Intentional Torts
A plaintiff must be aware of this to succeed in their false imprisonment claim.
What is their confinement.
The party that holds the burden of proof in a Negligence case.
Are parents vicariously liable for the torts of their children?
No, they are only liable for their own negligence, such as failing to supervise when they knew or should have known the child had dangerous tendencies.
True or False:
Where a plaintiff expressly consents by mistake, the consent is still a valid defense.
TRUE
Where a plaintiff expressly consents by mistake, the consent is still a valid defense unless the defendant caused the mistake or knows of the mistake and takes advantage of it.
The defendant lived in a neighborhood in which the incidence of violent crime had been increasing. The plaintiff and the defendant were having tea together in the defendant's kitchen when there was a knock at the door of the defendant's home. Although the door was equipped with a peephole that would have enabled the defendant to see who was outside before opening, the defendant opened the door without looking. As soon as the door was opened, an armed robber entered with a gun. The robber struck the plaintiff several times with the barrel of his pistol before robbing her of her money and leaving. The plaintiff subsequently asserted a negligence claim against the defendant for injuries resulting from the attack, alleging that it was negligent for the defendant to open the door without looking to see who was there.
Which of the following additional facts, if it was the only one true, would be most helpful to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant?
(A) The defendant was aware of the high incidence of crime in the neighborhood.
(B) The plaintiff was aware of the high incidence of crime in the neighborhood.
(C) The defendant had invited the plaintiff for tea because she hoped to sell the plaintiff her used living room furniture.
(D) One of the defendant's neighbors had been robbed and attacked by the robber in a similar manner the previous day.
A - The defendant was aware of the high incidence of crime in the neighborhood.
A person entering land or using property to prevent a greater public or private harm is protected by these privileges, respectively.
What is public necessity and private necessity.
Describe a negligent party's liability to rescuers.
A defendant who negligently creates a dangerous situation is liable for injuries to a rescuer if the rescue is foreseeable.
Describe negligence per se.
Negligence per se is the unexcused violation of a statute or ordinance that defines the conduct of a reasonable person:
The harm suffered must be
(1) the type the statute sought to prevent, and
(2) the plaintiff must be of the class of persons the statute sought to protect.
A store employee locks a customer in a back room for an hour after accusing her of stealing. The employee had reasonable grounds to suspect the customer was stealing and used a reasonable detention. This privilege may allow the employee to avoid liability.
What is the shopkeeper’s privilege?
A woman was injured when a robber shot her with a pistol manufactured by the gun maker. She asserted a claim against the gun maker, alleging that the pistol with which she had been shot was meant to be sold for a price under $50. Which of the following arguments is most likely to lead to a judgment for the woman?
(A) The gun maker is vicariously liable for battery, since it was foreseeable that a purchaser of the pistol would shoot another person with it.
(B) The gun maker breached an implied warranty that the gun was merchantable, since a pistol that is meant to be sold for under $50 is unfit for ordinary use.
(C) The gun maker is liable for negligence, since the criminal law is designed to protect persons like the woman from becoming the victims of robbers.
(D) The gun maker is liable for negligence, since the low selling price of the pistol made it foreseeable that it would be used in connection with a crime.
D - The gun maker is liable for negligence, since the low selling price of the pistol made it foreseeable that it would be used in connection with a crime.
This Doctrine allows intent to transfer not just between people, but across five specific torts. Name the doctrine and all 5 torts.
- What is the Transferred Intent Doctrine
- Battery, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels
A landowner owes different levels of duty to a discovered trespasser vs. an undiscovered trespasser.
Describe the duty a landowner owes to each.
Undiscovered Trespasser: A landowner owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser. He has no duty to inspect in order to ascertain whether persons are coming onto his property.
Discovered Trespasser: A duty to exercise ordinary care to warn the trespasser of, or to make safe, artificial conditions known to the landowner that involve a risk of death or serious bodily harm and that the trespasser is unlikely to discover. There is no duty owed for natural conditions and less dangerous artificial conditions.
Explain Actual vs. Proximate. Cause. Give the definition and the alternative name.
Actual Cause - Cause in Fact: Defendant's actions actually caused the harm; there must be a FACTUAL connection
Proximate Cause - Legal Cause: The harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions. Even if the defendant was the actual cause, liability is limited only to harms that are reasonably foreseeable.
This Doctrine says that a defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them; unforeseeable severity does not reduce liability.
What is the "Eggshell-Skull Plaintiff" rule.
Ursula was driving home after attending a Van Morrison concert at the Pantages Theatre. While talking on her cell phone, she momentarily took her eye off the road. She then drove through a red light and struck a police car driven by Officer O'Doul, injuring him. At the time of the accident, O'Doul was returning from an emergency dispatch.
Officer O'Doul sued Ursula to recover damages suffered in the auto accident. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence that he was returning from an emergency when the defendant drove through a red light and struck his patrol car. At the conclusion of plaintiff's presentation of evidence, defendant moved for a summary judgment claiming the firefighter's rule barred recovery.
