Torts Rules Cases

Front 1

Original Strict Liability Standard ,

Back 1

Bryan

Front 2

A defendant can be held liable for harm caused unintentioanlly unless injury occurred totally without cause,

Back 2

Weaver v. Ward

Front 3

Extrodinary Care changed to Ordinary Care,

Back 3

Brown v. Kendall

Front 4

Doctrine of Foreseeability: If you can not foresee the result of the accident then you cannot be held liable,

Back 4

Cohen v. Petty

Front 5

An individual may recover in strict liability for damages sustained as a result of a defendant's ultra hazardous activities,

Back 5

Spano v. Perini

Front 6

One is liable for batter when s/he is substantially certain that his act will result in harmful or offensive touching,

Back 6

Garret v. Dailey

Front 7

Battery plaintiff must prove there was bodily contact that such contact was offensive and that the defendant intended to make the contact, intent to injure is not necessary,

Back 7

Lambertson v. US

Front 8

D liable for damages unless injury is too bizarre to foresee

Back 8

Spivey v. Battaglia

Front 9

Mistake does not negate intent

Back 9

Ranson v. Kitner

Front 10

Insane persons can be held liable for torts if they are capable of entertaining the same intent and must have entertained it in fact

Back 10

McGwire v. Almy

Front 11

Intent can be transferred

Back 11

Talmage v. Smith

Front 12

Intentional touching of another in an unreasonable and violent matter is battery AND the touching of another in anger constitutes battery. If no violence or intent to touch another there is no battery

Back 12

Cole v. Turner

Front 13

A battery is the knowing or intentional touching of another in a rude insolent or angry manner

Back 13

Wallace v. Rosen

Front 14

Snatching or knocking a object closely attached (purse, tray) to an individual constitutes battery even without physical touching of the person

Back 14

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Home, Inc.

Front 15

An attempt or threat to inflict injury upon another + apparent ability to do so is assault

Back 15

I de S et ux. V. W de S

Front 16

Assault requires not the actual ability but the apparent abiity

Back 16

Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill

Front 17

FI is the direct restraint of an individuals physical liberty without adequate legal justification

Back 17

Big Town Nursing Home Inc, v. Newman

Front 18

One has not suffered false imprisonment unless he has some awareness of it

Back 18

Parvi v. City of Kingston

Front 19

A person must be unlawfully restrained against her will to be FI (moral suasion doesn’t count)

Back 19

Hardy v. Labelle's Distributing Co.

Front 20

False arrest, when one thinks they may arrest you but they can not can be false imprisonment

Back 20

Enright v. Groves

Front 21

FI may result from refusing an individual the right to egress

Back 21

Whittaker v. Sandford

Front 22

One may recover from severe emotional distress intentionally inflicted which causes bodily harm

Back 22

State Rubbish Collectors Ass'n v. Siliznoff

Front 23

Insulting speech alone does not satisfy IIED.

Back 23

Slocum v. Food Fair Stores of Florida

Front 24

One must prove direct connection between act and IIED, and must prove actual damages

Back 24

Harris v. Jones

Front 25

A third party may not recover for IIED if Defendant did not know they were present

Back 25

Taylor v. Vallelunga

Front 26

Intentional and unathorized entry into the land of another is trespass

Back 26

Dougherty v. Stepp

Front 27

A landowner must show actual physical damages for recovery in trespass by intangible objects or substances

Back 27

Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.

Front 28

Passing over land constitues trespass

Back 28

Herrin v. Sutherland

Front 29

Trespass can be committed by the continued presence of a structure of the land after the landowner has effectively terminated his consent to have the property on his land

Back 29

Rogers v. Board of Road Com'rs for Kent County

Front 30

One may not maintain an action for trespass to chattel unless the chattel has suffered an actual injury

Back 30

Glidden v. Szybiak

Front 31

Trespass to chattel is actionable when the value or condition of the chattel is intentionally impaired

Back 31

Compuserve v. Cyber Promotions

Front 32

Conversion must be actual

Back 32

Pearson v. Dodd

Front 33

King v. BU Trustees

Back 33

;

Front 34

King v. BU Trustees

Back 34

Dr. Kings statement in the letters was a promise & that the promise was supported by consideration or reliance on the part of BU to index and store the documents: More Here

Front 35

King v. BU Trustees

Back 35

Dr. Kings statement in the letters was a promise & that the promise was supported by consideration or reliance on the part of BU to index and store the documents

Hint 35

HERE