Torts Ii - Part Ii

Front 1

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Rule for Outside the Premises: Natural Conditions

49

Back 1

No duty is owed to individual off the premises (even if risk IS foreseeable) as to a condition on the land untouched by man; it is in its natural conditions; it has not been changed or altered or modified in anyway.

Front 2

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

EXCEPTION to Rule for Outside the Premises: Natural Conditions

50

Back 2

Trees: Majority - In a rural area, the common law rule of no duty applies. In a urban are, the land owner must exercise ordinary care (RPPLSC).
Minority View - Landowner must exercise ordinary care IN ALL circumstances (NEW TREND w/growing popularity - Taylor v. Olsen)

Front 3

For the Majority Exception to Rule for Natural Conditions Existing Outside the Premises:

How do you distinguish urban from rural?

51

Back 3

Look at statutory requirements, such a speed limits, which may be persuasive in the argument of distinguishing a rural area from an urban area.

Front 4

Duty of Care owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Question of Fact/Law: Landowner's duty to take reasonable measures to protect those outside his property from dangerous conditions

52

Back 4

Most of the time it is a question of fact for the jury.

Front 5

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Rule for Outside the Premises: Altered/Changed Conditions

53

Back 5

Once man changes a natural condition, then they are responsible for foreseeable consequences

Front 6

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Description of Scenario in Which Duty is Owed

54

Back 6

Plf' is on the defs' premises when he is injured by an activity or a condition on the land. The duty owed is dependent upon the plfs' CLASSIFICATION as a trespasser, licensee (social guest) or invitee (business guest).

Front 7

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Trespassers: definition, general rule

55

Back 7

Def(no PIC)- Lease favored category. An indiv on the property of another W/OUT PRIVILEGE (postman), W/OUT CONSENT, and W/OUT INVITATION
General Rule- Def's owe trespassers no duty of care b/c their presence is not foreseeable and they are the wrong-doers

Front 8

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Trespassers: majority exception, TX
56

Back 8

Majority - No duty owed to trespassers UNTIL you discover their presence once their presence is known, you must do that which a reasonable person would do or not do to not injure them (exercise ordinary care)

TX- There is no duty to trespassers until you discover their presence; once their presence is known, you must not injure them intentionally or through gross neglig (negative duty not to injure - higher BOP on trespasser) EXCEPTION to TX- b/c of the conflicting cattle and RR industries - modified rule so that RR's owed a duty to persons AS WELL AS livestock to keep reasonable lookout

Front 9

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Licensees (Social Guests): definition, rule as how licensee's should view premises

57

Back 9

Def- a licensee is an indiv on the premises of another whose presence is "tolerated". Generally, concerned w/social guest.
Confusion: b/c social guests are often invited, but crts say that even though invite their presence is tolerated (& b/c social guests don't come on land to make business trx).
General Rule - Licensee is to take the premises in the same condition as the possessor, or memeber of the possessor's family, taken them and should not expect that the premises will be repaired or prepared for him.

Front 10

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Licensees (Social Guests): Prosser's view as to social guests

58

Back 10

Prosser says they're not invitees and only licensees (no matter how cordially invited or urged to come) and (1) performance of incidental services by licensee does NOT improve his legal position (2) reasoning is that the guest should understand that he is placed on the same footing as one of the family when he visits (3) licensee entitled at most to a warning of dangers, that are known to possessor

Front 11

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Licensees (Social Guests): General Rule as to Duty Owed, TX
59

Back 11

General- Similar to trespassers, no duty is owed generally. Once we are aware of presence, we must warn him of any risks or dangers of which the occupier is aware or should be aware (constructive notice).
TX - Only must warn licensee of which you have actual knowledge (positive duty to warn of known/foreseeable risks) - higher BOP on plf' to prove that a def' definetly knew of the risk as opposed to that he simply should have known as in other juris.

Front 12

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Licensees (Social Guests):
Other individuals considered licensees

60

Back 12

Garbage collectors, firemen, policemen, mailmen, meter readers
Presence said to be tolerated, although status may vary by juris.

