Torts

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for assault. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional act by the defendant,
2. causation,
3. a reasonable apprehension,
   
   1. P must have “knowledge” not “fear”
4. Of an immediate harmful or offensive touching (ie. Battery).
   
   1. Words alone (threat) lack immediacy – also need observable physical conduct

Question 2

Battery

Answer 2

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for battery. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. a volitional act *by the defendant,
2. intent,
   
   1. Specific intent – goal to bring specific consequences
   2. General intent – D knows w/ “substantial certainty that consequences will result
3. causation,
4. a harmful or offensive touching to plaintiff’s person
   
   1. Plaintiff’s person = Plaintiff and anything connected to P
   2. Harmful or offensive touching = measured by a reasonable person standard
   3. Offensive = contacts not acceptable in our society
   4. Touching doesn’t have to be immediately after D’s volitional act

Question 3

Conversion

Answer 3

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for conversion. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional act by the defendant,
2. that causes a serious interference,
3. with plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel.
   
   1. Note the difference w/trespass to chattels is the remedies – if interference is significant “conversion” is the appropriate claim – if successful, a plaintiff may recover the fair market value of the chattel at time of conversion or seek recovery of the chattel (replevin).

Question 4

False Imprisonment

Answer 4

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for false imprisonment. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. Intentional,
   
   1. Intentional act can be a threat
   2. Omission is when D has a preexisting duty to act affirmatively to help P, but fails to do so
2. Physical or psychological confinement of another
   
   1. P is not confined or restrained if P doesn’t know she is confined or restrained
3. Within fixed boundaries,
   
   1. If there is a reasonable means to escape, then P is not “bounded”
4. For any period of time,
5. Without consent or privilege.

Question 5

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 5

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional or reckless act by the defendant,
2. amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct,
   
   1. “Outrageous conduct” = exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in out civilized society
   2. Hallmarks of outrageous conduct:
      
      1. Conduct is continuous or repetitive in nature
      2. The D is a common carrier or an inn keeper (obligation to be dubiously kind + courteous)
      3. P is a member of a “fragile class” (young children, elderly, pregnant women)
      4. Conduct if outrageous if D knows of Ps “hyper-sensitivity” and then exploits this “sensitivity”
3. causation,
4. severe emotional distress.

Question 6

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 6

Plaintiff Adam could sue Defendant Baker for trespass to chattels. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional act by defendant,
2. that causes an interference (intermeddling/damaging or dispossession),
3. with plaintiff’s right of possession in a chattel.
   
   1. Note the difference w/conversion is the remedies – if interference is minor “trespass to chattels” is the appropriate claim – if successful, a plaintiff may recover actual and loss of use damages.

Question 7

Trespass to Land

Answer 7

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for trespass to land. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional act by the defendant,
2. that causes a physical invasion,
   
   1. D can either: (1) enter property or (2) throw or propel tangible objects onto the land
3. of plaintiff’s real property,
   
   1. Real property includes air above land and soil below to a reasonable distance

Question 8

Private Nuisance

Answer 8

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for private nuisance. To establish a prima facie case, a private plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional or negligent act by the defendant,
2. that causes a substantial (e.g., offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in plaintiff’s community), and
3. unreasonable interference (e.g. the injury suffered by the plaintiff weighs more than the utility of defendant’s conduct),
4. to plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of his property.

Question 9

Public Nuisance

Answer 9

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for public nuisance. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. an intentional or negligent act by the defendant,
2. that causes an unreasonable interference (e.g. the injury suffered by the plaintiff weighs more than the utility of defendant’s conduct),
3. to the health, safety, or welfare of the community.

Question 10

Intentional Torts Mnemonic

Answer 10

ABC-FITT + Private/Public Nuisance

Question 11

Defenses to I/T - Consent

Answer 11

Defendant may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff was privileged due to consent. To establish this defense, a defendant must prove the following elements:

1. plaintiff consented (express or implied), and
2. defendant acted within the boundaries of the plaintiff’s consent.

