Torts- Things With Elements

Front 1

Battery

Back 1

When a d acts intentionally to create a harmful or offensive touching, and such touching actually results.

Front 2

Assault

Back 2

an act which is intended to cause, and does cause, apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive touching

Front 3

trespass to land

Back 3

when an actor intentionally enters or causes entry onto another persons land

Front 4

conversion of chattels

Back 4

when one intentionally and unlawfully exercises dominion and control over another person's personal property to the exclusion of, or inconsistent with, the rights of the owner.

Front 5

trespass to chattels

Back 5

the intermeddling with another's personal chattels, even to the point of dispossession, but something that falls short of conversion.

Front 6

false imprisonment

Back 6

The unlawful and wrongful confinement of another person, against that person's will, w/in boundaries set by the actor.

Front 7

false arrest

Back 7

restraint on individual's liberty without probable cause

Front 8

malicious prosecution

Back 8

1) criminal proceedings of accused
2) accused wins the proceedings
3) lack of probable cause
4) actual malice

Front 9

IIED

Back 9

1) extreme and outrageous conduct
2) intentional or reckless behavior
3) causation
4) emotional distress

Front 10

public necessity

Back 10

1) reasonable appearance of necessity
2) danger appears to be imminent
3) means employed reasonable.

Front 11

private necessity

Back 11

a person is completely privileged to enter land or interfere with chattels in the possession of another, or even inflict personal injury if such action reasonably appears necessary to avert an imminent private disaster.

Front 12

general duty for standard of care

Back 12

what a reasonable person would have done in same or similar circumstances to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

Front 13

Learned hand formula

Back 13

B< P x L

Burden < probability of injury X the level of seriousness

Front 14

polycentric problem

Back 14

if you decrease one kind of harm you increase another

Front 15

negligence per se excuses INUEC (minority uses excuses) majority just looks at RPP

Back 15

1) incapacity

2) neither knew nor should have known of necessity for action in compliance

3) unable to comply after reasonable diligence

4)emergency not due to own misconduct

5)compliance would pose a greater risk

Front 16

steps for applying negligence per se

Back 16

1) is there a reason not to use it? Is it overbroad or ancient?

2) does it satisfy class of harm/class of person?

3) does person have any excuses available?

Front 17

informed consent

Back 17

1)there is a risk patient doesn't know about
2) physician doesn't tell him about it
3) if patient knew about it he wouldn't have gone through with procedure
4) there is an injury

Front 18

res ipsa loquitur

Back 18

1) event must be of kind which ordinarily does not occur in absence of someone's negligence

2) other facts which make it fair to conclude that D was a legal cause of the events giving rise to the injury

Front 19

dillon test (for joint and several liability)

Back 19

take a seemingly indivisible injury and apportion the injury by time or by how much injury each party was responsible for

Front 20

pre-emptive test (for joint and several liability)

Back 20

negligence of one party is pre-empted by the negligence of another party because the first party's negligence never came into play. (mechanic didn't fix brakes but driver never even tried to use the brakes when she was getting in an accident).

Front 21

duplicative causes

Back 21

independent sufficient causes- "but for" doesn't work for any of them

Front 22

concurrent

Back 22

joint and several liability (ex: two fires merged in kingston)

Front 23

consecutive/dillon test

Back 23

apportion by time

Front 24

summers v tice

Back 24

both people are negligent, can't tell which one is cause in fact- joint and several liability.

Front 25

loss of chance approaches

Back 25

1) traditional preponderance approach
2) relaxed causation with full
recovery
3) relaxed causation with proportional recovery
4) value of chance with proportional recovery

Front 26

Last clear chance rule

Back 26

1) normal: If D has the last clear chance to avoid injury to P who is helpless, D has to use ordinary care to do so

2) discovered peril
*when there is an inattentive P, D is not lible. If the P is completely helpless, D is liable.

Inattentive plaintiffs sort of have the last clear chance, since if they paid attention, they wouldn't be hurt.

Front 27

assumption of the risk

Back 27

A P who voluntarily confronts a known and appreciated risk of harm arising from teh negligent or reckless conduct of the D, cannot recover from such harm.

Front 28

assumption of the risk elements

Back 28

1) express assumption of the risk
2) Implied assumption fo the risk
a) primary
i) no duty or limited duty (no breach)
A) inherent risk (gerstenzang doctrine) risk D can not prevent through the exercise of reasonable care
b) secondary
ii) like contributory negligence.