Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • 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

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/76

Click to flip

76 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
True/False:

There is liability for domestic pets ONLY at second instance.

However, there is _________ _________ for those w/ __________ dangerous propensities from the outset (result NOT changed if "tamed").
True!

There is liability for domestic pets ONLY at second instance.

However, there is STRICT LIABILITY for those w/ INHERENT dangerous propensities from the outset (result NOT changed if "tamed").
_________ ALTERNATIVES APPROACH--->

If one could have cured a defect for a ______ amount of $ relative to the risk involved, he _______ _______ done it and a warning (will/will not) save him.
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES APPROACH--->

If one could have cured a defect for a MINOR amount of $ relative to the risk involved, he SHOULD HAVE done it and a warning WILL NOT save him.
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

Immunity (is/is not) available for GOVERNMENTAL functions; it (is/is not) available for PROPRIETARY functions.
GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY

Immunity IS available for GOVERNMENTAL functions; it IS NOT available for PROPRIETARY functions.
A function is a PROPRIETARY FUNCTION if:

It would normally be performed by a _________ __________.
A function is a PROPRIETARY FUNCTION if:

It would normally be performed by a PRIVATE BUSINESS.
General rule-->
There is NO duty to retreat before using self-defense.

Modern trend-->
There IS a duty to retreat before using serious force if one: (1) can do so _______ and (2) (is/is not) in his home.
General rule-->
There is NO duty to retreat before using self-defense.

Modern trend-->
There IS a duty to retreat before using serious force if one: (1) can do so SAFELY and (2) IS NOT in his home.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Unlike for other intentional torts, ___________ as to the effect of D's conduct will satisfy the ________ requirement.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Unlike for other intentional torts, RECKLESSNESS as to the effect of D's conduct will satisfy the INTENT requirement.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

______ ________ (severe damages) are required (ie. need NOT be physical).

PHYSICAL INJURY is NOT required, but clear proof of ___________ emotional distress is.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Actual damages (severe damages) are required (ie. need NOT be physical).

PHYSICAL INJURY is NOT required, but clear proof of SUBSTANTIAL emotional distress is.
EXPRESS (ACTUAL) CONSENT

D is NOT liable if P expressly consents to D's conduct.

EXCEPTIONS--->
(1) ________ will undo express consent if D ______ of and took advantage of the mistake;

(2) Consent induced by FRAUD will be invalidated if it goes to an _________ matter; and

(3) Consent obtained by _______ will be invalidated UNLESS it is only threats of _______ action or economic deprivation.
EXPRESS (ACTUAL) CONSENT

D is NOT liable if P expressly consents to D's conduct.

EXCEPTIONS--->
(1) MISTAKE will undo express consent if D KNEW of and took advantage of the mistake;

(2) Consent induced by FRAUD will be invalidated if it goes to an ESSENTIAL matter; and

(3) Consent obtained by DURESS will be invalidated UNLESS it is only threats of FUTURE action or economic deprivation.
When is consent implied by law?
When action is necessary to save a person's life or some other important interest in property.
APPARENT CONSENT is that which a ________ person would infer from ______ and ______ or from P's ________.
APPARENT CONSENT is that which a REASONABLE person would infer from CUSTOM and USAGE or from P's CONDUCT.

ie. Normal contacts are inherent in body-contact sports.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

In a contributory negligence state, _____ contributory negligence __________ ______ recovery.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

In a contributory negligence state, ANY contributory negligence COMPLETELY BARS recovery.
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

In a "pure" comparative negligence state, contributory negligence _______ the recovery.
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

In a "pure" comparative negligence state, contributory negligence REDUCES the recovery.

NOTE: Even the more negligent party can recover in a "pure" comparative negligence state!
In a "partial" comparative negligence state, there is _____ recovery if one party was more negligent than the other party.

However, even the more negligent party can recover in a _______ comparative negligence state!
In a "partial" comparative negligence state, there is NO recovery if one party was more negligent than the other party.

