Prima Facie Case
Assault
D acts intending to cause P apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact and D's act causes P reasonably to apprehend such contact
Consent can be invalidated based on
Fraud, duress, or mistake of law
Due Care/Standard of Care general rule
Standard of care is determined by the reasonable person of ordinary prudence, intelligence, and knowledge
Must be foreseeable in negligence questions
The type of harm that would result
(not extent of harm, manner of harm, or class of plaintiffs)
Contributory Negligence
If P was contributorily negligent in any way, they cannot collect anything
Trespass to Chattel
Intentionally interferes with someone else's right of possession to chattel in a manner not sufficiently serious to justify forcing the actor to pay the value of chattel
The degree of force must be reasonably necessary (proportional) to stop the invasion of P's protected interest
Noncompliance with statute = conclusive = negligence per se
1. The statute must establish a clear standard of conduct
2. Legislative purpose must be to protect (safety-orientated) the particular class of plaintiff from the particular type of harm
3. The violation must be unexcused
Superseding cause steps
1. Define D's negligent act
2. What risks/types of harm made the act negligent?
3. Did that same type of harm materialize here?
4. Did anything/anyone intervene between D's negligent act and P's injury?
Pure Comparative Fault vs Modified comparative fault
Pure: P's recovery is reduced according to the percentage of P's fault
Modified: Plaintiff may only recover if P's negligence was either (1) not exceeding 50% or (2) less than 49% of D's negligence
Conversion
An intentional exercise of domain control over a chattel which so seriously interferes with the right of another to control it that the actor may justly be required to pay the other full value of the chattel
Consent as a matter of law
1. Actual consent/refusal cannot be made
2. There is an emergency
3. A reasonable person would consent
Conditions of Res Ipsa Loquitur
1. The accident must be of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence
2. It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant
3. It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff
Invitee: must take care to provide reasonably safe premises
Licensee: must warn of hidden dangers about which the possessor knows or should have known about
Express: formal agreement by P to assume risks
Implied: P freely undertakes dangerous activity with inherent risks
Trespass
D enters, or causes entry onto land, that is in the lawful possession of another and D intended to enter or cause entry onto the land
Substantial Certainty
Intent requirement is satisfied when the act is done with the knowledge that harmful or offensive contact is substantially certain to occur
Actual Causation vs Proximate Causation
Actual= "but for" D's breach, would P have been injured?
Proximate= Was the connection between D's carelessness and P's injury too fortuitous or remote to hold D responsible for the injury?
Factors for abnormally dangerous activities
Probably is high, risk of injury is high, risk cannot be eliminated through reasonable care, uncommon activity, social value of activity
Express Assumption
1. Must be clear and unambiguous
2. Free and informed acceptance from a position of some bargaining power
3. Not counter to public interest
Battery
D acts, intending to cause contact with P and the contact with P that D intends is harmful or offensive in which D's act causes P to suffer a contact that is harmful or offensive
Eggshell Plaintiff Rule
A defendant is normally still fully liable for causing an injury to a plaintiff that is especially fragile in some way. The defendant is still responsible to pay for all direct outcomes of his actions, even if he was unaware of the sensitivity, and the consequences need not be intentional
Directness vs Foreseeability
Directness: Was P's injury directly caused by D's breach?
Foreseeability: Was P's injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of D's breach?
Implied Assumption
The law generally doesn't imply an ex ante assumption of the risk that someone else will behave negligently.
Mere awareness of a background risk does not entail that plaintiff has assumed the risk