Front 13

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Invitees (Business Guests): trad'l def, modern def'

61

Back 13

Traditional def - invitee was one who comes onto the premises for the financial benefit or gain of the occupier.
Modern def - one who goes onto the premises of another for the purpose for which the premises is maintained.

If the invitee goes outside the scope (time, area, purpose) of his invitation, he becomes either a trespasser or a licensee, depending on whether or not he goes w/the consent of the possessor.

Front 14

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Invitees (Business Guests): Duty of Care Owed

62

Back 14

General Rule: the occupier of land must exercise ORDINARY care to make the premises reasonably safe and to warn the individual of any risks of which the occupier knows or should know.

Front 15

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Invitees (Business Guests): Exception Duty of Care Owed
63

Back 15

If condition on property is OPEN AND OBVIOUS there is no duty.

EXCEPTION - even if condition is open and obvious, if the occupier can foresee risk, then they must exercise ordinary care in making the premises reasonably safe (classic example is snow and ice - must undertake reasonable care to make the premises safe under the circumstances)

Front 16

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Invitees (Business Guests):
What does open and obvious mean?

64

Back 16

The condition is one which the indiv does in fact know and does in fact appreciate

Front 17

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Persons Outside the Estab Categories: Children
65

Back 17

Law seeks to protect children b/c they are young & inexperienced.
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine- Small children trespass on another's land are injured b/c they were "attracted" to the property. Landholder must use ordinary care to protect children from temptations on their property that could reasonably lead them to danger.
Rest. of Torts § 339 - Abandoned the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine - Possessor of land liable if (1) place in question is one which he knows or should know might be attractive (2)cond is one of which he knows or should know will pose a risk of death or harm (3)children do not discover the cond or are unaware of the risk posed (4) utility of maintaining the cond and the burden of preventing harm are slight when compared w/risk (5) possessor fails to exercise reasonab care in elim danger

Front 18

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Persons Privileged to Enter Irrespective of Land Owners Consent

66

Back 18

Public employees do not fit very well into any of the categories that the law has estab for the classification of visitors. They are not trespassers b/c they are priv to enter. Jurisdictions vary in treatment.

Front 19

Duty of Care Owed to Owner and Occupiers of Land:

Rejection or Merging of Categories

67

Back 19

1.Some jurisdiction reject the licensee/invitee/trespasser categorization and require landowner to exercise ordinary care whenever the indiv is on the property (problem-have to determine questions on a case-by-case basis)
2."Ordinary Care" depends on the foreseeability of risk, which raises all the same questions

Front 20

Duty to Lessee by Lessor

General Rule for Duty Owed, Exceptions to Rule (TX follows)

68

Back 20

General Rule - Once landlord has conveyed possession and control, the landlord is not responsible for injuries on the property.
Exceptions: (1) LL who conceals or fails to disclose any dangerous condition whether natural or artificial (2) LL transfers property in cond that RPP would know is risky (3) Premises leased for admission to the public (4) where LL retains control of common areas (5) where teh lessor contracts to repair (6)where the lessor repairs in neglig manner

Front 21

Duty to Lessee by Lessor

Minority Rule for Duty Owed, Duty for Protecting Against Criminal Attack by 3rd Person

69

Back 21

Landlord must exercise ordinary care toward his tenant and other on the premises w/permission. (WI - doesn't follow classification theory)
Criminal Acts by 3rd Party - Where LL is in control over and possesses that portion of the property where the criminal activity is foreseeable, he will have the duty to do what is reasonable to protect tenants. (foreseeable robberies in the laundry room b/c it's dark - ll must install lights, etc)

Front 22

Exceptions to No Duty Common Law Rule

70

Back 22

Landowner/Invitees
Employer/employees
School district/pupils
Hospital/patients
Common carrier/passengers

Front 23

Defenses: Plfs' Conduct

What is always the first line of defense?