However, even the more negligent party can recover in a "PURE" comparative negligence state!
DISCLAIMERS are _________ in _________ or _________ __________ cases if personal injury or property damages occur.
DISCLAIMERS are IRRELEVANT in NEGLIGENCE or STRICT LIABILITY cases if personal injury or property damages occur.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Breach of a duty is shown by:

(1) ________ CONDUCT of D leading to

(2) The supplying of a __________ PRODUCT.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY

Breach of a duty is shown by:

(1) NEGLIGENT CONDUCT of D leading to

(2) The supplying of a DEFECTIVE PRODUCT.
D will be liable to anyone injured by an unsafe product if D ___________ the consequence or it was _________ _________ to occur.
D will be liable to anyone injured by an unsafe product if D INTENDED the consequence or knew that it was SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN to occur.
Who can sue for products liability?

Any ________ P (including a BYSTANDER) can sue any _________ SUPPLIER in the ________ of ____________ regardless of an absence of a contractual relationship between them.
Who can sue for products liability?

Any FORESEEABLE P (including a BYSTANDER) can sue any COMMERCIAL SUPPLIER in the CHAIN of DISTRIBUTION regardless of an absence of a contractual relationship between them.
True or false?

A defect must exist when the product leaves D's control.
True!

A defect must exist when the product leaves D's control.
UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE PRODUCTS

Manufacturers will NOT be held liable for some dangerous products (ie. knives) if the danger is _________ and there is no _______ way to make the product.
UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE PRODUCTS

Manufacturers will NOT be held liable for some dangerous products (ie. knives) if the danger is APPARENT and there is no SAFER way to make the product.
What is P's COA when all products of a line are the SAME but have DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES?

P must show that D ______ _______ made the product safer, w/o ________ impact on the product's price or utility.
DEFECTIVE DESIGN: When all products of a line are the SAME but have DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES.

P must show that D COULD HAVE made the product safer, w/o SERIOUS impact on the product's price or utility.
What is P's COA when a product emerges from manufacturing different and more dangerous than the products made properly?

D will be liable if P can show that the product _________ to perform as SAFELY as an ________ consumer would expect.
DEFECTIVE MANUFACTURE: When a product emerges from manufacturing different and more dangerous than the products made properly.

D will be liable if P can show that the product FAILED to perform as SAFELY as an ORDINARY consumer would expect.

NOTE: D must anticipate REASONABLE MISUSE!
A product may be defective as a result of the manufacturer's failure to give ________ _________ as to the risks involved in using the product.
A product may be defective as a result of the manufacturer's failure to give ADEQUATE WARNINGS as to the risks involved in using the product.
To find liability under any products liability theory, P must show:

(1) A __________; and

(2) Existence of the defect when the _________ left D's _______.
To find liability under any products liability theory, P must show:

(1) A DEFECT; and

(2) Existence of the defect when the PRODUCT left D's CONTROL.
NECESSITY - WHAT TYPE?

o For the benefit of many

o Absolute unlimited privilege (ie. no liability)
PUBLIC NECESSITY:

o For the benefit of many

o Absolute unlimited privilege (ie. no liability)
NECESSITY - WHAT TYPE?

o For the benefit of a limited number

o Limited privilege (ie. D liable for actual damage)
PRIVATE NECESSITY:

o For the benefit of a limited number

o Limited privilege (ie. D liable for actual damage)
NOTE: NECESSITY prevails over DEFENSE OF ________!
NOTE: NECESSITY prevails over DEFENSE OF PROPERTY!
DEFENSE OF NECESSITY

Tort defended against must be a _________ TORT.
DEFENSE OF NECESSITY

Tort defended against must be a PROPERTY TORT.
Shifting the entire loss between or among tortfeasors
INDEMNITY: Shifting the entire loss between or among tortfeasors
One who is VICARIOUSLY LIABLE may obtain indemnification from ________________________________________?
One who is VICARIOUSLY LIABLE may obtain indemnification from THE PERSON WHOSE CONDUCT ACTUALLY CAUSED THE HARM.
In regards to defamation, MAL SE means material was:

o Published w/ _________ that it was false; or

O With ________ _________ as to its truth or falsity
In regards to defamation, MAL SE means material was:

o Published w/ KNOWLEDGE that it was false; or

O With RECKLESS DISREGARD as to its truth or falsity
What damages must P prove for libel?
NONE!

