Torts Flashcards
MED
*SPECIFIC INTENT IN INTENTIONAL TORTS
An actor has specific intent when the actor acts with the purpose of causing the consequence.
The actor need NOT intend the specific injury that results from her actions to be liable for an intentional tort (e.g., Defendant punches Plaintiff in the shoulder breaking Plaintiff’s arm - it is irrelevant whether Defendant intended to break Plaintiff’s arm, only that Defendant intended to cause the contact that resulted in injury).
MED
*GENERAL INTENT IN INTENTIONAL TORTS
An actor has general intent when the actor knows that the consequence is substantially certain to occur. The actor need NOT intend the specific injury that results from her actions to be liable for an intentional tort (e.g., Defendant punches Plaintiff in the shoulder breaking Plaintiff’s arm - it is irrelevant whether Defendant intended to break Plaintiff’s arm, only that Defendant intended to cause the contact that resulted in injury).
MED
*BATTERY (4)
A battery occurs when the defendant:
- Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
- Harmful or offensive contact;
- To the plaintiff’s person; AND
- Has specific or general intent.
LOW
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
A false imprisonment occurs when the defendant:
- Causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
- The confinement of the plaintiff within fixed boundaries (the plaintiff must be aware of the confinement or harmed by it); AND
- Has specific or general intent.
Shopkeeper’s Privilege. A shopkeeper can detain a suspected shoplifter so long as the detainment is reasonable in both time and manner
lowest
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Intentional infliction of emotional distress occurs when the defendant:
- Acts with extreme or outrageous conduct;
- Which causes or is a substantial factor in bringing about;
- Severe emotional distress; AND
- Has intent to cause severe emotional distress OR acts with recklessness as to the risk of causing severe emotional distress.
MED
*CONSENT AS A DEFENSE TO INTENTIONAL TORTS
The plaintiff’s consent (express or implied) to the defendant’s conduct is a defense to intentional torts if:
- The consent was valid (e.g., no fraud, incapacity, etc.); AND
- The defendant’s conduct remained within the boundaries of the plaintiff’s consent (e.g., cannot use a knife in a boxing match).
HIGH
**NEGLIGENCE ELEMENTS (4)
The elements of the prima facie case for negligence are as follows:
- The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a specific standard of care;
- The defendant breached that duty;
- The breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; AND
- The plaintiff sustained actual damages or loss.
LOW
TO WHOM A DUTY OF CARE IS OWED
A duty of care is owed to all foreseeable plaintiffs that may be harmed by the defendant’s breach of the applicable standard of care.
There are two separate views:
- Under the majority view (Cardozo), the defendant is only liable to plaintiffs within the foreseeable zone of danger.
- Under the minority view (Andrews), the defendant owes a duty to everyone harmed.
MED
*AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO ACT (4)
In general, there is NO affirmative duty to act affirmatively or help others.
However, a duty to act affirmatively will arise if the defendant:
- Places the plaintiff in danger;
- Has a special relationship with the plaintiff (e.g., common carrier/passenger, innkeeper/guest, family members, etc.);
- Has a duty to act affirmatively imposed by law; OR
- Begins to administer aid or attempt to rescue the plaintiff.
HIGH
**STANDARD OF CARE: THE REASONABLE PERSON
The default standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff is that of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances as measured by an objective standard. The defendant is presumed to have average mental abilities and knowledge.
_________________________________
Physical Disabilities. Particular physical disabilities may be taken into account (e.g., blindness, deafness, etc.). E.g., the standard of care for a blind person would be that of a reasonably prudent blind person under the circumstances as measured by an objective standard
Intoxication. Intoxicated people are held to the same standard as sober people UNLESS the intoxication was involuntary.
Community Customs. Community customs may be relevant in determining reasonableness, but they are NOT dispositive.
NOTE. The reasonable person standard is the default standard of care. It should be applied unless a special standard of care applies (e.g., children, professionals, physicians, landowners, negligence per se, etc.).
MED
*STANDARD OF CARE: CHILDREN
Children are held to the standard of care of a reasonably prudent child of similar age, experience, and intelligence under the circumstances (more subjective).
However, if the child is engaged in adult activity, the court will not take the child’s age into account (i.e., the child will be held to an “adult” standard).
MED
*STANDARD OF CARE: PROFESSIONALS
A professional (e.g., nurses, lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects, etc.) is expected to exhibit the knowledge and skill of a member of the profession in good standing in similar communities.
MED
*STANDARD OF CARE: PHYSICIANS
Consent
Physicians are held to a national standard of care and have a duty to disclose the risks of treatment to enable a patient to give informed consent.
This duty is only breached if an undisclosed risk was so serious that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would not have consented upon learning of the risk.
MED
*PSYCHOTHERAPISTS’ DUTY TO WARN
In the majority of states, psychotherapists have a duty to warn potential victims of a patient’s serious threats of harm if the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out such threats and the potential victim is readily identifiable.
LOW
STANDARD OF CARE: LANDOWNERS TO DISCOVERED/ANTICIPATED TRESPASSERS UNDER THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Under the traditional approach, the standard of care that landowners owe to entrants upon their land varies depending on the status of the entrant.
For discovered/anticipated trespassers (discovered or anticipated trespassers enter the land without consent, but may be expected by the landowner), the landowner owes a duty to warn of (or make safe) hidden dangers on the land that pose a risk of death or serious bodily harm (only applies to artificial conditions that the landowner is aware of).
LOW
STANDARD OF CARE: LANDOWNERS TO UNDISCOVERED TRESPASSERS UNDER THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Under the traditional approach, the standard of care that landowners owe to entrants upon their land varies depending on the status of the entrant. The landowner owes NO duty to undiscovered trespassers (undiscovered trespassers enter the land without consent, and are not expected by the landowner).
LOW
STANDARD OF CARE: LANDOWNERS TO LICENSEES UNDER THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
A licensee is a person who lawfully enters the landowner’s property for her own purpose or benefit, rather than for the landowner’s benefit (e.g., social guests).
The landowner has NO duty to inspect his property for licensees but has duty to warn** of (or make safe) **hidden dangers** on the land that **pose an unreasonable risk of harm (applies to both artificial + natural conditions that the landowner is aware of).
LOW
STANDARD OF CARE: LANDOWNERS TO INVITEES UNDER THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH
An invitee is a person who is invited on the property for the owner’s own benefit or mutual benefit with the invitee (e.g., a customer shopping in a store that is open to the public).
The landowner owes a duty to the invitee to reasonably inspect the land for hidden dangers (artificial or natural) that pose an unreasonable risk of harm, and if discovered, make them safe.
LOW
STANDARD OF CARE: LANDOWNERS UNDER THE MODERN APPROACH
Several states have rejected the traditional approach distinctions between licensees and invitees simply applying a reasonable person standard to landowners.
In these states, landowners owe the same duty of reasonable care to all entrants on their land regardless of their status as invitees or licensees [although, status of the entrant may still be relevant to determine reasonableness under the circumstances).
