Land
3) Licensee
4) Invitees
5) Children
Two step approach-
Two step approach-
1) was P injured while on D's Land?
2) was P injured by artificial condition, natural condition, or an activity?
P injured off land
1) Nat'l Condition- no duty owed to P except if P was injured by decaying tree next to sidewalk in a city.
2) Art'l Condition- no duty except if P injured by dangerous condition on the edge of property
3) Activity- duty of reasonable care owed to P
P injured on D's Land
1) Depends if Trespasser, Licensee, or Invitee
P injured on D's Land

Trespasser
1) Trespasser is a person on D's land without D's permission
2) 3 types: undiscovered, discovered, anticipated, child trespasser and Attractive nuisance doctrine
P injured on D's Land

Trespasser- undiscovered
If P is undiscovered, no duty owed if the P is injured by artificial condition, natural condition, or activity
P injured on D's Land

Trespasser- discovered
If P is discovered, no duty owed if P injured by natural condition or non dangerous artificial condition. Duty to warn or make safe if injured by highly dangerous artificial condition. Duty to reasonable care owed if injured by activity
P injured on D's Land

Trespasser- anticipated
same rules as discovered trespasser
P injured on D's Land

Trespasser- child trespasser and Attractive nuisance doctrine
Under attractive nuisance doctrine, owner or occupier of land owes child trespasser duty of reasonable care.

Attractive nuisance doctrine applies if:
1) Dangerous artificial condition
2) D knew or should had known that children are likely to come by the artificial condition
3) P was incapable of appreciating the danger
4) the expense of making the condition safe is slight compared to the danger. the artificial condition need not be the motive for the child's trespass.
P injured on D's Land

Licensee
1) Licensee is a social guest
2) or a person on D's property for her own economic benefit. (salepersons firefighters police officers)
3) Activity- injured- D owes P duty of reasonable care.
4) Condition- injured- (art or nat) d owes P duty to warn OR make safe non obvious dangerous conditions of which D knows.
5) no duty to inspect.
P injured on D's Land

Invitees- two types
1) the business invitee
2) the public invitee
P injured on D's Land

Invitees- the business invitee
is on D's property for economic benefit to D. (include the persons accompanying the customers.

If injured by activity- D owes P duty of reasonable care.

If juried by condition (nat or art)- D owes P the same as a licensee plus duty to make reasonable inspection
P injured on D's Land

Invitees- the public invitee
persons on D's property for a public purpose.

If injured by activity- D owes P duty of reasonable care.

If juried by condition (nat or art)- D owes P the same as a licensee plus duty to make reasonable inspection
Breach of Duty-
1) Burden to Prove- on P
2) P might have direct evidence of unreasonable conduct (eye witness)
3) Or Circumstantial evidence (Res Ipsa Loquitur)
Breach of Duty-

Res Ipsa Locquitur
If RIL is established, P will avoid directed verdict. RIL does not create a presumption of negligence and does NOT shift the burden to the D. To establish RIL, it must be shown:
1) that what happened ordinarily occurs only if someone was negligent
2) and that more probable than not, it was this D who committed the negligent act because of this D's exclusive control of the injury producing instrumentality.
Custom of the Trade and Use of an Expert Witness
1) Evidence of custom is admissible to prove breach of duty. Both P and D may rely on the custom
2) compliance with the custom does not lead to verdict for D as a matter of law because the jury could find that the custom itself is unreasonable, and thus D was acting unreasonable even if in compliance with the custom.
3) Expert testimony- an expert will testify on : (a) what is the custom; and (b) whether the expert's opinion defendant violated the custom.
Violation of a Statute
1) P may rely on D's violation of a statute to prove negligence.
2) Majority- negligence per se.
3) Minority- evidence of negligence
4) three things must be true: (a) violation of the statute was unexcused (balance of harm vs. harm if violated); (b) type of harm must be same type of harm statute was aimed at preventing; (c) P must be member of class of persons the statute was intended to protect.
5) D compliance to the statute is relevant, but not conclusive. Reasonable person may have to go beyond statute's requirements.
Actual Causation-

"But for" test
when there is one tortfeasor
Actual Causation-

more than one tortfeasor
do not use the "but for test"

use the substantial factor test if there is more than one negligent actor.
1) if two D's are acting jointly, all D's are actual cause of entire injury.
2) If two D's are not acting jointly, if negligence if either one would have cause entire injury, each is actual cause of entire injury.
3) If two D's not acting jointly, and the negligence of both combines to cause greater injury than would have resulted from the separate negligence of each, D is actual cause of entire injury
4) If two D's are not acting jointly, and P is injured by negligence of one, not both, and it is impossible to determine which one, BOTH D's are viewed as the actual cause, unless one D can prove that the other was the actual cause (burden is on D)
Proximate cause
1) the harm suffered by P must have been reasonably foreseeable to D at time of D's negligent act.
2) the type of harm must be foreseeable, but not the extent of the harm. "take you victim as you find him"
3) P/C doesn't extend to economic harm suffered by 3rd party
Intervening Cause
an intervening cause is 3rd person conduct or an event which occurs subsequent to D's tort, and which causes additional harm to P. If the intervening cause is foreseeable, D is liable for the additional harm.