71

Back 23

The def's first line of defense is to prevent plf' from establishing one of the 4 elements of actionable negligence: intent/duty (depending on COA), breach, causation, damages - once that fails, def' must allege and prove affirmative defenses

Front 24

Defenses: Plfs' Conduct

Contributory Negligence: general rule, Doctrine of Last Clear Chance (abolished in TX)

72

Back 24

General Rule - Even before actionable neglig was a viable COA (1825-industrial revolution), the idea was firm that if the plf' had contributed to his own injury, he should not be permitted to recover damages AT ALL.
Doctrine of Last Clear Chance - where the plfs' neglig has put him in a dangerous position, and def' discovers plfs' danger and fails to use due care to avoid injuring plf', plfs' neglig will not bar his recovery

Front 25

Defenses: Plfs' Conduct

Comparative Negligence: rule, types

73

Back 25

Rule - Compare the negligence of the def' w/the contribut neglig of the plf' and diminish the amount of P's recovery accordingly (note - contributory neglig is still alive; diff is it is no longer a complete bar)
Types:
1. Pure Comparative Fault - a plfs' damages are reduced in proportion to the % of the neglig attributed to him.
2. Modified Form - P can recover as in pure juris, but ONLY IF P's neglig either: (a) does not exceed def' neglig (50%) TEXAS or (b) is less than 49% of the defs' neglig

Front 26

Defenses: Plfs' Conduct: Assumption of the Risk

Express Assumption of the Risk

74

Back 26

This is a contractual issue whereby parties agree to absolve indivs form liability via exculpatory clause. Comparative negligence statutes DO NO affect expressed assumption of the risk b/c parties can contract as they see fit.
The clause will have effect unless (1)gross negligence by the def' (2)bargaining power is so grossly unequal (3) when the trx inovles the public interest

Front 27

Defenses: Plfs' Conduct: Assumption of the Risk

Implied Assumption of the Risk: trad'l rule, modern rule, elements

75

Back 27

Trad'l Rule: Volenti Non Fit Injuria - he who submits to the injury cannot complain, he who submits to the risk cannot therefore be heard, total bar to recover
Modern Rule (TX 1975) - Anytime plf's conduct is an issue, it is all considred to be contributory neglig
Elements:
1. plf' was aware of risk (NOT whether he should have know)
2. plf' did in fact appreciate the risk; AND
3. thereafter plf voluntarily exposed himself to teh risk in question - assumes reasonable choice
PURELY A SUBJECTIVE TEST

Front 28

Defenses: Plfs' Conduct: Assumption of the Risk

Implied Assumption of the Risk: "Great Seatbelt Defense"

76

Back 28

If you had been wearing your seatbelt, your injuries would have been less sever" - is it contributory neglig not to wear your seatbelt? Jurisdictions vary: 1. some say yes, 2. some say it is evid of negl per se (b/c seatbelt did not cause the injury) 3. mitigating factor in damages (TX - no duty to mitigate before only AFTEr the injury)

Front 29

Defenses: Statutes of Limitations and Repose

Definition

77

Back 29

SOL - Most perfect defense; arise b/c the legis has decreed that there is a set block of time which you must bring COA or you are barred forever - generally when the actual injury has occurred (exception is discovery rule for med mal (TX))
WHY SOL? want to keep dockets current, want to encourage people to bring suits while witnesses are still available.
REPOSE - Limits potential liability by limiting the time during which a COA can arise, stem from equitable concept that at some pt people should no longer be resp for past actions (architects and engineers)

Front 30

Defenses: Statutes of Limitations and Repose

TX Tort Reform

78

Back 30

Rules that the SOL shall begin to run:
1. from the occurrence of the tort; or
2. from the last date of the relevant course of treatment, or
3. the last date of relevant hospitalization
NO MORE DISCOVERY RULE in med mal - SOL set at 2 years

Front 31

Defenses: Immunities

Definition, difference from privilege

79

Back 31

Def' admits the civil tort but def' alleges that he is immune.

