MEE Torts Flashcards
(38 cards)
Intentional tort
D performed volitional act with intent to bring about particular consequence
Battery
P must show:
1. D intended to contact P
2. Contact resulted
3. Contact harmful or offensive (physical injury or objectionable to reasonably person)
Transferred intent doctrine
- D’s specific intent to commit tort transfers to tortious conduct that actually occurred
- May be transferred to different Ps or torts (or both)
False imprisonment
P must show:
1. D intended to confine P
2. P conscious of confinement
3. P did not consent to confinement
4. D lack authority to confine P
False imprisonment: confinement
Confinement to bounded area (no reasonable means of escape) may be accomplished by:
* Physical means
* Use or failure to provide means of escape
* Invalid use of legal authority
Negligence
P must show:
1. D owed P duty
2. D breached duty
3. Breach was actual and proximate cause of injury
4. Damages resulted
General standard of care
- Act as a reasonably prudent person under circumstances, and
- Exercise care reasonable person under circumstances to prevent unreasonable risk of harm
Who is duty owed to?
All foreseeable Ps
Duty of care for children
- Hypothetical child of similar age, intelligence, and experience acting under similar circumstances
- Exception: engaged in adult activity, reasonably prudent person applies
Duty of care for professionals
- Ordinary member of profession in good standing
- National standard
- Doctors have additional duty to disclose risks of medical procedures
Duty to act
- Generally no duty to act for benefit others
- If voluntarily render aid, duty to act with reasonable ordinary care
Negligence per se
- If D’s conduct violated a statute, statute replaces standard of care + duty/breach automatically established
- P must be in protected class + harm suffered within risk statute prevents
Res ipsa loquitur
- Allows jury to infer breach based on circumstantial evidence
- P must show: injury does not normally happen absent negligence + accident does not normally occur absent negligence in someone in D’s position
- Usually proven if D had exclusive control over instrumentality
Actual cause
Injury would not have occurred but for negligent conduct
Actual cause when multiple Ds were negligent
- If multiple Ds’ independent breaches merged into single indivisible harm = substantial factor test
- If multiple Ds breached and exact cause unascertainable = burden shifts to D to prove they did not cause injury
Proximate cause
- Direct chain of events without intervening circumstances, or
- D’s negligence creates foreseeable risk that independent force would harm P
When is there no proximate cause?
- D’s negligence creates foreseeable risk of harm but entirely different and unforeseeable harm results, or
- Unforeseeable and independent intervening force results in injury
Joint and several liability
P can collect full amount from one D, or apportion damages between them
Pure comparative negligence
P’s damages reduced by percentage of their own negligence
Partial comparative negligence
P cannot recover if P’s negligence exceeds D’s negligence
Contributory negligence
If P negligent at all, cannot recover
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
- Usually requires physical manifestation of emotional distress
- Near miss case = D’s negligence put P in zone of danger
- Bystander case = D’s negligence kills/severely injures P’s close relative + P present at scene and observed event
Landowner’s duties
- Unknown trespasser = no duty
- Known/anticipated trespasser = warn known, concealed, dangerous artificial conditions
- Licensee = warn of known, concealed dangerous conditions
- Invitee = warn of all known/should be known dangerous conditions + duty to inspect
Licensee v. invitee
- Licensee = social guest with permission to enter + no economic benefit conferred on landowner
- Invitee = person with permission to enter to confer economic benefit on landowner, or land is open to public at large