An unforeseeable intervening cause is superceding, and D is NOT liable for the harm
Foreseeable intervening events:
1) medical malpractice
2) negligence of rescuers
3) negligent acts of 3rd persons
4) non extraordinary weather changes are foreseeable.
Unforeseeable superceding events
crime and intentional torts are generally held to be unforeseeable.

but a crime may be foreseeable if there is a stolen car because the keys are left in the car.
Damages-
1) Actual damages are needed for negligence
Types of damages in Negligence
1) pain and suffering (past and future)
2) diminished earning capacity
3) medical expenses (past and future)
4) P's medical insurance is NOT deducted
5) loss of consortium (loss of companionship, household services, and sex)- only if married
6) future med expenses an expert's testimony is needed.
Damages- Emotional
1) majority view requires some physical injury or symptom.
2) Also, P must have been impacted or within zone of danger
3) Modern approach covers P who was present at the scene who views close family member being impacted
4) Possible trend- dmgs for negligent infliction of ED may also be available by an act which by itself is likely to result in physical symptoms even absent any physical impact or close impact.
Defenses to Negligence
1) Assumption of Risk
2) Contributory Negligence
3) "Last clear chance doctrine"
4) Pure Comparative negligence
5) Partial or modified comparative negligence
Assumption of risk
P assumed the risk, P gets nothing. P must subjectively know and understand risk, and voluntarily accept it.
Contributory Negligence
P's unreasonable conduct is actual and proximate cause of P's actual damages. If 1% negligence (the P), the P gets nothing.
Last clear chance doctrine
NOT IN PURE COMP NEG. State
1) LCCD trumps contributory negligence.
2) Although P was contributory negligent, if D had not acted subsequently to P's contributory negligence, P would not have been injured, and therefore P can collect b/c of the last clear chance doctrine. Look for helpless contributory negligent plaintiff.
Comparative Negligence-
Majority
1) P's recovery is reduced by % of fault attributed to P.
Partial or Modified Comp. Neg.
If P is more than 50% responsible, P gets nothing.
Strict Liability.
1) no fault liability
2) abnornally dangerous activity
3) injuries from or by wild animals
4) Defenses- Assumption of risk? YES, Contributory Neg? NO.
Abnormally dangerous activity
as an activity that involves high risk of harm which cannot be eliminated no matter how much care is taken, and the activity is not usual for the area.
Domestic Animals
S/L requires knowledge of the domestic animals dangerous propensities.
Products liability and negligence
1) same law as negligence but concerning a product. Unreasonable conduct involving manufacture or sale of products which is actual and proximate cause of P's injury. P must be reasonably foreseeable victim. Typical D is manufacturer, but also includes seller and component part maker.
2) negligent failure to discover a defect is not a superceding cause. If the seller is negligent in failing to correct a manufacturer's negligence, the manu remains liable.
3) Same negligent defenses discussed above.
Products Liability and S/L
1) no fault liability for injury caused by a product which is defective and unreasonably dangerous
2) P must prove a defect: (by design, manufacture, warning or instruction), defect need not be the result of any negligence, just that there is a defect.
3) P must also prove unreasonably dangerous (dangerous beyond ordinary consumer would contemplate, or whether there is less dangerous alt. economically feasible.)
4) Foreseeable unintended use is not a defense. Rule- design must account for unintended foreseeable uses. Also, there is a duty to warn about unintended but foreseeable uses.
Causation
defect must have caused the injury. Look for a substantial change since the time the product left the D. Substantial change does not equal D causation.
Proper D's
1) commercial supplier
2) sellers
3) lessors in regular course of business
4) the manufacturer
5) component part maker.
*** not garage sales and neighbor sales***
Proper P's
no privity needed. all foreseeable victims are proper P's. this includes purchasers and bystanders.
Damages-
there must be physical damage to a person or property (other than the product). If there is ONLY economic loss, there is NO S/L.
Defenses-
Assumption of risk- yes
Contributory Neg- NO.
Comp. Neg- split
Apply to service?
No S/L does not apply to service. Look out for tainted blood transfusion.
Unavoidable Unsafe Products?
no S/L (knives, chemotherapy drugs)
Nuisance
1) D's substantial and unreasonable interference w/ p's use and enjoyment of property.
2) Balance the harm and the social utility. Consider the character of area (residential or commercial), frequency, and time of day.
3) must be substantial enough for an avg. person. Special sensitivity is NOT considered.
4) no need to prove intent
5) Actual harm is needed.
Nuisance

Remedies
Equitable- close down
Damages- reduction in property value
Public Nuisance
when health, safety or property rights of general public are effected. Private P must prove unique injury apart from that of the public to prevail.
Vicarious Liability
1) based on status, not fault
2) Employer/employee
3) Servants and Ind't K/ors
4) Differences- time period working for e/er, experience and specialized skill
5) right to control?
6) no V/L for I/C unless I/C is engaged in inherently dangerous activity or non delegatable llandlord's duty to repair.
7) Servant V/L must be in scope of employment.
8) commuting not within scope of employment.
9) V/L applies to all torts. (e/er liable and e/ee liable for own tort)
Multiple Tortfeasors
1) G/R- Joint and several liability
2) Contribution- if D1 paid more than her pro rata share to P, D1 entitled to contribution from D2 to equalize payment.
3) Indemnification- When D seeks full/total reimbursement from another.
Deceased Tort Victim

MBE says
Assume Wrongful death statute and survival statute
C/L
cause of action died along with victim
Wrongful Death statute
damages for loss of support, services, companionship, consortium. Dmgs are paid to surviving family members of deceased victims.
Survival statute
damages suffered btw time of tort and death (med expenses). Damages paid to ESTATE!!!!
Beneficiaries?
haveno greater rights than that of the victim if the victim would had lived.
Immunities
1) Spousal- Maj- NO such thing.
2) Parent-Child- Maj- NO such thing
3) Charitable- No such thing
4) Federal Government (Federal Tort Claims act- waiver when Fed Govt negligence action- No punitive damage or S/L)
5) State Government-sovereign immunity (most but can waive)
6) Municipal Gov't (immune in government functions, but not proprietary ones)