chapter 6 torts Flashcards Preview

law 3800 exam 3 > chapter 6 torts > Flashcards

Flashcards in chapter 6 torts Deck (19):
1

What kind of intentional conduct is required for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress?

• Must intend to do the act that then inflicted this great stress

2

What is an assault? A battery?

• Assault= offer or attempt to do physical harm to another coupled with the present, apparent ability to carry out the threat- we don’t recognize it being complete unless the party it is directed at receives it and the party is reasonably placed in fear of injury
• Battery= The touching, if you don’t’ perceive the action coming

3

What is “reasonable fear” in the context of the tort of assault?

Football example

4

For the tort of assault to occur, must the victim apprehend the threat or attempt? How does this differ from the crime of assault? Why?

• Yes they must comprehend, the tort of assault does not have to be physical

5

Explain the two categories of trespass discussed in class and give an example of each.

• Trespass to personal property- 18 year old steals car, and you want to sue (whatever you own that is movable and tangible)
• Trespass to land

6

What is conversion? Fraud?

• Conversion= if you give something to someone and they convert it for their own use, sports car to have work done, take it to the mechanic, mechanic sells car and moves away—he converted the car for his own use

7

Define compensatory damages. What are the three elements of a normal compensatory damage award?

• Compensatory damages= compensate for medical damages, lost wages and future income, pain and suffering (present and future)
• 1) medical bills
• 2) loss of income
• 3) pain and suffering

8

What are punitive or exemplary damages? What does State Farm v. Campbell (page 141) tell us about the “ratio” of punitive damages to compensatory damages?

• Punitive= punishment payments
• Exemplary= make example of—to make an example of a company and raise payment
• Ratio= a mechanical formula that will relate punitive damages to the actual reward

9

From our class discussion, explain tort reform and the constitutional limitations on what can be “reformed”.

• Tort reform= it is not constitutional to limit compensatory damages
o Punitive can be limited—limit based on a ratio

10

Explain tortious interference with an adventitious contract relationship and give an example.

• If a person knows that two other people have a contractual relationship and that person persuades one of those people to breach that contract—that is a tort—Mobil and Pennzoil (must know of the contractual relationship, must induce them to break that contract, must…)

11

Statue of frauds= tells us that the law must be in writing to be enforceable

Parole evidence= a written contract trumps some oral claim, does not tell us that contract has to be in writing, just IF it is in writing
• Doesn’t apply to subsequent modifications
 Merger clause= tells court the parties agree this is the final enforceable contract

12

Distinguish a tort from a breach of contract and a crime

tort= a violation of a duty imposed by the civil law, there is no contract required

13

In an intentional tort is the act deliberate or the harm deliberate?

The act is deliberate

14

List and explain the four elements necessary for defamation

* defamatory statement- statement likely to harm another person's reputation
* falseness-- not ture
* Communicated- to at least one person other than the plaintiff
* Injury- injury to the plaintiff

15

Distinguish libel from slander

libel= written defamation
slander= oral defamation

16

list the four false statements that constitute slander per se

?

17

How do courts treat radio and television false statements? is proof of injury required? How are online postings treated?

?

18

How does opinion differ from libel?

opinion= generally a valid defense in a defamation suit because it cannot be proven to be true or false

19

What is the rule for public figures? what is "actual malice"?

they can win a defamation case only by proving actual malice which means that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth