Intentional Torts
What torts can have transferred intent?
Battery
Assault
False Imprisonment
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Chattel
What are the 3 types of actual consent?
Consent by Mistake
Consent induced by Fraud
Consent obtained by Duress
True or False: An individual's IQ or mental capacity is taken into consideration when determining their liability in the case of negligence
False, UNLESS the individual has a mental disability and has no prior warning of sudden mental changes.
What is the test used to determine cause in fact?
The 'but-for' test
What type of liability is this?
Multiple defendant's are responsible for the FULL extent of a plaintiff's injuries even if the defendant's acted independently or in concert.
Joint and Several Liability
May a plaintiff be placed in imminent fear of apprehension even if the deendant is not actually capable of causing injury to the plaintiff?
Yes. A defendant does not have to be actually capable of carrying out an act that results in an injury.
What do the majority of courts hold when it comes to the necessity of retreat in self-defense?
One need not attempt to escape buy may stand their ground (and even use deadly force when necessary).
Why is there a duty to disclose risks of treatment?
If an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person would not have consented, the doctor breached their duty.
What are the elements of Negligence Per Se
Defendant violated the statute
Plaintiff belongs to the class of people that statute was meant to protect
The type of harm suffered was the type of harm the statute intended to prevent
What type of liability is this?
A plaintiff may shift the burden of proving causation of her injury to multiple defendants, even though one of them could have been responsible.
Joint and Several Liability (intervening cause)
What are the two insufficient forms of confinement or restraint for false imprisonment?
Moral Pressure and Future Threats
Restraint or confinement produced by requiring the plaintiff to choose between injury to his person or property and his freedom are generally actionable. However, a cause of action will not be sustained for moral pressure or future threats.
What is the difference between public and private necessity?
Public: when an actor believes that is it necessary to interfere with another's property to protect a large community of individuals
Private: when an actor reasonably believed that it was necessary to interfere with another's property to protect themselves of a small number of others from serious harm
What is the difference between nonfeasance and misfeasance in relation to the role of contracts?
Nonfeasance means there is no duty, but there is a failure to act when a duty to act exists
Misfeasance means there is a duty required, and the failure to carry out the duty results in lack of proper care, skill, or diligence
What are the elements of Res Ipsa Locquitur?
The event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence
It must be caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant
It must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff
What type of liability is this?
One person commits a tortious act against a 3rd party and another person is liable to the 3rd party for this act.
Vicarious Liability
The plaintiff, a jockey, was seriously injured in a race when another jockey, the defendant, cut too sharply in front of
her without adequate clearance. The two horses collided, causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground, sustaining injury.
The State Racetrack Commission ruled that, by cutting in too sharply, the defendant committed a foul in violation of
racetrack rules requiring adequate clearance for crossing lanes. The plaintiff has brought an action against the defendant for damages in which one count is based on battery.
Will the plaintiff prevail on the battery claim?
A: Yes, if the defendant was reckless in cutting across in front of the plaintiff's horse.
B: Yes, because the State Racetrack Commission determined that the defendant committed a foul in violation of rules applicable to racing.
C: No, unless the defendant intended to cause impermissible contact between the two horses or apprehension of such contact by the plaintiff.
D: No, because the plaintiff assumed the risk of accidental injury inherent in riding as a jockey in a horse race.
C: No, unless the defendant intended to cause impermissible contact between the two horses or apprehension of such contact by the plaintiff.
True or False: Even if the person aided has no defense, their defender is not liable as long as they reasonably believed that the person aided could have used force to protect themselves
True
A construction company was digging a trench for a new sewer line in a street in a high-crime neighborhood. During the course of the construction, there had been many thefts of tools and equipment from the construction area.
One night, the construction company's employees neglected to place warning lights around the trench. A delivery truckdrove into the trench and broke an axle. While the truck driver was looking for a telephone to call a tow truck, thieves broke into the truck and stole $350,000 worth of goods. The delivery company sued the construction company to
recover for the $350,000 loss and for the damage to its truck. The construction company has stipulated that it was negligent in failing to place warning lights around the trench and admits liability for damage to the truck, but it deniesliability for the loss of the goods.
On cross-motions for summary judgment on the claim for the goods, how should the court rule?
A: Deny both motions, because there is evidence to support a finding that the construction company should have realized that its negligence could create an opportunity for a third party to commit a crime.
