Torts Set 4

Front 1

under joint and several liability

Back 1

each tortfeasor is liable to the P for the entire damage incurred

Front 2

in the absence of joint and several liability, each tortfeasor is liable for only the amount of damages

Back 2

that is proportional to his fault

Front 3

is it true that a parent cannot be liable for damages due to the child's conduct?

Back 3

NO--while parents are not vicariously liable for the torts of their child (and statutes in most states allow for limited liability for intentional torts, if there is an indication of such a statute), Parent's CAN be liable for their own negligence (i.e. in not exercising due care under the circumstances)

Example: If parents know their child may be violent, they could be negligent if they do not take precautions to prevent that behavior or injury from that behavior

Front 4

Proximate cause: general rule

Back 4

D is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by his acts
- even an indirect cause due to independent intervening force and combined w/ D's negligent act to cause injury, independent intervening forces are foreseeable where D's negligence increased the risk that these forces would cause harm

Front 5

independent intervening forces include:

Back 5

1. negligent acts of 3rd persons
2. crimes and intentional torts of 3rd persons, and
3. acts of god
- independent intervening forces that are not a natural response or reaction to the situation created by the D's conduct

Front 6

common dependent intervening forces

Back 6

1. subsequent medical malpractice
2. negligence of rescuers
3. efforts to protect the person or property of oneself or another
4. injuries caused by another "reacting" to D's actions
5. subsequent diseases caused by a weakened condition
6. subsequent accident substantially caused by the original injury

Front 7

a specific duty imposed by a statute may replace the more general common law duty of due care when

Back 7

1. the P is w/in the class to e protected by the statute
2. the statute was designed to prevent the type of harm suffered
3. the statutory SOC is clearly defined

Front 8

do battery actions survive the death of the victim?

Back 8

yes

Front 9

extreme and outrageous conduct (element of intentional infliction of emotional distress)

Back 9

- conduct that transcends all bounds of decency
- conduct not normally outrageous may become so IF
1. continuous in nature
2. directed toward certain type of P, including supersensitive adults if the sensitivities are known to the D, OR
3. committed by a certain type of D (common carriers & innkeepers)

*Note* while evidence that something happened in front of other people may show the outrageousness of the conduct, an act is not outrageous just b/c it is in public

Front 10

generally, no legal duty is imposed upon any person to affirmatively act for the benefit of others, however, the existence of a special relationship between the parties may create a duty
- types of special relationships:

Back 10

1. parent-child
2. common carriers, innkeepers, shopkeepers and other that gather the public for profit owe duties of reasonable care to aid or assist their patrons
3. places of public accommodation have a duty to prevent injury to guests by third persons
4. employer-employee: ER owes duty to protect EE against unreasonable risk of injury while EE is acting w/in the scope of employment

Front 11

doctrine of last clear chance

Back 11

- permits P to recover despite his own contributory negligence b/c the D had the last clear chance to avoid the accident
- basically, last clear chance is P's rebuttal to the defense of contributory negligence

Front 12

elements of intentional misrepresentation

Back 12

1. a misrepresentation (no duty to disclose and opinion not actionable unless rendered by someone w/ superior skill in the area)--silence not enough
2. scienter--(when D made statement, she KNEW or BELIEVED it was false or that there was no basis for the statement)
3. an intent to induce P's reliance
4. causation (i.e. actual reliance)
5. justifiable reliance
6. damages

Front 13

a D may not be held liable for defamation on a matter of public concern but NOT involving a public figures unless, in addition to publishing a false story, it was at lease [x] in ascertaining the truth or falsity of its facts

Back 13

negligent

Front 14

what standard of care is applicable to defamation cases concerning public figures

Back 14

must prove knowledge or reckless disregard concerning the truth or falsity of its facts

Front 15

the status of the P (public figure or private person) is relevant only for...

Back 15

the degree of fault required; the element of falsity must be proved regardless of the status of the P as long as a matter of public concern is involved

Front 16

elements of "false light"

Back 16

1. publication of facts about P by D placing P is a false light in the public eye;
2. the 'false light' must be something that would be objectionable to a reasonable person

Front 17

When a question does not supply the P's theory of liability for products liability, must consider both

Back 17

negligence and strict liability

Front 18

an intermediary's negligent failure to discover a defect is

Back 18

NOT a superseding cause,

Front 19

even if an intermediary (e.g. retailer) were negligent in not discovering the defect...

Back 19

it would not relieve the manufacturer of liability
UNLESS the intermediary's conduct exceeds ordinary negligence