Privilege - avoids liability in a particular circumstance b/c it is reasonable to do so
Immunity - avoids liability in ALL circumstances for certain people, based on the relationship between the parties

Front 32

Defenses: Immunities

Family Relationships: Doctrine of Spousal Immunity, Modern Rule

80

Back 32

Doctrine of Spousal Immunity- one spouse, in inflicting a tort on the other, is totally and completely immune from liability WHY? (1)preserve peace and tranquility in the home (2) protected by criminal law and divorce court (3) flood of litigation (4)collusion agst 3rd parties (insurance cos) (5) legal fiction that man & wife are 1 (abolished in most juris)
Modern Rule - doctrine abolished in most juris (TX to)

Front 33

Defenses: Immunities

Family Relationships: Doctrine of Parental Immunity

81

Back 33

Parent, no matter how neglig, no matter how much at fault on inflicting injury on their spouse, the spouse inflicting the injury is immune from liability.
Three Justifications: (1) special relationship bet the indivs is very impt (2) to prevent fraud and collusion (3) intrafamilial litigation depletes family resources

LIMITED APPLICATION (TX) - when parent abandons all parental authority/responsibility (still retained in respect to negligent activities, but say son comes to work for you and you treat him as employee and he is injured, he can sue; or sex abuse)

Front 34

Defenses: Immunities

Doctrine of Charitable Immunity

82

Back 34

Doctrine shield charitable organizations from liability b/c (1) Trust fund theory - all $s were in a fund for exclusive purpose of funding the purpose (ult. the public) (2) implied waiver theory - whenever an indiv dealt w/a charity there was an implied waiver (best to let the person go uncompensated)

TX and most jurisdictions dont recognize Doctrine b/c charities are a big business that have insurance companies.

Front 35

Defenses: Immunities

Employer Immunity

83

Back 35

Employers are immune only b/c of legis allowing for Workman's compensation insurance, insurance company abrogates claim -- if employer elects not get get workmen's compensation, this defense does not apply

Front 36

Defenses: Immunities

State and Local Gov'tal Immunity: Federal History

84

Back 36

I. 1776 adopted total gov'tal immunity from English "Case of Kint's Perogative in Salt Peter"
II. 1863 - Created Court of Claims & anyone can bring their contractual claims agst the gov't
III. 1946 - Enacted Federal Tort Claims - gave permission to sue

Basically, you can sue the gov't only as far as they consent to be sued - II & III provide consent.

Front 37

Defenses: Immunities

State and Local Gov'tal Immunity: TX Immunity

85

Back 37

TX gave its permission (and withdrew immunity) in Texas Tort Claims Act.

Have to determine if teh the municipality is engaged in gov'tal function or a proprietary. If proprietary, the gov't is liable. If it is a gov'tal function, it is immune.

Front 38

Defenses: Immunities

State and Local Gov'tal Immunity: Public Officer Immunity

86

Back 38

Generally, individuals performing in their official capacity are immune from liability for any injury that results from an act or omission occurring w/in the scope of his duties (discretionary function exception)

Front 39

Strict Liability

Definition, Distinguish from Strict Products Liability

87

Back 39

Liability imposed for which there is no fault, no intent, no negligence, but impose liability b.c the def has undertaken a certain activity and injury to plf has resulted.
Strict Products Liability involves placing a hazardous/defective product into the stream of commerce and causing injury.
Strict liability involves undertaking an activity in which individual causes injury to another.

Front 40

Strict Liability

Animals: Trespassing Animals

88

Back 40

1. Adopted in England in 1353
2. Aplied to animals of a definite barnyard characteristic: cattle, horses, sheep (animals could inflict great harm if they trespassed onto anther's property)
3. Rejected at first in US b/c there was so much open space
Two Types of Statutes:
Majority -"Fence in" - animal owners are strictly liable for damage that results from their failure to properly restrain their animals
Minority (TX) - "Fence Out", if the plf fenced his land properly, there is strict liability imposed on the def if the animals break through the fence, if you don't want livestock on your property, you must fence them out

Front 41

Strict Liability

Animals: Domestic Animals w/Viscous Tendencies

89

Back 41

If domesticated animals w/viscous tendencies are kept, their possessor/owner will be held strictly liable for any injuries the animals inflict (even if animal has bitten anyone yet)
TEST for "viscous" is whether the animal has a "dangerous" propensity abnormal to its class (owner knows or has reason to know if viscous propensity) -- if plf is unable to prove the owner knew or should have known, strict liability will NOT apply (many juris have adopted "dog bite" regs that eliminate the burden to prove that dog owner was aware of viscous tendencies)

Front 42

Strict Liability

Animals: Wild Animals

90

Back 42

Concerned w/the keeping of NON-domesticated animals (ferae naturae) whose natural habitat is the wild. Those who undertake to keep exotic animals face STRICT LIABILITY if any injury results therefrom.