P need NOT prove damages for libel - GENERAL DAMAGES ARE PRESUMED!!!
Defamation in written form
LIBEL: Defamation in written form
When responsibility is apportioned among those who are at fault
CONTRIBUTION: When responsibility is apportioned among those who are at fault

NOTE: Allows any D required to pay more than his share of damages to have a claim against any other jointly liable parties for the excess!
Where each D is liable to P for the entire damage incurred
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY: Where each D is liable to P for the entire damage incurred

NOTE: P can recover the entire judgment from any one D
For what type of conduct are PUNITIVE DAMAGES recoverable?
PUNITIVE DAMAGES are only recoverable if D's conduct was:

o RECKLESS

o MALICIOUS

o WILLFUL + WANTON
Are NOMINAL DAMAGES allowed for negligence?
NO!

Nominal damages are NOT allowed for negligence.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Must there be physical injury in order for D to recover?
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

o Actual damages required:

Physical damages - NO

Severe emotional distress - YES
BATTERY

Is an actor liable for INDIRECT CONTACT?
BATTERY

YES! It will be sufficient if an actor sets in motion a force that brings about the harmful or offensive contact to P's person.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY - STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT

P must be a _________ _________ of the product (ie. not just a CASUAL SELLER)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY - STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT

P must be a COMMERCIAL SUPPLIER of the product (ie. not just a CASUAL SELLER)

This means that he is a MANUFACTURER, RETAILER, ASSEMBLER, WHOLESALER!
Strict liability is imposed ONLY on one who supplies a _______!
Strict liability is imposed ONLY on one who supplies a PRODUCT!

Strict liability is NOT imposed on one who PERFORMS SERVICES!
To hold a commercial supplier strictly liable for a product defect, the product must reach the consumer ____________________________________.
To hold a commercial supplier strictly liable for a product defect, the product must reach the consumer WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CONDITION.
MERCHANTABLE: When goods are of a quality equal to that GENERALLY ____________ among those who deal in similar goods and are GENERALLY _____ FOR THE __________ PURPOSE for which such goods are used.
MERCHANTABLE: When goods are of a quality equal to that GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE among those who deal in similar goods and are GENERALLY FIT FOR THE ORDINARY PURPOSE for which such goods are used.
When does an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arise?
IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE

Arises when seller knows or has reason to know:

o The PARTICULAR PURPOSE for which the goods are required; and

o That the buyer is RELYING on seller's skill and judgment to purchase suitable goods
Arises where a seller or supplier makes an affirmation of fact or promise to the buyer relating to the goods that becomes part of the "basis of the bargain"
EXPRESS WARRANTY: Arises where a seller or supplier makes an affirmation of fact or promise to the buyer relating to the goods that becomes part of the "basis of the bargain"
ACTUAL CAUSE

Before D's conduct can be considered a ______________ of P's injury, it must first be a CAUSE IN FACT of the injury.

There are several tests:
(1) "BUT FOR" TEST
(2) Additional tests:
- ______________________
____ (joint causes)
- ___________ CAUSES APPROACH (burden of proof shifts to D's)
ACTUAL CAUSE

Before D's conduct can be considered a PROXIMATE CAUSE of P's injury, it must first be a CAUSE IN FACT of the injury.

There are several tests:
(1) "BUT FOR" TEST
(2) Additional tests:
- SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST (joint causes)
- ALTERNATIVE CAUSES APPROACH (burden of proof shifts to D's)
CAUSATION IN FACT - "BUT FOR" TEST

An act/omission to act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would ___ have occurred BUT FOR the act.

CONCURRENT CAUSES: This test applies where _______ acts combine to cause the injury, but _____ of the acts STANDING ALONE, would have been sufficient. But for ANY of the acts, the injury would NOT have occurred.
CAUSATION IN FACT - "BUT FOR" TEST

An act/omission to act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would NOT have occurred BUT FOR the act.

CONCURRENT CAUSES: This test applies where SEVERAL acts combine to cause the injury, but NONE of the acts STANDING ALONE, would have been sufficient. But for ANY of the acts, the injury would NOT have occurred.
NEGLIGENCE - CAUSATION IN FACT

Does the "but for" test apply where there are CONCURRENT CAUSES?
NEGLIGENCE - CAUSATION IN FACT

Yes, the "but for" test apply where there are CONCURRENT CAUSES.
CONCURRENT CAUSES: Where _______ acts combine to cause an injury, but NONE of the acts ________ _____ would have been sufficient.