The motion for summary judgment should be
(A) granted, because the accident would not have occurred but for the emergency
(B) granted, if evidence is presented showing that plaintiff's injuries were covered by insurance compensation
(C) denied, because plaintiff's injury was not related to any special danger of his job
(D) denied, because the firefighter's rule does not apply to police officers
C - denied, because the plaintiff's injury was not related to any special danger of his job
What is required for intent in an intentional tort when the defendant does not actually desire the harmful consequence?
Substantial certainty that the consequence will result.
Regarding NIED, when can a plaintiff recover if they were NOT within the zone of danger? (3 elements)
(1) The plaintiff and injured party are closely related;
(2) The plaintiff was present at the scene of injury;
(3) The plaintiff personally observed the event.
Explain the difference between an Intervening Force, a Superseding Force, and an Act of God. Which one(s) break the causal chain/relieve the defendant of liability?
Intervening Force: A foreseeable force that takes effect after the defendant's negligence and contributes to that negligence in producing the plaintiff's injury; defendant remains liable
Superseding Force: An unforeseeable or extraordinary act that breaks the chain of proximate cause; defendant is relieved of liability
Act of God: A natural event that is unforeseeable and unavoidable; defendant is relieved of liability
This doctrine may be used by the plaintiff as a rebuttal against the defendant's assertion of contributory negligence.
The doctrine of last clear chance.
- Permits the plaintiff to recover despite his own contributory negligence.
- Under this rule, the person with the last clear chance to avoid an accident who fails to do so is liable for negligence.
- In effect, last clear chance is the plaintiff’s rebuttal against the defense of contributory negligence.
Calvin Calhoun and Sammy Samuelson were members of the Kappa Kappa Kappa fraternity at University of Houston. During homecoming weekend, the fraternity held a big party which was widely attended by students and alumni. At the party Calvin and Sammy were "horsing around" when Calvin pulled out a gun.
He put the barrel to Sammy's head and said "Hey, man, let's play Russian Roulette." Sammy, who had consumed a fifth of Jack Daniels, was very intoxicated. Thinking that the gun was unloaded, Sammy responded, "Sure, dude." Calvin then pulled the trigger and the gun made a blank sound. Calvin and Sammy both laughed and continued partying.
Unknown to Sammy, Calvin had placed two bullets in the gun's chamber before making his challenge. The next day Sammy found out the gun was in fact loaded when Calvin pulled the trigger.
If Sammy asserts a tort action against Calvin, he will most likely
A. prevail, if Calvin intended to place Sammy in apprehension
B. prevail, because there was a substantial certainty that Sammy would be placed in apprehension
C. not prevail, because he was unaware that the gun was loaded
D. not prevail, because he consented to participate in the Russian Roulette game
C - Not prevail, because he was unaware the gun was loaded.
_________ and ____________ owe special duties to their patrons that will be a basis for liability even when the act is something less than outrageous, e.g., bus driver making insulting remarks to passenger.
Common carriers and innkeepers owe special duties to their patrons that will be a basis for liability even when the act is something less than outrageous, e.g., bus driver making insulting remarks to passenger.
Dan is a law student. After having all of his finals on the same day, he decides life is too difficult. He plans to set his house on fire and stay inside of it.
Tim, Dan's neighbor, sees the flames and runs in to rescue him. While attempting the rescue, Tim suffers severe burns. Does Tim have an action against Dan?
Yes, liability to rescuers.
In this liability jurisdiction, a plaintiff cannot recover damages if their negligence contributed to their harm.
What is contributory negligence?
A plaintiff’s contributory negligence completely bars his right to recover. This is true even if the degree of the defendant’s negligence is much greater than the plaintiff's.
Describe Res Ispa Loquitor.
Defendant's negligence can be inferred when:
1. the event normally would not occur without the defendant's negligence
2. the indicated negligence is within the defendant's scope of duty to the plaintiff.
Linden Laboratories manufactures nitroglycerin (a heavy oily explosive poisonous liquid used chiefly in making dynamite) at Its Union City plant. Late one evening there was an explosion at Linden's plant facility. The force of the explosion caused the ceiling on Youngman's house to collapse, seriously injuring Young-man. The Youngman home was located two blocks away from Linden's plant.
61. Youngman now asserts a tort action against Linden to recover damages caused by the explosion. Which of the follow-ing, if established, would furnish Linden with a valid defense?
I. Linden uses extraordinary care in the manufacture and storage of nitroglycerin and was not guilty of any negligence that was causally connected with the explosion.
II. Linden has a contract with the federal government whereby all the nitrogylcerin manufactured at its Union City plant is used in U.S. military weapon systems.
III. The explosion was caused when lightning an act of God) struck the plant during an electrical storm.
A. III only
B. I and II only
C. II and III only
D. Neither I, nor II
D - Neither I, nor II