Front 43

Strict Liability

Abnormally Dangerous/ Ultrahazardous Activities: Definition

91

Back 43

Whenever def' undertakes an ultrahazardous activity from which an injury results, strict liability will be imposed. In the absence of fault, def can still be held liable if he brings onto his property anything likely to do harm if it escapes. (Question of law)

Front 44

Strict Liability

Abnormally Dangerous/ Ultrahazardous Activities: What is an ultrahazardous activity?
92

Back 44

Restatement § 520:
1. existence of a high degree of harm/risk to the land, chattels, or person of another
2. likelihood of the resulting harm is great;
3. inability to eliminate the risk even through the exercise of reasonable care
4. extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage;
5. inappropriateness of the activity in the place where it is carried out-MOST IMP FACTOR
6. extent to which the value of the activity to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes

Front 45

Strict Liability

Abnormally Dangerous/ Ultrahazardous Activities: Majority/Minority Rule for Land

93

Back 45

Majority- A person using his land for a dangerous and non-natural use is strictly liable for any damage caused to another's property as a result of such use (Rylands)
Minority (TX specifically rejects Rylands) - To recover in TX, the plf must establish negligence on the part of teh def'

Front 46

Strict Liability

Limitations

94

Back 46

1. Only imposed for those injuries which result as the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of the ultrahazardous act (you have to limit the defs' liability) - injury that results must be w/in the anticpated risk or injury (TX blasting case is SL for debris, but from concussion, actionable negl)
2. No strict liability where the damage results from an Act of God that the def' could not foresee (freezing weather ruins shipment of fruit on train, foreseeable act of god)
3. Can't use contributory negl as a defense - can assist w/damages

Front 47

Nuisance

General Definition

95

Back 47

Nuisance IS NOT A TORT, it is an entire field of liability.

Front 48

Nuisance

Private Nuisance

96

Back 48

An unreasonable interference w/the use and enjoyment of an individual's private property (noise, odors, light, etc which unreasonably interfere)

Front 49

Nuisance

Public Nuisance

97

Back 49

May arise from one 3 different types of activities:
1. minor criminal offense where there is a fine but no imprisonment
2. activity interferes with or encroaches upon the public health, safety, morals, convenience, peace, comfort; OR
3. an activity of continuing nature that affects a public right - has NO relationship to private nuisance

Front 50

Nuisance

Nuisance Per Se

98

Back 50

Where reasonable minds will not differ. Nuisance at law; the activity is considered a nuisance b/c some statute.

Front 51

Nuisance

Nuisance Per Accidens

Back 51

Where reasonable minds may differ. Nusiance b/c of fact; the activity may be a nuisance depending on circumstances and factors.

Front 52

Nuisance

Permanent vs. Temporary Nuisance

100

Back 52

Permanent Nuisance - if the cost of abatement is prohibitive
Temporary Nuisance - if the cost of abatement is low

NOT THE RULE IN TX - Nuisance is one that involves activity of such character that it is presumed it would continue indefinitely. Temporary nuisances are considered to be of limited duration.

Front 53

Nuisance

Equitable Remedies

101

Back 53

First time we have been able to seek equitable remedies (if damages at law are insufficient)

Front 54

Nuisance

Individual Suing Under Public Nuisance

102

Back 54

Where plf' has suffered no particular damage in the exercise of a right common to the general public, it may not sue for public nuisance. HOWEVER, an individual can bring suit for public nuisance ONLY when their injury is different in kind, NOT merely in degree, from that sustained by the general public.

