Hypos
Aidan is playing golf out in the open. When he hits the ball, he truly believes no one to be around, yet his ball made contact with Keanu, who is walking by. What duty, if any, does Aidan owe?
Aidan owes a duty to aid under imperilment. Since he knows his conduct caused Keanu to be physically injured, he owes a duty to make reasonable efforts to prevent more harm.
What are the three intent standards for battery? Explain each in full.
Single - A intends to contact P.
Dual - A intends to contact P and intends the contact to be harmful or offensive.
Cole/Vosburg - A intends to contact P and the contact is of a type that is harmful or offensive.
What are the four tests of proximate cause? Explain each.
Natural and Ordinary: “one-leap rule” where it is not natural and ordinary for fire to spread from its source beyond the first structure it ignites.
Directness: was the plaintiff’s injury directly caused by the defendant’s breach?
Reasonable foreseeability: was the plaintiff's injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach?
Scope-of-the-risk: Was this injury of the type expected when we established the act was tortious?
This case involves a plaintiff being punched by an unknown assailant. As a result of not wanting 100% of the damages, the defendant attempts to add unnamed parties to the suit. The court rules that a party cannot add fictitious defendants in order to lessen liability.
Bencivenga v. J.J.A.M.M., Inc.
What is the point of the eggshell skull rule?
It allocates harm between an injurer who was negligent and an innocent injured party, holding the injurer liable for the full extent of injuries caused to the injured party, even if the injuries were made worse by pre-existing conditions.
A man at the beach found a woman unconscious in the water. The man performed CPR and revived the woman. However, the woman suffered from osteoporosis that made her unusually susceptible to fractures, and, as a result, she incurred a broken rib from the chest compressions performed as part of the CPR. The woman brought a lawsuit asserting that the man had committed the tort of battery when he performed the chest compressions and broke her rib. What is likely to be the outcome?
A few things will be considered:
Good Samaritan Laws - Assuming this jurisdiction has Good Samaritan laws, the man would be protected from civil liability for unintentional injuries that may occur during the course of voluntarily providing emergency medical care.
Consent - in emergency situations where a person is unconscious and unable to give consent, the law generally implies consent for lifesaving medical procedures, including CPR. This is because the potential harm of not performing CPR (death) far outweighs the risk of minor injury (like a broken rib).
Under these considerations, the man will likely not be held liable for the injuries to the woman.
How does one establish a prima facie case for assault?
A acts; intending to cause in P apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; and A's act causes P to reasonably apprehend such contact.
What is the exception to a defendant's duty to trespassers under the traditional approach?
There is a duty of care owed to known trespassers. Additionally, there is a duty owed to children to not maintain attractive nuisance or forcibly dangerous conditions.
This case highlights the fact that a duty to rescue exists where there is a special relationship between parties after a man knocks himself unconscious in a Taco Bell.
Baker v. Fenneman
Tim ran into the street and was hit by a bicycle rider. Neighbor Bob saw the accident while sitting on his porch. Tim sued Bob for negligence for not yelling and warning him of the approaching cyclist. What is Bob likely to say as a defense?
Bob will likely say he owed Tim no duty.
A wife who had endured years of serious domestic abuse by her husband decided to purchase a handgun. During their next argument, the husband told the wife, “I’m gonna kill you if you don’t shut up.” The woman opened her purse, pulled out the gun, and said, “Make me.” The man backed away and called the woman some colorful obscenities. The woman then shot the man, causing serious injuries. The man brought a tort lawsuit for battery against the woman to recover damages for his injuries. If the woman were to claim she acted in self-defense, will she prevail? What will the court likely consider?
The court will likely consider:
Woman's history of abuse: This history establishes a pattern of behavior and a reasonable fear that the husband could pose an imminent threat.
Whether this was an imminent threat: While the husband's threat was verbal, the woman's history of abuse and the context of the argument could be interpreted as creating a reasonable belief of imminent harm. However, the husband did not physically attack the woman, and his threat was verbal. This could weaken the argument of imminent danger.
The proportionality of force: The woman escalated the situation by pulling out a gun, which could be seen as disproportionate to the verbal threat.
Duty to retreat: In some jurisdictions, there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force, unless the person is in their own home. The fact that this is likely their shared living space will also weigh on the decision.