B: Grant the construction company's motion, because no one could have foreseen that the failure to place warning lights could result in the loss of a cargo of valuable goods.
C: Grant the construction company's motion, because the criminal acts of third persons were a superseding cause of the loss.
D: Grant the delivery company's motion, because but for the construction company's actions, the goods would not have been stolen.
A: Deny both motions, because there is evidence to support a finding that the construction company should have realized that its negligence could create an opportunity for a third party to commit a crime.
it had knowledge of regular thefts in the area, which means that a jury could reasonably decide that it was foreseeable.
Fill in the blank:
____ cause is the event or action that is sufficiently related to an injury that it's considered to be the cause of the injury.
____ cause is one where the facts present an uninterrupted chain of events from the time of the negligent act to the time of the plaintiff's injury.
Proximate
Direct
What are the two exceptions that get you around the enforcement of an exculpatory clause in an otherwise valid release?
The clause is void against public policy
The harm which occurred was not within the scope of the risk expressly assumed
A defendant, an inexperienced driver, borrowed a car from the plaintiff, a casual acquaintance, for the express purpose of driving it several blocks to the local drug store. Instead, the defendant drove the car, which then was worth $12,000, 100 miles to another city. While the defendant was driving in the other city the next day, the car was hit by a
negligently driven truck and sustained damage that will cost $3,000 to repair.
If repaired, the car will be fully restored to its former condition.
If the plaintiff asserts a claim against the defendant based on conversion, the plaintiff should recover a judgment for
A: $12,000.
B: $3,000.
C: $3,000 plus damages for the loss of the use of the car during its repair.
D: nothing, because the defendant was not negligent.
A: $12,000.
The plaintiff should recover the fair market value of the car, $12,000, because the defendant substantially interfered with the plaintiff's chattel by driving the car 100 miles, keeping it overnight, and incurring $3,000 in damages. This amounts to a conversion claim, which allows for damages for the full value of the car at the time of the conversion
When is mistake allowed in the defense of property and when is it not?
Mistake is allowed when the property owner mistakes whether an intrusion has happened or not.
Mistake is not allowed when the entrant has a privilege to enter the property that supersedes the mistaken use of force against the entrant, UNLESS the privileged entrant intentionally or negligently made a mistake.
A landlord owns and operates a 12-story apartment building containing 72 apartments, 70 of which are rented. A pedestrian has brought an action against the landlord alleging that while he was walking along a public sidewalk adjacent to the landlord's apartment building a flower pot fell from above and struck him on the shoulder, causing extensive injuries. The action was to recover damages for those injuries.
If the pedestrian proves the foregoing facts and offers no other evidence explaining the accident, will his claim survive a motion for directed verdict offered by the defense?
A: Yes, because the pedestrian was injured by an artificial condition of the premises while using an adjacent public way.
B: Yes, because such an accident does not ordinarily happen in the absence of negligence.
C: No, because the landlord is in no better position than the pedestrian to explain the accident.
D: No, because there is no basis for a reasonable inference that the landlord was negligent.
D: No, because there is no basis for a reasonable inference that the landlord was negligent.
Any time negligence must be inferred, there is a res ipsa loquitur issue. For a claim based on res ipsa loquitur to prevail, the pedestrian must show that the landlord had exclusive control of the flowerpot before it fell.
A man and his friend, who were both adults, went to a party. The man and the friend had many drinks at the party and became legally intoxicated. They decided to play a game of chance called "Russian roulette" using a gun loaded with one bullet. As part of the game, the man pointed the gun at the friend and, on her command, pulled the trigger. The man shot the friend in the shoulder.
The friend has brought a negligence action against the man. Traditional defenses based on plaintiff's conduct apply. What is likely to be the dispositive issue in this case?
A: Whether the game constituted a joint venture.
B: Whether the friend could validly consent to the game.
C: Whether the friend was also negligent.
D: Whether the man was legally intoxicated when he began playing the game
C: Whether the friend was also negligent.
Contributory negligence is an appropriate defense to a negligence action, and here both parties seem to have been acting unreasonably in exactly the same way.
What are the elements of implied assumption of risk?
Plaintiff had actual knowledge of the particular risk
Plaintiff appreciated the magnitude of the risk
Plaintiff voluntarily encountered the risk