But for ANY of the acts, the injury would NOT have occurred.
CONCURRENT CAUSES: Where SEVERAL acts combine to cause an injury, but NONE of the acts STANDING ALONE would have been sufficient.

But for ANY of the acts, the injury would NOT have occurred.
Define CONCURRENT CAUSES.
CONCURRENT CAUSES: Where SEVERAL acts combine to cause an injury, but NONE of the acts STANDING ALONE would have been sufficient.
ADDITIONAL TESTS - CAUSATION IN FACT

* Under certain circumstances, the "but for" test is inadequate to determine causation in fact.

(1) _____ ______ (SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST)

(2) ___________ CAUSES APPROACH
ADDITIONAL TESTS - CAUSATION IN FACT

* Under certain circumstances, the "but for" test is inadequate to determine causation in fact.

(1) JOINT CAUSES (SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST)

(2) ALTERNATIVE CAUSES APPROACH
CAUSATION IN FACT - JOINT CAUSES

SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST. What is it?
CAUSATION IN FACT - JOINT CAUSES

SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST: Where several cuases concur to bring about an injury (and any one alone WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT to cause the injury), it is sufficient if D's conduct was a "substantial factor" in causing the injury.
CAUSATION IN FACT - ALTERNATIVE CAUSES APPROACH

Define it.
CAUSATION IN FACT - ALTERNATIVE CAUSES APPROACH

Where two or more persons have been negligent, but uncertainty exists as to WHICH ONE caused P's injury.

P must prove that harm has been caused by ONE OF THEM (w/ uncertainty as to which one).

The burden of proof then shifts to D's, and EACH must show that his negligence is NOT the actual cause.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

Are injuries "actually" caused by D proximately caused by his acts?
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

NO! Not all injuries "actually" caused by D are proximately caused by his acts.

Proximate causation is a LIMITATION OF LIABILITY and deals w/ liability for UNFORESEEABLE OR UNUSUAL CONSEQUENCES OF ONE'S ACTS.
What is the general rule of proximate causation?
PROXIMATE CAUSE: D is liable for ALL HARMFUL RESULTS that are the NORMAL INCIDENTS OF and WITHIN THE INCREASED RISK CAUSED BY his acts.

NOTE: What makes D's act negligent is that there is a > risk of a particular harmful result occurring.
PROXIMATE CAUSE - DIRECT CAUSE CASE

Where there is an ____________ ______ of events from the time of D's negligent act to the time of P's injury.

*In short, there is NO __________ INTERVENING FORCE.
PROXIMATE CAUSE - DIRECT CAUSE CASE

Where there is an UNINTERRUPTED CHAIN of events from the time of D's negligent act to the time of P's injury.

*In short, there is NO EXTERNAL INTERVENING FORCE.
DIRECT CAUSE CASES

(1) FORESEEABLE HARMFUL RESULTS - Is D liable?

(2) UNFORESEEABLE HARMFUL RESULTS - Is D liable?
DIRECT CAUSE CASES

(1) FORESEEABLE HARMFUL RESULTS - D liable

If a particular harmful result was AT ALL foreseeable from D's negligent conduct, the UNUSUAL MANNER IN WHICH THE INJURY OCCURRED is irrelevant to D's liability.

(2) UNFORESEEABLE HARMFUL RESULTS - D NOT liable

Where D's negligent conduct creates a risk of a harmful result, but an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND UNFORESEEABLE TYPE OF HARMFUL RESULT occurrs, most courts hold that D is NOT liable for them.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASES

Where a force came into motion _____ the time of D's negligent act and ________ W/ THE NEGLIGENT ACT to cause injury to P.

Those where ___________ FORCES are present.

Whether an intervening force will _______ D's liability for P's injury is determined by ______________.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASES

Where a force came into motion AFTER the time of D's negligent act and COMBINED W/ THE NEGLIGENT ACT to cause injury to P.

Those where INTERVENING FORCES are present.

Whether an intervening force will CUT OFF D's liability for P's injury is determined by FORESEEABILITY.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

FORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY FORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D liable

Dependent intervening forces: Normal responses or reactions to the situation created by D's negligent act. They are ALMOST ALWAYS foreseeable.

