Torts Flashcards

Question

Trespass to Land

Answer 1

Intentionally causes a physical invasion of land

Answer 2

Intent to enter is enough / or cause the physical invasion - intent to do ACT that caused invasion - NOT intent of result - - Mistake of Fact (it's your land) is NOT a Defense

Answer 3

Anyone in Possession of the Land - NOT just the owner (ex: lessee)

Answer 4

Available when to prevent an injury or severe harm

Answer 5

``` Private = Actual Damages/ no force to expel person Public = Not liable for Damages ```

Answer 6

Duty Breach Causation Damages

Answer 7

Legal Duty: - Reasonable Care (NOT utmost care) - To the Plaintiff who could FORESEEABLY be in danger

Answer 8

``` No Duty to Unforeseeable Plaintiff - only to class of persons who might be harmed ```

Answer 9

Yes - danger invites rescue | - can be a crime victim recue too

Answer 10

- Rescue or assumption of duty - Placing another in danger (knock into pool) - Authority over another (Prison warden) - Relationship (Innkeeper, common carrier) * All Must use Reasonable Care *

Answer 11

Reasonable - Mental or emotional = Doesn't matter - Physical = Modified for person of like traits - Intoxication = Only if Involuntary - Children = Modified for age

Answer 12

1. Trespasser = lowest 2. Licensee = intermediate 3. Invitee = highest

Answer 13

(On Land w/o Consent) Duty to refrain from intentional or reckless conduct - Undiscovered = no duty - Discovered / Anticipated = Warn of Hidden Dangers

Answer 14

- Attractive Nuisance Kids = Reasonable care > Artificial Condition > Risk of harm > Reason to Know Kids there > Children can't appreciate danger b/c of age, etc > risk to fix less than risk of harm

Answer 15

(Friends w/ permission) Reasonable care + to make safe or warn of hidden dangers - NO Duty to Inspect

Answer 16

(Comes for Economic / Business) | Reasonable w/ Duty to Inspect

Answer 17

Maintain Common Areas / Repair Hazards + Warn of Hidden Dangers

Answer 18

1. Custom = admissible but not determinative 2. Pro = same as others in region 3. Dr = National Standard > Explain risks not commonly known, not if patient refuses knowledge, not if unconscious, not if patient harmed by disclosure

Answer 19

Is plaintiff in the class of persons that this statute designed to protect ? If Yes = Duty

Answer 20

Excuse = complying w/ statute would be MORE Dangerous — walking wrong way on road

Answer 21

- Not ordinarily occur w/o negligence - in exclusive control of defendant - not due to action of Plaintiff

Answer 22

But For ... (Multiple possible - could both defendants have done harm? Then they must prove they didn't ) - All joint / severable liable

Answer 23

Subtract from before and after

Answer 24

Legal Cause NO Duty or Proximate (Legal) Cause for -- UNFORSEEABLE Plaintiff / Unforeseeable harm -- HARM Not w/in scope of breach (kid drops gun on foot)

Answer 25

Yes - Liable for full extent

Answer 26

Make whole - Physical + Emotional - Plaintiff must mitigate - Punitive = If Intentional cause harm

Answer 27

1. W/In Zone of Danger | 2. Threat of Impact Caused Emotional Distress (w/ physical manifestation)

Answer 28

Employer and Employee can both be held liable - Must be in the scope of employment - - Deviation must be minor not major - Not Liable for Intentional Torts of Employee - Not Liable for Independent Contractors > can't delegate inherently dangerous activities > if person reasonably believed that employee was agent - employer said something

Answer 29

1. Parents not liable | 2. Only if entrusted negligently

Answer 30

2. Pure = Reduced by amount (%) of Plaintiff's Fault 3. Modified - Plaintiff more at fault = No recovery - P equally at fault = No recovery - P less at fault = reduced by amount of P's fault (Multiple Def = combine defs fault to compare)

Answer 31

Knowingly and Willingly Assume Risk - Express = written (unless disavows reckless or gross disparity in bargaining power) - Implied = Athletic events or proceeding in face of known unreasonable danger

Answer 32

1. The product is defective (i.e., manufacturing, design, or contains inadequate instructions or warnings); 2. The defect existed when the product left the defendant’s control; and 3. The defect caused the plaintiff’s injury when the product was used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way. (A plaintiff is not required to be in privity of contract with the defendant)

Answer 33

(without any proof of negligence) for personal injuries and property damage caused by the activity, regardless of precautions taken to prevent the harm. ---strict liability for an abnormally dangerous activity exists ONLY if harm that actually occurs results from the risk that made the activity abnormally dangerous in the first place.

Answer 34

1. That the defect exists 2. That had the defendant exercised reasonable care in the inspection or sale of the product, the defect would have been discovered, and the plaintiff would not have been harmed.

Answer 35

The defect in question is the manufacturer’s failure to provide an adequate warning related to the risks of using the product. 1) A defect exists if there were foreseeable risks 2) Not readily recognized by an ordinary user of the product 3) Which could have been reduced or avoided with reasonable instructions or warnings

Answer 36

The misuse, alteration, or MODIFICATION of a product by the user in a manner that is neither intended by nor reasonably foreseeable to the manufacturer typically negates liability. - not exactly street legal -

Answer 37

YES - Will be liable if alt designs avail to produce. If you did not or sold the bad design, then you'll be liable -- Cannot warn away a known defect --

Answer 38

Must be in the business of selling or otherwise distributing product of the type that harmed P

Answer 39

At the time of sale or distribution, it contains a manufacturing, design defect, or has inadequate warnings

Answer 40

Res ipsa loquitur — prove w/in defendant’s exclusive control — harm would not have occurred if ordinary care was used — plaintiff not responsible for his own injury BUT MUST BE 1 Def EXCLUSIVE CONTROL

Answer 41

- Risk in product - Not apparent to the ordinary user - Providing Adequate Warning would reduce or eliminate the risk

Answer 42

1. Consumer Expectation Test - the product failed to meet reasonable expectations of consumers that made it unreasonably dangerous 2. Alternative Design Test - There is a reasonable alternative design available that was economically feasible and the Defendant failed to use it which made the product unsafe

Answer 43

Private Necessity - applies if the 1. interference was reasonably necessary 2. to prevent a serious injury from nature or another force not connected with the property owner *P gets actual damages* (can't exercise this privilege on behalf of another if the defendant knows the other is unwilling for the def. to take such action) Public Necessity - to save a large number of people from disaster * If Def. acts reasonably, he is not liable for any damage (even if the original entry was not necessary, as long as he reasonably believed it was)

Answer 44

Person who comes to the aid of another is a foreseeable plaintiff - If the defendant negligently puts the rescuer in danger, then he is liable for the rescuer’s injuries.

Answer 45

if the injury results from a risk inherent in the job | then barred from recovery

Answer 46

No duty to act BUT | - If voluntarily aids or rescues another has a duty to act with reasonable ordinary care

Answer 47

A reasonable child of similar age, intelligence, and experience. (subjective b/c unable to appreciate risk) BUT engaged in a high-risk activity (adult activity) held to the same standard as an adult - Reasonably Prudent Person under the circumstances

Answer 48

1. Foreseeable / Highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised; and 2. The activity is not commonly engaged in.