Is she likely to prevail?
What is the key takeaway from Brooker v. Silverthorne?
Mere words do not usually constitute assault. Abusive language does not give rise to a civil cause of action absent a special relationship imposing duties between the parties or the making of a threat that the defendant should have known would cause fear of bodily harm.
What do courts say on recovery on economic loss if there is no injury to self or property?
Courts claim that people cannot recover absent injury to self or property, unless heightened foreseeability or special relationship.
This case involves a plaintiff utilizing skydiving services after signing a waiver and explains express assumption of the risk by explaining the two considerations made when the courts determine the enforceability of a waiver (bonus points if you can name the two considerations).
Jones v. Dressel
Two considerations: issues of contract law (e.g. was this within the scope of the waiver, was the plaintiff competent to waive, was this an adhesion contract, etc.) and issues of public policy (examining the Tunkl factors).
What are nominal damages?
When a plaintiff sues on the principle of the matter and is not requesting recovery in the form of hundreds of dollars (likely they will only ask for $1)?
A motorist is making a left turn at a traffic light. When the light turns yellow he waits a second and decides to try and rush through the left turn. He is hit broadside by a car traveling through the intersection with the right of way. The investigating police officer points out the sign above the light that informs motorists to make a “left turn on signal only,” meaning that there was a left turn arrow that he was supposed to wait for prior to beginning the turn. The officer gives him a ticket for “improper left turn.” The motorist pays the ticket. The other driver was severely injured and sues the motorist for negligence. The injured driver asserts in the complaint that the violation of the traffic ordinance is proof of “negligence per se.” Will the court instruct the jury that there was negligence per se?
Most likely. The ordinance that was violated was intended to avoid the precise harm that occurred and the injured party was a part of the protected class.
Name the limits on consent and self defense.
Consent - Hypothetical, incapacity, coercion/fraud, scope, illegal activities.
Self defense - actually and reasonably, conditional threats, instigation, proportionality.
When we look at how relentlessly objective the standard is (Vaughn v. Menlove), what do we not take into account and what do we take into account?
Not taken into account: Clumsiness, foolishness, mental illness.
Taken into account: Youth, physical disability, expertise.
This case resulted after a defendant carelessly released toxic gas leading to the evacuation of the plaintiff's nearby offices and a loss of money. The courts ruled that there was heightened foreseeability and therefore the defendant was liable.
People's Express Airlines v. Consolidated Rail Corp
In this case about a dog-bite, the courts claim that where a statute imposes a strict liability upon the owner of an injurious animal, the owner may not evade liability based on a lack of knowledge of the animal’s dangerous propensity.
Pingaro v. Rossi
Becca is having dinner at her friend Eminem's house. She is making her way to the restroom and decides to take a detour into the master bedroom. In the process, she slips and falls on a puddle in the hallway. Under the traditional view of premises liability, what duty does Eminem owe to Becca?
No duty is owed. Becca's status changes from licensee to trespasser the minute she decides to head to the master bedroom as she was not given permission to go there.
When is deadly force allowed when acting in self defense?
Under RST (2): An actor is privileged to defend himself against another by force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, when he reasonably believes that: The other is about to inflict upon him an intentional contact or other bodily harm, and that he is thereby put in peril of death or serious bodily harm, which can safely be prevented only by the immediate use of such force.
In FL: occupied house or vehicle. If one forcibly enters an actor's occupied home or vehicle, said actor is presumed to have reasonably apprehended a risk of imminent, serious bodily harm. This presumption is irrebuttable.
Explain the two views of punitive damages.
Traditional - society does not condone the behavior and we punish to allow victims of egregious acts to make an example out of the guilty defendant.
Law & Economics - preventing under-deterrence of acts that are: unlikely to be criminally prosecuted; cause minor injuries; are difficult to detect; are undertaken by pertinacious defendants.
This case involves a plate snatching that was ruled as a battery even though the defendant did not actually touch the plaintiff (extra points if you can name the doctrine that explains this).
Fisher v. Carousel Motor Hotel
Doctrine of extended personality.
Under this doctrine, two independent tortfeasors may be held jointly liable if it is impossible to tell which one caused the plaintiff’s injuries.
The doctrine of alternative liability/causation.