Torts Mbe

Front 1

Define Intent for torts

Back 1

A person intends the consequence of her action if it was her purpose to bring about the consequences or if she knows to a degree of substantial certainty that the result will occur.

Front 2

Primae Facie Case for Battery

Back 2

(1) Harmful or offensive touching (2) with the plaintiff's person.

Front 3

Primae Facie Case for Assault in Torts

Back 3

(1) An Apprehension (2) of an immediate battery

Front 4

Primae Facie Case for False Imprisonment in Torts

Back 4

(1) A sufficient act of restraint (2) to a bounded area.

Front 5

Primae Facie case for Intention Infliction of Emotional Distress

Back 5

(1) Outrageous conduct and (2) proof of severe emotional distress.

Front 6

Primae Facie Case for trespass to land

Back 6

(1) Act of physical invasion; (2) land; (3) and if not intentional then damages.

Front 7

Primae Facie Case for trespass to chattels and conversion

Back 7

(1) Act of invasion (2) to personal property. Greater the damage orif there is serious interference with possessory right then conversion.

Front 8

Name the defenses to intentional torts

Back 8

(1) consent; (2) self defense; (3) defense of others; (4) defense of property; (5) necessity; and (6) discipline.

Front 9

Rules of self defense

Back 9

A person may use reasonable force to prevent what she reasonably believes to be an imminent threat of force against her. Deadly force may only be used if the person faces a threat of dealy force herself. Modern trend is to require retreat if safe unless in own home.

Front 10

What torts involve the defense of necessity and when must defendant if at pay damages?

Back 10

Trespass to land, chattel, and conversion.
Private necessity requires defendant to still pay damages.

Front 11

Primae Facie case for defamation

Back 11

(1) A false efamatory statement;
(2) of an concerning the plaintiff;
(3) publication to a third person; and
(4) damages

Front 12

Define defamatory statement

Back 12

One that injures the plaintiff's reputation. It must be testable as to its truth or falsity.

Front 13

Which kinds of defamation and their sub-categories are damages presumed?

Back 13

(1) libel; and
(2) slander per se (impute trade or profession; accuse of committing a serious crime; loathsome diseases; and impute unchastity to a woman.

Front 14

Defenses to defamation

Back 14

(1) truth (absolute);
(2) Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings (absolute);
(3) made in course of leg. proceedings (absolute);
(4) comm. between spouses (absolute; and
(5) serves the interest of the perceiving receiving the communication (qualified).

Front 15

Explain the Constitutional limitation on defamation

Back 15

Public persons: Must prove actual malice (knowledge or reckless disregard)
Private Person matter of public concern: at least negligence and if the plaintiff wants presumed or punitive damages then actual malice.

Front 16

Torts under the heading invasion of privacy

Back 16

(1) appropriation (commercial advantage);
(2) Intrusion (highly offensive to a reasonable person);
(3) False light (inaccurate and offensive to reasonable person);
(4) Public disclosure of private facts (normally be confidential, not newsworthy, and the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Front 17

Primae Facie case for fraud

Back 17

(1) Affirmative misrepresentation;
(2) scienter (knowledge of wrongdoing)
(3) intention to induce reliance;
(4) justifiable reliance;
(5) damages.

Front 18

Intentional Interference with business relations--Inducing breach of contract

Back 18

Intentional action that causes a third person to breach an existing contract with plaintiff.

Front 19

Intentional Interference with business relations--Interference with Contractual Relations

Back 19

Interference with a plaintiff's contractual relations make performance more difficult.

Front 20

Intentional Interference with business relations--Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

Back 20

Interfering with a plaintiff's expectation of economic benefit from third person

Front 21

Primae Facie case for negligence

Back 21

(1) duty (all foreseeable victims);
(2) breach of duty (reasonably prudent person);
(3) actual cause (but for);
(4) proximate cause (foreseeability); and
(5) damages.

Front 22

The duty children owe (majority and common law)

Back 22

Majority: a reasonable child of like age, intelligence, and experience.
Common law (rule of 7s): under 7 incapable of negligence; 7-13 rebuttable presumption incapable; 14 and over rebuttable presumption capable.

Exc.: adult activities

Front 23

Professional standard for negligence

Back 23

A professional is required to possess and exercise the knowledge and skill of an ordinary member of that profession in good standing.

Front 24

The different duties that an owner owes to occupiers of land

Back 24

Undiscovered trespasser: no duty
Discovered trespasser: reasonable care in activity and artificial highly dangerous concealed that are known.
Licensee: Reasonable care in activities and conceiled dangers known to owener.
Invitee: Reasonable car ein activities and conceiled dangers known or could have learned through reasonable inspection.

Front 25

Test for negligence for se (stat. standard of care) and exceptions

Back 25

Class of person, class of risk

Exc. compliance is more dangerous than violation; or compliance is impossible under the circumstances.

Front 26

When is there an affirmative duty to act

Back 26

General rule is there isn't.

Exc.: (1) def. put the plaintiff in peril; (2) close family relationship; (3) common carrier or in-keeper; (4) invitor/invitee; (5) duty to control 3rd person (requ. actual ability and authority); and (6) def. begins to attempt rescue.

Front 27

Exc. to gen. rule that there is no duty as to negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Back 27

(1) zone of danger (i.e., near miss); (2) bystander with close relationship; (3) dead bodies.

Front 28

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Back 28

(1) the event is one that does not normally occur in the absence of negligence; and (2) the injury-causing instrumentality was under exclusive control of the defendant

Front 29

Substantial factor vs. burden shifting

Back 29

Subst factor: multiple defendants and co-mingled cause.
Burden shifting: multiple defendants and an unknown cause.

Front 30

What is the ameliorating doctrine?

Back 30

Comes into play under common law contr. negligence. Last clear chance-def. had the last clear chance to avoid the accident but failed to do so.

Front 31

Products liability applies to what kinds of defendants?

Back 31

Manufacturer, distributor, and supplier (e.g., grocery store).

Front 32

Design defect:

Back 32

Feasible alternative design existed.

Front 33

Manufacturing defect:

Back 33

A defect in the product made it dangerous.

Front 34

Notice defect:

Back 34

Defendant failed consciously place a warning on the product about foreseeable harm.

Front 35

Private nuisance

Back 35

Conduct that causes substantial an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land.

Front 36

Public nuisance

Back 36

Conduct that causes physical or moral harm to the public in general.

Front 37

Vicarious liability--respondeat superior

Back 37

An employer is vicariously liable for employees' torts committed within the scope of employment. (Frolic (minor) vs. (detour (major)).

Front 38

When are employers vicariously liable for ind. contractor's torts?

Back 38

(1) inherently dangerous activity;
(2) estoppel-appear to be one and the same.