Flashcards in Pieper Torts Deck (662)
The word "tort" is commonly understood to mean a
civil "wrong" to another person or person's property
Included under the rubric of torts is a group of civil wrongs that include "direct inference" with the person such as
3- False imprisonment
Included under the rubric of torts is a group of civil wrongs that include "interference with property rights" such as
Included under the rubric of torts is a group of civil wrongs that include various forms of negligence
Included under the rubric of torts is a group of civil wrongs that include disturbance of intangible interests such as
1- good reputation
2- commercial advantage
3- social advantage
What does tort law offer?
Tort law offers redress for interference with persons, property, or intangible interests.
Tort law recognizes that a behavior, which may seem entirely reasonable from the tortfeasor's point of view, can ...
create a risk so unreasonable that the tortfeasor should be held responsible for any injury that the behavior causes.
What is the common thread in tort law?
It is the unreasonable interference with the interests of others.
Why is tortfeasor usually held liable?
The tortfeasor is usually held liable because he or she acted with an unreasonable intention or because he or she departed from a reasonable standard of care under the circumstances.
The law attempts to balance ...
Th law attempts to balance the plaintiff's right to protection from harm caused by the defendant's actions against the defendant's right of freedom of action?
Tort liability arises from one of three bases:
(1) Intentional torts
(3) Strict Liability
What is an intentional tort
Intentional torts, where the defendant intends to interfere with the plaintiff's interests
What is negligence
Negligence, is where the defendant fails to use reasonable care
What is Strict liability
Strict liability ("with or without fault"), where the defendant is held liable even absent wrongful intent or negligence.
Torts and crimes share several similar characteristics, but it is important to distinguish between the two to avoid confusion, define criminal law
A crime is an offense against the public at large for which the state, representing the people, brings the proceedings in the form of a criminal prosecution. Criminal law protects the public interest by punishing the offender, removing him permanently or temporarily from society, and by deterring others from imitating him. Although the victim may be called upon by the state or serve as an accuser and witness, the criminal prosecution is not purposed to compensate the crime victim.
Torts and crimes share several similar characteristics, but it is important to distinguish between the two to avoid confusion, distinguish tort actions
In contrast, tort actions are not based in penal statutes and are commenced by the injured person or someone acting on their behalf. They are intended to make the tort victim "whole" again by requiring the tortfeasor to pay compensation for the harm he caused.
An act may be a tort, but not constitute the crime of same name, or vice versa
Tort and criminal law use different burdens of proof, which are
Criminal law, a criminal prosecutor must generally prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while a Tort plaintiff only needs to show a preponderance of the evidence to establish the defendant's liability
Under what doctrine can a guilty verdict in a criminal action be used against the defendant in a subsequent civil tort action
Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel
Tort law does not usually concern itself with (what social affect)
Tort law does not usually concern itself with punishing the tortfeasor or discouraging others from committing similar offenses.
When will a jury award punitive or exemplary damages in a tort claim
Where the defendant's wrongdoing is intentional and is so outrageous that it falls outside the realm of acceptable social conduct.
Such damages are not awarded to compensate the plaintiff for injuries, but to punish the tortfeasor and deter others from following his or her example
Elements for Negligence
Negligence is "the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation."
Thus, when faced with a bar exam question involving negligence, simply ask yourself "was the defendant's conduct reasonable under the circumstances?
In order to recover for a claim based in negligence, the plaintiff must plead and prove the following three elements:
1- A duty owed and its breach
2- Injury to the Plaintiff, (i.e., actual loss or damage)
3- Proximate Cause
A duty owed and its breach means that
Individuals are legally obligated to conform to a standard of care to act reasonably under the circumstances. The defendant's failure to conform to the required standard of care constitutes a breach of duty to others.
The "statement that there is or is not a duty begs the essential question--whether the plaintiff's interests are entitled to legal protection against the defendant's conduct."
An injury to the plaintiff (actual loss or damage) means that
A plaintiff asserting a negligence claim must plead or prove an actual physical injury to a person or property.
Once this requirement has been met, the plaintiff may also recover for economic and emotional injury.
What is the general measure of damages for property damage resulting from negligent conduct
is is generally the difference in the market value of the property just before its damage, and its value after the accident, or, alternatively, the reasonable cost of repairs necessary to restore it to its former condition, whichever amount is less
What is the NY and R2d of Torts 928 view on damages recovery?
New York allows a recovery for "the difference between the value of the chattel before the harm and the value after the harm, OR at the plaintiff's election, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration where feasible, with due allowance for any difference between the original value and the value after repairs.
When will the law, generally, not allow a plaintiff to recover via a negligence claim
When the plaintiff suffers only economic harm or emotional injury without an accompanying physical injury, the law will generally not permit recovery via a negligence claim
Proximate Cause means that
To impose liability, the law requires a reasonably close causal connection between the defendant's breach of duty and resulting injury. The causation must be more than a simple factual causal connection between the defendant's tortious conduct and the plaintiff's injury
It is quite possible to state every question which arises in connection with 'proximate cause' in the form of a single question:
Was the defendant under a duty to protect the plaintiff against the event which did in fact occur?