Question 12

Defenses to I/T - Self-Defense

Answer 12

Defendant may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff was privileged due to self-defense. To the establish this privilege, a defendant must prove the following elements:

1. a reasonable belief,
2. that he was or about to be attacked by the plaintiff, and
   
   1. D must act in “real time” during the “moment” P attacks – no revenge
3. reasonable and proportional force was used.
   
   1. A mistaken belief as to the existence of danger is permitted as long as it is reasonable.

Question 13

Defenses to I/T - Defense of Others

Answer 13

Defendant may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff Adam was privileged due to the defense of others. To establish this privilege, a defendant must prove the following elements:

1. a reasonable belief,
2. that a third person was or about to be attacked by the plaintiff,
3. the third person could justifiably used force to defend themselves, and
4. reasonable and proportional force was used.
   
   1. A mistaken belief as to the existence of danger is permitted as long as it is reasonable.

Question 14

Defenses to I/T - Ejectment (Defense of Property)

Answer 14

Defendant may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff Adam was privileged due to the defense of his real property. To establish this privilege, a defendant must prove the following elements:

1. a timely demand to leave the real property [unless the statement would clearly be futile or dangerous],
2. reasonable and proportional force was used to eject the plaintiff.

Question 15

Defenses to I/T - Necessity (Defense of Property)

Answer 15

Plaintiff may defend that his entry onto Defendant property was privileged because of public necessity. To establish this privilege, a plaintiff must prove the following elements:

1. that he entered onto another person’s property because it was reasonably and apparently necessary,
2. to avoid a threatened injury to the public as a whole or a significant group of people, and
3. the threatened injury was substantially more serious than the invasion onto D’s land to avert it.

Question 16

Defenses to I/T - Recapture of Chattel

Answer 16

Defendant may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff was privilege due to the defense of recapture of chattels. To establish this privilege, a defendant must prove the following elements:

1. he made a timely demand that plaintiff return the chattel [unless the request would have been clearly futile or dangerous],
2. plaintiff intentionally and wrongfully possessed the chattel, and
3. defendant was in hot pursuit of one who has obtained possession wrongfully (i.e., theft).
   
   1. Generally, a defendant’s reasonable mistake is not permitted.

Question 17

Defenses to I/T - Shopkeeper’s Privilege

Answer 17

Defendant Baker may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff Adam is protected by the shopkeeper’s privilege. To establish this privilege, a defendant shopkeeper must prove the following elements:

1. a reasonable belief that the plaintiff committed a theft,
2. the detention was conducted in a reasonable manner, and
3. the detention lasted for a reasonable period of time.

Question 18

Defenses to I/T - LEO’s Power to Arrest a Suspected Felon

Answer 18

Defendant may defend that his intentional tort against Plaintiff was privileged due to arrest. To establish this privilege, a defendant must show:

1. he is a police officer,
2. he reasonably believed that a felony was committed,
3. by the person arrested, and
4. reasonable force was used [deadly force is only permitted if the suspect poses a threat of serious harm].

Question 19

Defenses to I/T - Private Person’s Power to Arrest a Suspected Felon

Answer 19

For a private citizen to establish the privilege of felony arrest, he must prove the following elements:

1. he reasonably believed,
2. that the person arrested committed a felony,
3. a felony was in fact was committed, and
4. reasonable force was used [deadly force is only permitted if the suspect poses a threat of serious harm].

Question 20

Defenses to I/T - LEO and PP’s Power to Arrest a Suspected Misdemeanor

Answer 20

For a private person or police officer to establish the privilege of misdemeanor arrest, he must prove the following elements:

1. the criminal offense caused a breach of the peace,
2. the crime was committed in the arresting party’s presence, and
3. reasonable force was used [and deadly force is never permitted].

Question 21

Negligence

Answer 21

Plaintiff can sue Defendant for negligence. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care, (2) defendant breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause, (4) of harm to the plaintiff.