Give some examples.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

FORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY FORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D liable

Dependent intervening forces: Normal responses or reactions to the situation created by D's negligent act. They are ALMOST ALWAYS foreseeable.

Ex. Subsequent medical malpractice; Negligence of rescuers; Subsequent disease; Subsequent accident
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

FORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY FORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D liable

Independent intervening forces: Independent actions rather than natural responses or reactions to the situation.

They may be foreseeable where D'S NEGLIGENCE INCREASED THE RISK THAT THESE FORCES WOULD CAUSE HARM to P.

Give some examples.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

FORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY FORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D liable

Independent intervening forces: Independent actions rather than natural responses or reactions to the situation.

They may be foreseeable where D'S NEGLIGENCE INCREASED THE RISK THAT THESE FORCES WOULD CAUSE HARM to P.

Ex. Negligent acts of 3rd persons; Criminal acts / intentional torts of 3rd person; Acts of God
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

FORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D usually liable

Where D is negligent b/c his conduct threatens a result of a particular kind that will injure P. This result is ultimately produced by an UNFORESEEABLE intervening force. Most courts would generally find liability here.

EXCEPTION: Where the intervening force is an unforeseeable CRIME or INTENTIONAL TORT of a 3rd party; it will be deemed a "SUPERCEDING FORCE" that cuts off D's liability.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

FORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D usually liable

Where D is negligent b/c his conduct threatens a result of a particular kind that will injure P. This result is ultimately produced by an UNFORESEEABLE intervening force. Most courts would generally find liability here.

EXCEPTION: Where the intervening force is an unforeseeable CRIME or INTENTIONAL TORT of a 3rd party; it will be deemed a "SUPERCEDING FORCE" that cuts off D's liability.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

UNFORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D NOT liable

General rule: Intervening forces that produce unforseeable results (ie. results that were not w/i the increased risk created by D's negligence) will be deemed to be unforeseeable and SUPERCEDING.

SUPERCEDING FORCE: One that serves to BREAK THE CAUSAL CONNECTION between D's initial negligent act and the ultimate injury, and itself becomes a DIRECT, IMMEDIATE cause of the injury.

Thus, D will be relieved of liability for the consequences of his antecedent conduct.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - INDIRECT CAUSE CASE

UNFORESEEABLE RESULTS CAUSED BY UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES - D NOT liable

General rule: Intervening forces that produce unforseeable results (ie. results that were not w/i the increased risk created by D's negligence) will be deemed to be unforeseeable and SUPERCEDING.

SUPERCEDING FORCE: One that serves to BREAK THE CAUSAL CONNECTION between D's initial negligent act and the ultimate injury, and itself becomes a DIRECT, IMMEDIATE cause of the injury.

Thus, D will be relieved of liability for the consequences of his antecedent conduct.
Define SUPERCEDING FORCE.
SUPERCEDING FORCE: One that serves to BREAK THE CAUSAL CONNECTION between D's initial negligent act and the ultimate injury, and itself becomes a DIRECT, IMMEDIATE cause of the injury.
What are UNFORESEEABLE RESULTS?
UNFORESEEABLE RESULTS: Results that were not w/i the increased risk created by D's negligence.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - UNFORESEEABLE EXTENT OR SEVERITY OF HARM

D liable

In both direct / indirect cause cases, the fact that the extent or severity of harm was NOT foreseeable does NOT relieve D of liability (ie. tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him).

Thus, where D's negligence causes an AGGRAVATION OF P'S EXISTING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL ILLNESS, D is liable for the damages caused by the aggravation.
PROXIMATE CAUSATION - UNFORESEEABLE EXTENT OR SEVERITY OF HARM

D liable

In both direct / indirect cause cases, the fact that the extent or severity of harm was NOT foreseeable does NOT relieve D of liability (ie. tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him).

Thus, where D's negligence causes an AGGRAVATION OF P'S EXISTING PHYSICAL OR MENTAL ILLNESS, D is liable for the damages caused by the aggravation.
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(1) P must suffer ______ INJURY (shock is enough)

(2) P must be w/i the ______ ____ of D's negligent conduct.
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

(1) P must suffer PHYSICAL INJURY (shock is enough)

(2) P must be w/i the TARGET ZONE of D's negligent conduct.

