Torts

Question 1

conversion

Answer 1

(i) an act by defendant interfering with plaintiff’s right of possession in the chattel,
(ii) intent to perform the act bringing about the interference with plaintiff’s right of possession,
(iii) causation, and
(iv) damages—an interference that is serious enough in nature or consequence to warrant that the defendant pay the full value of the chattel.

Remember: Intent to trespass is not required; intent to do the act of interference with the chattel is sufficient for liability.

Question 2

battery

Answer 2

1. act by defendant that causes harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff’s person
2. intent to cause harmful or offensive contact
3. causation

Question 3

false imprisonment

Answer 3

1. an act or omission on part of defendant that confines or restrains plaintiff to a bounded area
2. intent on part of defendant to confine/restrain plaintiff
3. causation

Question 4

res ipsa loquitur

Answer 4

this doctrine hepls plaintiffs establish that a reach of duty occurred even though the plaintiff does not have evidence on that particular question

Elements:

1. accident causing injury was of the type that wouldn’t normally occur unless someone was negligent
2. negligence was attributable to the defendant (usually by showing exclusive control of defendant)
3. injury was not attributable to the plaintiff

Question 5

private nuisance

Answer 5

private nuisance is a substantial, unreasonable interference with another person’s use or enjoyment of her property.

Remember: The interference must be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community. It is not a substantial interference if it merely interferes with a specialized use of the land

Remember: the creater of the nuisance cannot always rely on reasonableness as a defense. Court might still find someone liable for nuisance even if there is no better way to conduct that activity. It’s ultimately a balancing question: utility of activity vs. harm to plaintiff

Question 6

merged cause

Answer 6

in a case where you have 2 defendants and merged causes, the appropriate test is the substantial factor test. Under this test, the defendant is liable if his breach substantially contributed to the ultimate injury suffered by the plaintiff

the 2 defendants are then jointly and severally liable for the injury

Question 7

NIED based on close relationship

Answer 7

for a bystander who is outside the zone of danger from the risk of physical injury but who suffers emotional distress from seeing the defendant negligently injure another, most states allow recovery only if:

1. the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant are closely related;
2. the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury; and
3. the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event