Torts Mbe Strategies And Tactics

Front 1

res ipsa loquitur =

Back 1

prima facie case of negligent 3 elements

1. event causing injury usually from negligence

2. ∆ in exclusive control of instrumentality that caused injury

3. π must not have voluntarily contributed to injury

Front 2

TEST FOR NEGLIGENCE

Back 2

A ∆ msut fail to exercise such care as a RP in his position would have exercised;

his conduct must be a breach of the duty to prevent the foreseeable risk of harm to anyone in the π's position, and

this breach must cause the π's injuries

Front 3

ONe situation where π must prove special damages as a part of his defamation claim : when claim is based on salnder and is doesn't fall within one of 4 slander pe se categories:

Back 3

statements accusing someone of a crime

statements alleging foul loathsome disease

statements about fitness for business or trade

statements imputing serious sexual misconduct to someone

Front 4

defamation is sometimes a strict liability offense

true or false?

Back 4

false

never is

Front 5

don't confuse defamation and invasion of privacy

truth

Back 5

not a defense to invaison of privacy

but is a complete defense to defamation

Front 6

3 ways ∆ can be strictly liable

Back 6

keeping a wild animal

abnoramlly dangerous activity

selling a defective product

Front 7

to have strict product liability, you need

Back 7

1. defective product

2. defective when left ∆'s control

3. product didn't need changes before consumer

5. seller in business of selling product

5. defect must cause injury

6. NO privity requirement - ∆'s duty extends to foreseeably endangered

Front 8

when an express warranty is present, a commonly tested aspect is that a π who successfully sues for breach of warranty is entitled to the:

Back 8

benefit of the bargain

Front 9

∆ can't be liable for product related negligence though, unless, at a minum, defect ws

Back 9

discoverable by reasonable means

Front 10

common mbe situation. manufacturer learns about available safety device, that is cheap, and fails to install

Back 10

may be found to be at fault for failing to install device

in comparative fault, will reduce π recovery, not eliminate. true for strict liabilty or negligence

Front 11

products liability negligence. ∆ must have failed to exercise

Back 11

due care in order to be held liable

Front 12

question asking what π needs to prove . . . .

wrong asnwer choices will

Back 12

understate or overstate proof required

Front 13

intervening causes supersede only if

Back 13

unforeseeable

Front 14

don't be thrown by teh fact that the intervening actor may

Back 14

also be liable

Front 15

there cannot be proximate cause without

Back 15

cause in fact