Exam 1

Front 1

The liability of a professional who breaches his or her duty or ordinary care.
-Example: A doctor who amputates a wrong leg on someone

Back 1

Professional Malpractice

Front 2

A tort that permits a person to recover for emotional distress caused by the defendant’s negligent conduct.
-Wasn’t physically hurt, but most likely witnessed a close friend, or relative hurt or killed.

Back 2

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Front 3

What must you be able to prove for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress?

Back 3

1. A close relative was killed or injured by the defendant
2. The plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress.
3. The plaintiff’s mental distress resulted from a sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident.

Front 4

A tort in which the violation of a statue or an ordinance constitutes the breech of the duty of care.

Back 4

Negligence Per Se

Front 5

What must you be able to prove for Negligence Per Se?

Back 5

1. A statue existed
2. The statue was enacted to prevent the type of injury suffered
3. The plaintiff was within a class of persons meant to be protected by the statue.

Front 6

A tort in which the presumption of negligence and switches the burden to the defendant to prove that he or she was not negligent.

Back 6

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Front 7

What has to be met for a case to have Res Ipsa Loquitur apply in?

Back 7

1. The defendant had exclusive control of the instrumentality or situation that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
2. The injury would not have ordinarily occurred but for someone’s negligence.

Front 8

A statue that relieves medical professionals from liability for ordinary negligence when they stop and render aid to victims in emergency situations.

Back 8

Good Samaritan Laws

Front 9

An event for which a defendant is not responsible. The defendant is not liable for injuries caused by the superseding or intervening event.

Back 9

Superseding or Intervening Event

Front 10

A defense a defendant can use against a plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily enters into or participates in a risky activity that results in injury.

Back 10

Assumption of Risk

Front 11

What does the defense assumes that the plaintiff did in assumption of risk?

Back 11

1. Had knowledge of the specific risk
2. Voluntarily assumed the risk

Front 12

A doctrine that says a plaintiff who is partially at fault for his or her own injury cannot recover against the negligent defendant.

Back 12

Contributory Negligence

Front 13

A doctrine under which damages are apportioned according to fault.

Back 13

Comparative Negligence

Front 14

Liability without fault, a participant in a covered activity will be help liable for any injuries caused by the activity, even if he or she is not negligent.

Back 14

Strict Liability

Front 15

What does the strict liability doctrine hold to?

Back 15

1. There are certain activities that can place the public at risk of injury even if reasonable care is taken.
2. The public should have some means of compensation if such injury occurs.

Front 16

Jurisdiction over parties over a lawsuit.
Means “against the person”

Back 16

In Personam Jurisdiction

Front 17

Jurisdiction to hear a case because of jurisdiction over the property of the lawsuit.
-Means “against a thing”
-Usually based on real or personal property, or even marriage.
-Based on the location of the property and enforcement follows property rather than person.

Back 17

In Rem Jurisdiction

Front 18

To stand by decision.
-Promotes uniformity of law within a jurisdiction
-Makes the law more predictable
-More efficient

Back 18

Doctrine of Stare processes

Front 19

Hears cases relating to Federal questions, and diversity of citizenship cases.
-If brought to by a plaintiff in state court, the defendant can either let the case be decided by the state court or remove to federal court.
-If brought to by a plaintiff in federal court, then it remains in federal court.

Back 19

Concurrent Jurisdiction

Front 20

All justices voting agree as to the outcome and reasoning used to decide a case.
-All 9 judges vote to the same decision
-are precedent for later cases

Back 20

Unanimous Decision

Front 21

Majority of the justices agree as to the outcome and reasoning used to decide a case.
-If 5, 6, 7, 8 justices vote on for the same outcome for the same reason.
-are precedent for later cases

Back 21

Majority Decision

Front 22

A majority of the justice’s vote for the same outcome of the case but not as to the reasoning for reaching the outcome.
-are NOT precedent for later cases

Back 22

Plurality Decision

Front 23

If it comes to a _________, then the lower court decision is affirmed.

Back 23

Tie Decision

Front 24

The _____ cause of negligence, a person who commits a negligent act is not liable unless actual cause can be proven (causation of fact).

Back 24

Actual Cause

Front 25

The point along a chain of events caused by a negligent party after which this party is no longer legally responsible for the consequences of his or her actions (legal cause).

Back 25

Proximate Cause

Front 26

Speech that the government cannot prohibit or regulate.
-First amendment protects oral, written, and symbolic speech.
-Political speech is an example of ______ speech, and the government cannot enact a law that forbids citizens from criticizing the current president.
-Burning flag is an example of this.

Back 26

Fully protected

Front 27

The government cannot forbid this type of speech, but is it subject this speech to time, place and manner restrictions. Includes Offensive and commercial speech.

Back 27

Limited Protected

Front 28

Speech that is offensive to many members in the society, and is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions

Back 28

Offensive speech

Front 29

Speech used by businesses such as advertising. It is protected but is subject to time, place and manner restrictions.

Back 29

Commercial Speech

Front 30

Speech that is not protected by the first amendment and may be forbidden by the government.

Back 30

Unprotected Speech

Front 31

How does a case make it to the Supreme Court?

Back 31

-A case must go to the District court (for example), then go to the court of appeals, then goes to the Supreme Court.

Front 32

That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens, subject to sanctions or legal consequences; a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlled authority and having binding legal force.

Back 32

Law

Front 33

The obligation people owe each other not to cause any unreasonable harm or risk or harm.

Back 33

Duty of Care

Front 34

False statement made by one person about another.

Back 34

Defamation of character

Front 35

What must the Plaintiff prove in defamation of character?

Back 35

1. The defendant made an untrue statement of fact about the plaintiff
2. The statement was intentionally or accidently published to a third party.

Front 36

A false statement that appears in a letter, newspaper, magazine, book, photograph, movie, video, and so on.

Back 36

Libel

Front 37

Oral defamination of character.

Back 37

Slander