Prima Facie Case
Intentional Torts
Negligence
More negligence + some Strict Liability thrown in
Defenses
100

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

100

Consent can be invalidated based on 

Fraud, duress, or mistake of law

100

Due Care/Standard of Care general rule

Standard of care is determined by the reasonable person of ordinary prudence, intelligence, and knowledge

100

Must be foreseeable in negligence questions

The type of harm that would result 

(not extent of harm, manner of harm, or class of plaintiffs)

100

Contributory Negligence

If P was contributorily negligent in any way, they cannot collect anything

200

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

200
Defense of persons/property general rule

The degree of force must be reasonably necessary (proportional) to stop the invasion of P's protected interest

200

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 

200

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?

200

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 

300

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

300

Consent as a matter of law

1. Actual consent/refusal cannot be made

2. There is an emergency 

3. A reasonable person would consent

300

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

300
Duty of care: invitee vs licensee

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

300
Types of Assumption of Risk

Express: formal agreement by P to assume risks

Implied: P freely undertakes dangerous activity with inherent risks

400

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

400

Substantial Certainty 

Intent requirement is satisfied when the act is done with the knowledge that harmful or offensive contact is substantially certain to occur

400

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?

400

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

400

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

500

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

500

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

500

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?

500
Respondeat Superior general rule
An employer is not responsible for torts committed by an employee while on a "detour" of his own
500

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