INTENTIONAL TORTS
An assault requires:
1. The defendant placed the plaintiff in reasonable apprehension AND
2. that apprehension was of an immediate battery.
The key word, apprehension, means this -- I'm sure you already KNOW it.
Knowledge
Duty
An unknown trespasser is owed this duty of care...or not?
None.
The three ways strict liability issues arise are when these three fact patterns are present:
1.
2. Abnormally dangerous activities
3. Products liability
Heck! I forgot number 1! Maybe Stumper can ask you for help -- pretty sure he got sued for being too cute once and causing someone to fall down at his CUTENESS (He won the suit)
Animals
(If the animal is domesticated - there must be a known vicious propensity for the specific animal)
If the animal is wild - strict liability applies)
Better think about this the next time you ask a friend with 6 DWIs to take your car to the store to buy you beer.
The owner of an automobile is generally not vicariously liable for torts of the driver, however, the rule inverses if the owner does this:
Asks the driver to run an errand for the owner.
When the defendant commits an act of physical invasion on the plaintiff's land, this type of intentional tort arises.
Trespass to land.
To be a "foreseeable victim" the victim must be within this distance from the tortious conduct.
The zone of danger
This fact separates an unknown trespasser from a known/anticipated trespasser
Pattern of trespassing
In order to sue a defendant on a theory of products liability, the first element a plaintiff must prove is that the defendant is this type of person, defined as "one who routinely deals with goods of the type."
Merchant
(All elements for products liability:
1. Merchant
2. Product is defective
3. Product has not been altered
4. At the time of the injury, plaintiff was making a foreseeable use)
An employer is only vicariously liable for torts committed by the employee in this capacity
False imprisonment requires the defendant commit an act of physical restraint and that the plaintiff is confined to a bounded area.
When this possible escape route is present, a plaintiff cannot satisfy the "bounded area" requirement for false imprisonment.
A reasonable means to escape that is discoverable.
Res ispa loquitor
(establishes a prima facie case of breach only.)
This type of entrant enters with permission AND to confer economic benefits to the possessor.
It also applies if the land is open to the public-at-large, even if not to confer economic benefit.
Invitees
For a product liability case grounded on a theory of design defect, the plaintiff must prove this type of design existed, which may be proved by establishing these three tests:
1. A safer design was available
2. the safer design was economically feasible
3. the safer design was practical
Reasonably Alternative Design
This principle allows a defendant to recover all of the money paid in a judgment from other defendant(s)
Indemnification
(Contribution exists when 1 defendant pays in full, but other defendant(s) is/are liable, and the defendant seeks some recovery -- the percentage of which is decided by a jury)
To satisfy the intent requirement of any intentional tort, the defendant must know the consequences of her conduct will result to this degree of certainty
Substantial Certainty
(The requisite intent for intentional torts is satisfied when the defendant knows with substantial certainty that the consequences of her conduct will result)
When multiple defendant's are the cause of the plaintiff's harm, the court cannot apply the traditional "but for" test for actual causation) and will instead apply this test, which asks whether each breach contributed to the injuries in a significant or substantial way.
Substantial Factor Test
The possessor of land must protect against sealed conditions known by the landowner to avoid liability for injuries to this type of trespasser
Licensee
Abnormally dangerous activities are ones that:
1. Create a foreseeable risk of severe harm even when careful and
2. the activity is uncommon in the community it is being conducted
These three categories are the only (definite?) forms of abnormally dangerous activities:
1. Explosive
2. Highly toxic chemical/biological materials
3. Radiation / Nuclear Energy
The factors listed below are used to establish whether an individual falls within this form of worker classification:
Skill required
Who provides tool and facilities
Period of employment
Basis of compensation
Business purpose
6. Is the person operating a distinct business
Independent Contractor
For conduct to be constitute a battery, the touching must be "offensive" to this type of person.
A person of "ordinary sensibility"
Injuries that arise from:
1. intervening medical treatment / medical malpractice;
2. intervening negligent rescue;
3. intervening protection/reactionary forces; and
4. subsequent diseases or accidents
are all scenarios in which the plaintiff can definitively establish this element of negligence -- even though the defendant did not necessarily cause the injury himself.
Proximate Cause
DAILY DOUBLE:
This occurs when an invite exceeds the scope of the invitation
They become a trespasser
This type of product defect arises when the product differs from all others that came off the assembly-line, making it more dangerous than consumers would expect.
Manufacturing defect
If the job involves force
If the job leads to friction
or if the actions of the employee serve the bosses purposes, then these type of torts are not considered "outside the scope of the employment"
Intentional torts