intentional torts
assault
D’s intentional infliction of reasonable apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact
consent
d reasonably believes p consented
negligence elements
duty, breach, causation, damages
strict liability basic definition
liability without regard to fault
cutest girl in the room (full name only)
sarah jane fielding
iied
D’s intentional (or reckless) extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional distress
emergency doctrine
undertaking action reasonably necessary to save another’s life, even without P’s consent
soc- all of them summarized
off land- take reasonable precautions
trespasser- refrain from intentionally or recklessly causing injury
known trespasser- use reasonable care to warn of condition if trespasser is dangerously close to it and likely not to realize the risk
licensee- social guest, warn, make safe
invitee- anticipate unsafe conditions, warn, make safe
strict liability animals (3 types and the liability)
livestock- strictly liable for damage caused by cattle trespassing on anothers land
wild- only is always strictly liable even if they are pets
domestic- strictly liable if owner knows the dangerous propensities of a domesticated animal
ca dog bite statute- owner is liable regardless of prior knowledge of dogs dangerous propensities
misrepresentation- intentional and negligent
Intentional Misrepresentation Elements: (1) D makes a representation of material fact; (2) the representation is false; (3) D knew the representation was false (or made the representation recklessly without regard to truth); (4) D intended P to rely on misrepresentation; (5) P reasonably relied on misrepresentation; (6) P was harmed; (7) P’s reliance was a substantial factor in causing harm
Negligent Misrepresentation Elements: (1) D makes a representation of material fact; (2) the representation is false; (3) D had a duty to be accurate and had no reasonable grounds for believing the statement to be true when made; (4) D intended P to rely on misrepresentation; (5) P reasonably relied on misrepresentation; (6) P was harmed; (7) P’s reliance was a substantial factor in causing harm
false imprisonment
D’s intentional confinement of another person
self defense
if D reasonably believes harmful or offensive contact to P or family is imminent and force is reasonable
proximate cause & actual cause
proximate- foreseeable harm
actual- "but for" test
strict products liability- prima facie case & 3 types
Prima Facie Strict Liability Cases: (i) D is a commercial supplier; (ii) D produced or sold a product that was defective when it left D’s control; (iii) the defective product was the actual and proximate cause of P’s injury; and (iv) P suffered damages.
2. Types: Manufacturing defect (failure of quality control), Design Defect (the entire product line is defective), Failure to Warn (the product is sold without identifying dangers that may not be apparent to users)
nuisance, basic rule, private & public
defined: substantial, unreasonable invasion of right to enjoy land
Private Nuisance elements: (1) P has legal interest in property; (2) P suffers significant harm as a result of an encroachment; (3) D caused the encroachment intentionally (desire or KTSC), negligently, or through activity giving rise to strict liability
Public Nuisance: (i) the right is common to all members of general public; (ii) the conduct interfering with the right is unreasonable (interferes with health/safety/peace, or illegal, or has a long-lasting effect and the actor knows/should know the significant affect on public); and (iii) P must have suffered significant harm unique to P
battery
The intentional infliction of harmful or offensive bodily contact upon another
defense of property
if D reasonably believes trespass or conversion is imminent and force is reasonable
negligence per se & res ipsa (u will get half points if u only get one) brief def fine
negligence per se- there was a law or statute in place, meant to protect a specific class of people from a specific thing, p is in that class of people, d violates statute
res ipsa- the incident would not occur without negligence, it goes without saying
strict liability for abnormally dangerous activities and possible defenses
will give half points if u dont know the defenses
Defined: activity that (i) creates a foreseeable and significant risk of physical harm even when care is exercised by all actors; and (ii) is not one of common usage (e.g., blasting, fumigation, etc.)
defenses-
Assumption of the Risk
Contributory Negligence State? No defense, unless P knew of the danger and his unreasonable conduct was the very cause of the harm
Comparative Negligence State? The same rules applicable to negligence apply
defamation (6 elements)
will give points if explained well w/o 6 elements
Common Law Elements: (1) D makes a defamatory statement; (2) the statement is of or concerning P (i.e., a reasonable person would understand the statement is about P); (3) the statement is published to at least one person who understands its defamatory meaning as it refers to P; (4) the statement is false; (5) D acted with fault (negligence or intention); and (6) the statement damaged P’s reputation.
conversion & trespass to land
conversion- The intentional, substantial interference with P’s possessory right to chattel
trespass to land-The intentional, volitional invasion of real property in which P has possessory interest
defense of necessity
privilege to trespass if reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm to D or another (“Private Necessity”) or for the public good (“Public Necessity”)
negligence defenses (3)
1. Assumption of the Risk: If P knows of a risk and, expressly or impliedly, assumes the risk voluntarily, recovery is denied
2. Contributory Negligence Jurisdiction: If P breaches the standard of care required for ordinary negligence (reasonable person), and P’s own negligence is a substantial factor causing his injury, his right to recovery is barred.
3. Comparative Negligence Jurisdiction: P recovers a percentage of his damages through a comparative analysis. E.g., if a jury finds that the incident is attributable to both the negligence of P and D, P’s damages are reduced by the percentage of P’s fault.
strict liability exceptions (3)
will accept just answers w/o explanation
Public Duty Exception: When a landowner is under a public duty to keep animals (e.g., a zoo keeper), negligence must be shown
Trespassers: Strict liability is not imposed in favor of undiscovered trespassers against landowners. The trespasser may recover only on a claim of negligence.
Watchdogs: A landowner who protects property with a vicious watchdog that he knows is likely to cause serious bodily harm may be strictly liable
risk utility test & when to use
use to determine design defect
test states: a product is defective if:
(1) its design poses a foreseeable risk of harm
(2) that risk could have been mitigated by a reasonable alternative design