INTENTIONAL TORTS
NEGLIGENCE
PREMISES
LIABILITY
STRICT LIABILITY
VICARIOUS LIABILITY / JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
200

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

200
An obligation to take risk-reducing precaution to avoid injury to foreseeable victims is the definition of this element of negligence.

Duty

200

An unknown trespasser is owed this duty of care...or not?

None.

200

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)

200

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.

400

When the defendant commits an act of physical invasion on the plaintiff's land, this type of intentional tort arises.

Trespass to land.

400

To be a "foreseeable victim" the victim must be within this distance from the tortious conduct. 

The zone of danger

400

This fact separates an unknown trespasser from a known/anticipated trespasser

Pattern of trespassing

400

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)

400

An employer is only vicariously liable for torts committed by the employee in this capacity

The Scope of Employment
600

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.

600
If a plaintiff lacks information regarding what the defendant did wrong, but can demonstrate: (1) that the accident is of the kind that is normally associated with negligence AND (2) that this type of accident is normally due to someone in the defendant's position (exclusive control), then the plaintiff can utilize this tort doctrine.

Res ispa loquitor

(establishes a prima facie case of breach only.)

600

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

600

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

600

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)

800

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)

800

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

800

The possessor of land must protect against sealed conditions known by the landowner to avoid liability for injuries to this type of trespasser

Licensee

800

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

800

The factors listed below are used to establish whether an individual falls within this form of worker classification:

  1. Skill required

  2. Who provides tool and facilities

  3. Period of employment

  4. Basis of compensation 

  5. Business purpose 

    6. Is the person operating a distinct business

Independent Contractor 

1000

For conduct to be constitute a battery, the touching must be "offensive" to this type of person.

A person of "ordinary sensibility"

1000

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

1000

DAILY DOUBLE: 

This occurs when an invite exceeds the scope of the invitation

They become a trespasser

1000

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

1000

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