Intentional Torts
Negligence: Duty and Breach
Negligence: Causation
Vicarious Liability, Proportionate Liability
Damages & Miscellaneous
100
True or false: the elements of battery include intent, contact, physical harm, and damages.
False. Contact need not be physically harmful; it may also be offensive as in Fisher v. Carousel Motor Hotel.
100
The general duty of care requires *how much* care?
The level of care a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.
100
As between cause-in-fact and proximate cause, which is a question of law?
Proximate cause
100
What doctrine replaced contributory negligence in most jurisdictions that now apportion fault between plaintiff and defendant?
Comparative negligence.
100
Wrongful death statutes are intended to compensate whom for the losses sustained as a result of defendant's negligence?
The survivors of the deceased. (The decedent's heirs at law).
200
Assault is immediate apprehension of bodily harm resulting from an intentional threat or attempt, coupled with what?
The apparent ability to do bodily harm. (Vetter v. Morgan)
200
A ten-year old spills their drink in a department store and walks away causing the plaintiff to slip and fall. Is the ten-year old held to the same standard of care as an adult?
No. (A child is only required to use care appropriate to his age and experience and mental capacity.)
200
True or false: An otherwise-negligent defendant is only liable for the harm an ordinary plaintiff would have suffered, rather than the extreme harm suffered by a uniquely vulernable plaintiff.
False. (Eggshell skull rule)
200
If an airline flight attendant intentionally spilled coffee on a passenger because he continually made harassing comments to her and would not stop, is the airline liable for his medical expenses?
No, because the flight attendant was not acting with a purpose to serve the master when she spilled the coffee.
200
What are exemplary damages?
Damages designed to make an example of, or deter defendant's conduct. (A/K/A punitive damages)
300
What are the four elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress?
1. Outrageous conduct by D 2. D's intent or reckless disregard of P's distress 3. P's severe distress. 4. Causation (in fact and proximate)
300
What two things are required to possibly recover for negligence infliction of mental or emotional harm?
1. P must have emotional distress that manifests in some physical injury. 2. P must have witnessed injury to a close family member.
300
How do contemporary courts (reflected in the Third Restatement) define proximate cause?
Plaintiff's injury was among the array of risks that made defendant's conduct unreasonable.
300
When there are multiple tortfeasors who are all liable to a plaintiff, and one settles, what approach will generally determine the remaining defendant's share of liability to the plaintiff?
Proportionate share approach (each will pay the percentage of damages that corresponds to their share of fault as determined by the jury)
300
Pain and suffering compensate an injured person for the physical discomfort and emotional response to the sensation of pain caused by the injury itself. What do hedonic damages compensate for?
Noneconomic loss of life's pleasures.
400
This doctrine will keep a tortfeasor on the hook for battery when she/he only intended apprehension, but made contact anyway.
Transferred intent.
400
Is a landowner liable for a deliveryman's injuries sustained when the deliveryman fell through a hole covered with a tarp on the landowner's property?
Yes, the deliveryman is an invitee (mutual benefit) and is owed a duty of reasonable care. Even if he were a licensee, he could still recover because the landowner has recklessly exposed him to danger.
400
The substantial factor test is an alternative to but-for causation, that applies when?
Defendant's unreasonable conduct is one of two separate and concurrent forces, either of which was sufficient to bring about the plaintiff's harm. (Sanders v. American Body Armor, Second Restatement)
400
If a jurisdiction has abolished joint and several liability, how does that affect a plaintiff's ability to recover damages from multiple tortfeasors?
Plaintiff cannot recover complete damages from any of the liable parties; each D will only pay a share of damages that corresponds to fault. (like Mr. Brown could not recover all damages to his Jaguar from Mrs. Keill who was only 10% responsible).
400
Why didn't Linda Riss prevail in her case against the City of NY, for failing to protect her from a stalker?
"Public duty doctrine" -- although a city does not enjoy governmental immunity for its role in providing governmental services, the duty that is owed is to the public at large, not to individual citizens.
500
Mr. Rupp was playing in a professional hockey game, during which he was checked legally (within the rules) by Mr. Cooke. Can Rupp recover from Cooke in battery?
No, because Rupp consented to contact that is within the rules.
500
If a crewman on a cruise ship sees a passenger fall overboard, does she have a duty to rescue the passenger?
Yes because of the special relationship between common carriers and their passengers.
500
In a jurisdiction that follows the majority ruling in Palsgraf, how do courts treat the question of foreseeability treated
As part of the duty analysis, decided by judges as matter of law.
500
The general rule (contained in the Third Restatement) is that the negligence of another person is only imputed to a plaintiff if it would have been imputed to the defendant if the plaintiff had been a defendant. What exception does the 3rd Rest recognize to this rule?
Negligence of another person is not imputed to the plaintiff solely because of the plaintiff's ownership of a motor vehicle or permission for its use by the other person.
500
If a plaintiff's negligence contributed to his injuries (but not the accident) how do modern courts (3rd Restatement) apportion damages between plaintiff and negligent defendant?
By a "percent fault reduction" rather than a total bar rule. (Many traditional courts will use the total bar rule, even though the defendant's negligence contributed to the enhanced injury as well).
M
e
n
u