Front 55

Nuisance

Individual 'Comes to the Nuisance'

103

Back 55

Where the plf' had teh opportunity to inspect the property prior to its purchase, it does not have standing to sue for private nuisance.

Front 56

Nuisance

Degree of Care to Avoid Injury

104

Back 56

A person who intentionally creates or maintains a private nuisance is liable for the resulting injury to others regardless of the degree of care or skill exercised by him to avoid such injury. `

Front 57

Nuisance

Idaho Rule for Establishing Nuisance

105

Back 57

IDAHO RULE ONLY - utility of the activity outweighs the harm caused there is no legal nuisance

Front 58

Nuisance

Can Normal & Necessary Acts to a Lawful Business be enjoined?

106

Back 58

Acts which are the normal or necessary incidents of a lawful business may not ordinarily be enjoined as a nuisance, even where such results in the diminution in value of the burdened property.

Front 59

Misrepresentation

Elements

107

Back 59

1. Making a statement that is not true to a material fact
2. That induces you into the trx
3. Upon which the P reasonably relies
4. To their detriment

Front 60

Misrepresentation

Options to Sue, Remedies

108

Back 60

1. Tort: Intentional or Negligence
2. Contract
3. Quasi Contract

Equitable Remedies:
1. Rescission
2. Estoppel
4. Injunction
4. Other Equitable remedy

Front 61

Misrepresentation

How do you misrepresent?

109

Back 61

1. silence (when duty to disclose)
2. conduct
3. words
4. half-truths

** REMEMBER has to be a misrep of a material fact

Front 62

Misrepresentation

Intentional Misrepresentation (deceit)

110

Back 62

Plf must establish fraud by showing that the def made the statement knowing it wasn't true or w/careless disregard whether it was true or not. When there is no duty to disclose and seller remains silent, he has not misrepresented a material fact b/c (1) he never made a false statement (2) he never prevented plf' from inspecting. EXCEPTION - where a seller is aware of a latent defect and the buyer cannot discover by a reasonable investigation.

Front 63

Misrepresentation

Negligent Misrepresentation

111

Back 63

Must establish elements of negligence (duty, breach, prox cause, injury); def' negligently misstates where boxes are to be stored and they are destroyed and ins co won't cover (where speaker OWES duty to give correct info)

Front 64

Misrepresentation

Opinions

112

Back 64

Generally are not actionable b/c they are considered loose, vague or exaggerated statement upon no reasonable person would rely. EXCEPTION (TX too) - where a party, by its representations that it has superior knowledge and renders an opinion, it is to be considered fact - it has to be REASONABLE to rely on their statements

Front 65

Misrepresentations

Innocent Misrepresentations

113

Back 65

Misstatement of material fact when the def' did not intend to deceive and there was not a corresponding duty for him to be truthful
EXCEPTION - can be made actionable if the def has the means of knowing, ought to know, or has the duty to know the truth (architect that built house 1' from the property line)

Front 66

Misrepresentations

Misrepresentations to 3rd Parties

114

Back 66

Situation arises when teh def' makes a misrepresentation to a third party, the plf' reasonably relies, to his detriment, on the defs' statements and subsequently brings suit against him.
REMEMBER - deceit is an intentional misrep - plf would have to prove that def' deliberately made false statements to 3rd party KNOWING that 3rd party would tell plf and she would rely
RULE: Basis of recovery is whether or not the def' should have known of a forseeable risk (Accountants may be liable to persons not in privity for negl prepared financial statements b/c they should know they are going to be relied upon)

Front 67

Misrepresentations

Misrepresentations of Law

115

Back 67

Generally not actionable b/c (1) everyone is presumed to know the law and so you can't misrepresent it (2) no one really knows the law, as such you can't misrepresent it, it is an opinion
EXCEPT - statement made by one w/superior knowledge

Front 68

Misrepresentations

Predictions/Intentions

116

Back 68

Predictions are generally non-actionable b/c no one knows the future. Buy you can make a prediction of a certain intention. Statements of intent as to future events may be actionable when it would be reasonable to rely upon that statement of future intention.