Question 22

Duty - Special: Violation of Statute

Answer 22

Violation of Statute (ICI+)

• If statute, court will look to the:
  
  • Intent of the legislature in enacting the statute,
  • If the plaintiff fell within the class of persons the statute was intended to protect and
  • If the plaintiff suffered the type of injury the statute was designed to prevent.
  • +: Evidentiary effect: Majority – Negligence Per Se, Minority: Inference of negligence, and CA: Presumption of negligence.

Question 23

Duty - Special: Guest Statute (Passenger in Car)

Answer 23

If P is a guest, then he must show gross negligence (recklessness) on the part of the driver to recover to prevent insurance collusion.

Question 24

Duty - Special: Omission to Act

Answer 24

No duty to go to the aid of another in an emergency unless:

• Injured by instrumentality under D’s control
• Special relationship between parties
• Statutory duty to act
• Gratuitous undertaking: No duty, however, if undertaken cannot leave individual in a worse situation.

Question 25

Duty - Special: L/O of Land - Trespasser

Answer 25

Duties owed to persons coming onto land: Trespassers: Artificial Conditions – Duty to inspect and maintain such structures in a reasonably safe condition. * Infant: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine (Mnemonic: **_AP**_rofessor _**Y**_ou _**U_**nderstand) * Dangerous artificial condition creating an unreasonable risk of harm * Possessor of land knew or should have known that children are likely to trespass * Children unable to recognize danger because of their youth * Utility of maintaining the condition vs. the burden of eliminating the risk * Child need not have been attracted onto the land by the dangerous condition.

Question 26

Duty - Special: L/O of Land - Licensee

Answer 26

Licensee: Entering with permission, but not for which property is maintained (social guests, fire-fighters, and police officers if not acting in the scope of their official duties) Ordinary care required and D must warn of known dangers or make safe.

Question 27

Duty - Special: L/O of Land: Invitee

Answer 27

Invitee: Entering with permission for which property. D must warn of all dangers of which D knows or could have discovered by a reasonable inspection to make safe.

Question 28

Duty - Special: Lessor of Land

Answer 28

Lessor owes duty to warn Lessee of: * Latent defects or dangerous conditions on premise * Repair conditions dangerous to persons outside premise * Public land – same duty as invitee * Safeguard against crime

Question 29

Duty - Special: Professionals & Specialists

Answer 29

* Professionals are held to the standard of: (1) an average member of the profession, (2) in their same or similar communities. * Raising standard of care for - Specialists are held to: (1) an average specialist in their profession, (2) in the nation.

Question 30

Duty - Special: Children Standard

Answer 30

Children are held to the subjective standard of: (1) a child of like age, (2) education, (3) intelligence, and (4) experience. However, children engaged in adult activities (e.g. operating machines with engines) are held to an adult reasonably prudent person standard of care. * Children under 4 are deemed incapable of being negligent.

Question 31

Duty - Special: Common Carriers / Innkeepers

Answer 31

Common carriers and innkeepers owe their customers the duty of a very high standard of care (ok to hold them liable for slight negligence), beyond the reasonable prudent person standard.

Question 32

Duty - General

Answer 32

D owes an objective duty to not create a foreseeable risk of harm to the P. The standard of care is based on what a reasonable person would be expected to do under the same or similar circumstances. * Standard of Care – To whom is the duty of care owed 1. Cardozo: Foreseeable P in a foreseeable zone of danger (Majority View). 2. Andrews: General duty owed to everyone (Minority View).

Question 33

Breach

Answer 33

**D breached a duty through an act/omission exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.** 1. Utility v. Risk: Show that D acted unreasonably, utility of breach fell below risk of beach 2. Res Ipsa Loquitur: * Accident does not normally occur in the absence of negligence * Source of negligence must be within the scope of duty owed by D to P * P must not have contributed to his own injury

Question 34

Causation - Actual Causation

Answer 34

But For D’s act, P would not have suffered injury.

Question 35

Causation - Proximate Causation

Answer 35

P must prove that D would foresee that negligent conduct would cause the type of harm suffered by P.