Modern trend: P can recover if he is a close relative who perceived the injury
DESIGN DEFECT.

What is it?
DESIGN DEFECT: When all products of a line are the SAME but have DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES
MANUFACTURING DEFECT.

What is it?
MANUFACTURING DEFECT: When a product emerges from manufacturing process different and more dangerous than the products made properly

NOTE: For P to prevail, the product must be DANGEROUS BEYOND THE EXPECTATION OF THE ORDINARY CONSUMER
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

DIRECT CAUSE CASES--->Define

INDIRECT CAUSE CASES--->Define
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

DIRECT CAUSE CASES: An uninterrupted chain of events from the time of D's negligent act to the time of P's injury (ie. no external intervening forces)

INDIRECT CAUSE CASES: Where a force comes into motion after D's negligent act and combines w/ the negligent act to cause injury to P (ie. intervening forces are present)
CAUSATION IN FACT

CONCURRENT CAUSES--->Define

JOINT CAUSES--->Define
CAUSATION IN FACT

CONCURRENT CAUSES: Where several acts combine to cause the an injury, but none of the acts standing alone would have been sufficient

JOINT CAUSES: Where several causes concur to bring about an injury (and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury)
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

DEPENDENT INTERVENING FORCES: Normal responses/reactions to the situation created by D's negligent act (almost always foreseeable)

INDEPENDENT INTERVENING FORCES: Independent actions rather than natural responses/reactions to the situation created by D's negligent act (may be foreseeable where D's negligence increased the risk that these forces would cause harm to P)
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

DEPENDENT INTERVENING FORCES: Normal responses/reactions to the situation created by D's negligent act (almost always foreseeable)

INDEPENDENT INTERVENING FORCES: Independent actions rather than natural responses/reactions to the situation created by D's negligent act (may be foreseeable where D's negligence increased the risk that these forces would cause harm to P)
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

NEGLIGENT ACTS OF 3RD PERSONS--->Is D liable?

CRIMINAL ACTS AND INTENTIONAL TORTS OF 3RD PERSONS--->Is D liable?

ACTS OF GOD--->Is D liable?
PROXIMATE CAUSATION

NEGLIGENT ACTS OF 3RD PERSONS--->Yes, where such negligence was a FORESEEABLE RISK CREATED BY D'S CONDUCT

CRIMINAL ACTS AND INTENTIONAL TORTS OF 3RD PERSONS--->Yes, if D's negligence created a foreseeable risk that a 3rd person would commit a crime/intentional tort (ie. D's liability will not be cut off)

ACTS OF GOD--->Yes, if THEY ARE FORESEEABLE
Define the following:

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

"PARTIAL" COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

"PURE" COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: P's contributory negligence COMPLETELY BARS his right to recover

PARTIAL COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: P may recover ONLY if his negligence was LESS SERIOUS (ie. 49% or less at fault) or NO MORE SERIOUS (ie. 50% or less at fault) than that of D

"PURE" COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE: Allows recovery no matter how great P's negligence is (ie. if P is 90% at fault and D 10%, P may still recover 10% of his damages)
Define the following:

DESIGN DEFECTS

MANUFACTURING DEFECT
DESIGN DEFECTS: When all the products of a line are the same but have dangerous propensities

MANUFACTURING DEFECT: When a product emerges from the manufacturing process different and more dangerous than the other products
CONCURRENT CAUSES--->Would any of the acts standing alone have been sufficient to cause P's injury?

JOINT CAUSES--->Would any of the causes have been sufficient to cause P's injury
CONCURRENT CAUSES--->None of the acts standing alone would have been sufficient to cause P's injury

JOINT CAUSES--->Any of the causes would have been sufficient to cause P's injury
DESIGN DEFECTS

P must show a REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (ie. that a LESS DANGEROUS ATLERNATIVE IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE)
DESIGN DEFECTS

P must show a REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (ie. that a LESS DANGEROUS ATLERNATIVE IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE)
Is a product's COMPLIANCE w/ applicable government safety standards CONCLUSIVE that the product is NOT defective?
NO! A product's compliance w/ applicable government safety standards is evidence (but NOT conclusive) that the product is not defective