Torts Rule Statements

Front 1

Intent

Back 1

All intentional torts analyzed below are governed by the rule that in order to have the requisite intent, the actor must have either a purpose to obtain the result or substantial certainty that the result will follow. (Garratt v. Dailey)

Front 2

Battery

Back 2

An actor is liable for battery when they have the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact and that harmful or offensive contact results.

Front 3

Assault

Back 3

An actor is liable for assault when they (1) act intending to cause the apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact, resulting in the plaintiff being put into immediate apprehension of such contact. (2) The apprehension must be one that would normally be aroused in the mind of a reasonable person. (3) The tort is complete with the invasion of a plaintiff's mental peace.

Front 4

False imprisonment

Back 4

An actor falsely imprisons another when that actor intentionally confines another within a limited area, for any appreciable amount of time, however short, and the plaintiff must have either been aware of the confinement or have sustained actual harm.

Front 5

Trespass to land

Back 5

An actor commits a trespass to land when they directly enter or cause an entry upon the land of another, if the entry is intentional and harms the plaintiff's interest in exclusive possession.

Front 6

Conversion of chattels

Back 6

An actor commits a conversion of chattels when they intentionally exercise substantial dominion over a chattel that so seriously interferes with the plaintiff's right to control it that they may justly be required to pay plaintiff for its full value. Substantial dominion must be some act that shows defendant intended to treat the chattel as if it were their own.

Front 7

Trespass to chattels

Back 7

An actor commits a trespass to chattels when they, either by physical contact or dispossession, intentionally interfere with the use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's personal property, resulting in harm to the plaintiff's moderately valuable interest in physical condition, quality, or value, or if the owner is deprived of use for a substantial time.

Front 8

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Back 8

An actor is liable for IIED if they intentionally or recklessly act with extreme and outrageous conduct, resulting in severe emotional harm and any consequential bodily harm.

Front 9

1983

Back 9

Every person...shall be liable to parties injured in the following circumstances: when that person deprives the party or causes the party to be deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the constitution and laws and does so under color of state or other local law.

Front 10

Consent

Back 10

A defendant is not liable for an otherwise tortious act if the plaintiff consented to the defendant's act. Consent may be given expressly, or it maybe implied from custom, conduct, words, or by law.

Front 11

Self-defense

Back 11

When an actor reasonably believes that they are being, or are about to be attacked, they may use the force reasonable necessary for protection against the potential injury.

Front 12

Defense of others

Back 12

When an actor reasonably believes that another is being, or is about to be attacked, they may use the force reasonable necessary for protection against the potential injury.

Front 13

Defense of property

Back 13

An actor may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a tort against their property.

Front 14

Recapture of chattels

Back 14

An actor may use force to recapture chattel only when in hot pursuit of a tortfeasor.

Front 15

Shopkeeper's Privilege

Back 15

Shopkeepers may have a privilege to reasonably detain individuals whom they reasonably believe to be in possession of "shoplifted" goods.

Front 16

Public necessity

Back 16

The privilege of public necessity protects against the individual harms done where public interests are involved and defendant had a reasonable believe that action was needed and the action taken was a reasonable response to that need.

Front 17

Private necessity

Back 17

A person is privileged to sacrifice personal property of another to save his own life or others' lives.

Front 18

Negligence

Back 18

A defendant is liable for negligence if they owed plaintiff a legal duty, the defendant breached that duty, resulting in harm, and the defendant's actions were the actual and proximate causes of that damage.

Front 19

Duty

Back 19

In general, a defendant owes a plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid or minimize risks of harm to others. A harm is unreasonable if it falls below the applicable standard of care. Generally, the standard of care is to exercise the care that would be exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances to avoid or minimize risks of harm to others.

Front 20

Breach

Back 20

A defendant breaches a duty when they fail to adhere to the standard of care required by failing to perceive a foreseeable harm and/or failing to avoid or minimize risks to others.

Front 21

Harm

Back 21

A negligence claim requires proof of damages.

Front 22

Actual cause

Back 22

A plaintiff must show that the defendant actually caused the harm to occur. The default test is to use the "but-for" test which asks, "but-for the defendant's actions, would the plaintiff's harm have occurred?"

Front 23

Proximate cause

Back 23

A plaintiff must show that their harm was foreseeable and within the scope of the risk that made the defendant's conduct negligent at the outset.

Front 24

Contributory negligence

Back 24

If a plaintiff is, in any way, at fault in causing their own injury, and if the plaintiff cannot establish a defense to their contributory negligence, the plaintiff is barred from recovery.

Front 25

Comparative fault

Back 25

A plaintiff and defendant may both be held liable according to their degree of fault.

Front 26

Assumption of risk

Back 26

If a plaintiff assumes the risk of negligent or reckless conduct, a defendant can avoid liability.

Front 27

Strict Liability

Back 27

Liability can be imposed on a defendant even if the defendant is not negligent if the plaintiff can show that the dangerous activity was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's personal injury or property damage.

Front 28

Vicarious Liability/ Respondeat Superior

Back 28

Employees could be held liable for the torts of certain employees if those torts were committed within the scope of employment.

Front 29

Vicarious liability Independent contractors

Back 29

Defendants are not liable for tortious acts of independent contractors.

Front 30

Products Liability/ Manufacturing defect

Back 30

To state a claim for a manufacturing defect, the plaintiff must show that the product was in fact in a defective condition unreasonable dangerous for its intended use, that such defect existed when the product left the defendant's control, and that the defect was the actual and proximate cause of the injury sustained.

Front 31

Products Liability/ Design defect

Back 31

To state a claim for a design defect, the plaintiff must show that there was a safer alternative, the safer alternative would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury without substantially impairing the product's utility, and the safer alternative was both technologically and economically feasible when the product left control of the manufacturer.

Front 32

Contributory negligence/ strict liability

Back 32

Contributory negligence is not a defense where plaintiff failed to disclose the defect or guard against its existence.

Front 33

Comparative negligence/ strict liability

Back 33

A plaintiff and defendant may both be held liable according to their degree of fault.

Front 34

Disclaimers

Back 34

If the defendant used a disclaimer, the jury may find this defense acceptable.

Front 35

Misuse

Back 35

If a plaintiff uses the product in a manner that is neither intended nor foreseeable, the defendant is not liable.