Torts Ii--Traditional Strict Liability

Front 1

Conversion--Definition

Back 1

unwarranted interference with π's personal property that is so substantial that it is fair to require the ∆ to pay property's full market value

Front 2

Conversion Definition with Elements

Back 2

DIP

1. D asserts DOMINION and CONTROL over the object

2. D intended to perform interfering act--intention really doesn't matter--innocent parties are still strictly liable for conversion

3. π was either in POSSESSION of the chattel or had the immediate right to possess it

Front 3

Conversion Defenses

Back 3

Assumption of Risk
Contributory Negligence
Not substantial enough of an interference to constitute Conversion and should only be liable for trespass to chattels.

Front 4

Conversion--Remedy

Back 4

Usually--damages=fair market value at the time of the conversion--forced sale

sometimes. if ∆ acted in GF, and the chattel has not been permanently reduced in value, some courts permit the return of the item plus partial damages for the temporary deprivation

Front 5

Conversion v. Trespass to Chattels

Back 5

Conversion--damage to property is more egregious/substantial

Front 6

Strict Liability--general situations when imposed

Back 6

1. Conversion
2. Abnormally Dangerous or ultra-hazardous activity
3. Defective, unreasonably dangerous products

-Statute or case law can also impose liability

Front 7

Strict liability--definition/applied

Back 7

def: liability regardless of fault

only for damage resulting from the KIND OF RISK that made the activity dangerous in the first place.

only extends to FORESEEABLE πs

Front 8

Abnormally Dangerous Activity--elements/multi-factor test

Back 8

Multi-factor test (the more factors met, the more likely the activity is abnormally dangerous)

1. Does activity involve HIGH RISK OF SERIOUS HARM to people/property?

2. Is there NO WAY to perform the activity with COMPLETE SAFETY regardless of the amount of care taken---MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR

3. Is the activity NOT COMMONLY ENGAGED IN in the PARTICULAR COMMUNITY i.e. blasting in desolate area v. urban area

4. Does he activity's DANGER OUTWEIGH ITS UTILITY to the community--balancing test

5. LIKELIHOOD that harm resulting from the activity will be great/serious

Front 9

Abnormally Dangerous Activity--Basic Definition

Back 9

One who carries out an abnormally dangerous activity is strictly liable for any damage that PROXIMATELY results from the dangerous NATURE of the activity

Front 10

Defenses to Strict Liability

Back 10

1. Assumption of Risk

2. Contributory Negligence--usually not a defense unless the type of negligence that is also assumption of risk. i.e. π approaches a vicious animal knowing it to be vicious.

Front 11

Strict Liability--"Wild" Animals--situations where SL Exists--exceptions

Back 11

Owners are SL:

1. If the animal is "wild"=non-domesticated or not used in "service of mankind"--any harm resulting from their NORMALLY DANGEROUS PROPENSITIES
--exceptions--> Zoos or keeping wild animals as part of a public duty

Front 12

Strict Liability--"Domestic Animals" Animals--situations where SL Exists--exceptions

Back 12

Owner SL is he knows or has reason to know of the animal;s dangerous propensities, uncharacteristic of the species.

Front 13

Private Nuisance

Back 13

conduct by ∆ that creates an unreasonable/substantial interference with the π's[who has an INTEREST in prop--i.e. L or T] use or enjoyment of property.

like conversion-->intent doesn't matter

examples--loud noise noxious odors

Front 14

Private Nuisance--Damages

Back 14

All harm proximately caused by the nuisance, both personal [i.e. diseases caught from inhaling fumes, lack of sleep] and property.

1. If temporary--past and present damages + (perhaps) Injunctive relief--MOST COMMON

2. If permanent: all damages past and FUTURE and , if not adequate--INJUNCTION--very rare--must create all damage it will ever create by its very existence

Front 15

Public Nuisance--Elements/Distinguised

Back 15

substantial/unreasonable interference with the exercise of a public right (shared by many), thereby offending public morals, property, health, safety or comfort of a number of persons-->actual invasion of the interests of land

much wider scope of injury than

Front 16

Public Nuisance--if brought by private π

Back 16

private person must show special damges-->different IN KIND[i.e. destroys livelihood of fishing in a polluted pond]-->an injury beyond that of the community

very difficult to prove

Front 17

Nuisance--Defenses

Back 17

COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE

Public--common-non-special injury and that D should have business interruption insurance
Private:

1. coming to the nuisance --"I was here first" defense

2. Reasonableness-- defense [balancing approach--π's enjoyment v. utility and necessity of ∆'s use i.e. factory]--decided by jury

REASONABLE FEAR OF HARM is a significant factor. but fear of invasion not a nuisance

Front 18

Private Nuisance--Use or enjoyment--when interfered with

Back 18

1. Land itself--(water pollution, ground shaking damages building)
2. Health/Comfort (air pollution/noxious odors

3. Peace of Mind (funeral parlor, leper colony, mental hospital, explosives factory)