Question 36

Causation - Proximate Causation: Direct Causation

Answer 36

Acts of D caused damage to P without intervening cause. * Exception: **Egg Shell Plaintiff**: D liable for all results, foreseeable and unforeseeable, if the result stems from a pre-existing condition from P.

Question 37

Causation - Proximate Causation: Indirect Causation

Answer 37

P’s damage caused by intervening act of third person, animal, or God after D’s act * **Unforeseeable** if it was an indirect result of the D’s breach unless: 1. subsequent medical malpractice, 2. rescue, 3. reactionary forces (e.g. panic or stampede), or 4. a subsequent diseases or accidents caused by plaintiff’s weakened condition (reviving microbes in Putney’s knee). * **Foreseeable** – hold the D liable b/c there is proximate causation

Question 38

Damages

Answer 38

If P proves, duty, breach, and causation, then plaintiff may recover for injuries that he suffers (general damages), but has a duty to mitigate damages.

Question 39

Damages - Property

Answer 39

Property damage - reasonable cost of repair or fair market value of the property at the time of the accident.

Question 40

Damages - Punitive

Answer 40

Plaintiff may also recover punitive damages is defendant’s conduct is “wanton and willful.”

Question 41

Damages - Egg Shell P

Answer 41

D will be liable for all of the damage caused here + includes damage not only to P's person but also to P's property (taking P's property as we find it)

Question 42

Defenses to Negligence - Contributory Negligence

Answer 42

P will be barred to recover from D under negligence if any negligence on the part of P contributed to the accident.

Question 43

Defenses to Negligence - Assumption of Risk

Answer 43

P will be barred to recover under negligence if P consented to D's conduct that led to the harm.

Question 44

Defenses to Negligence: Comparative Negligence (Partial)

Answer 44

P will be barred from recovery if the court determines that P was 51% at fault.

Question 45

Defenses to Negligence: Comparative Negligence (Pure)

Answer 45

P's recovery and D's liability for negligence will be apportioned by % of fault. P will only be entitled to recover the % of fault apportioned as of D's conduct.

Question 46

Strict Liability - Activity (Rylands v. Fletcher)

Answer 46

If there is a non-natural use of the land and something escapes from the property, defendant is strictly liable.

Question 47

Strict Liability - Restatement 1 (Ultrahazardous Activity)

Answer 47

An activity is ultrahazardous if: 1. The activity involved a serious risk of harm, 2. The activity can be performed without risk of serious harm, and 3. The activity is not commonly engaged in that particular community.

Question 48

Strict Liability - Restatement 2 (Abnormally Dangerous Activity)

Answer 48

An activity is abnormally dangerous if: 1. The activity involved a high degree of risk of harm, 2. The risk can be eliminated with the exercise of reasonable care, 3. The activity is a matter of common usage in that particular community, 4. The activity is appropriate to the place where it is being carried, and 5. The value of the activity to the community.

Question 49

Strict Liabilities: Animals

Answer 49

An owner is strictly liable for: 1. Reasonably foreseeable damage done by a trespass of his animals. 2. Injuries by wild animals due to the dangerous propensity typical of the species. 3. Injuries by domestic animals known to be dangerous only if owner knew or should have know of the animal's dangerous propensities.

Question 50

Strict Liability - Defenses

Answer 50

Assumption of Risk - P will be barred to recover under negligence if P consented to D's conduct that led to the harm.

Question 51

Products Liability - Intent

Answer 51

Intent 1. Knowledge – Mfg./Distro/Supplier knew that product would cause harm 2. Substantial Certainty 3. Battery 4. Punitive $ - If D’s conduct is reckless.

Question 52

Products Liability - Negligence

Answer 52

Negligence 1. Duty – Duty to inspect, discover, correct defects, and warn of unavoidably unsafe product to all foreseeable users. 2. Breach – P must prove that defective product failed to meet the ordinary commercial expectations of the average reasonable consumer. The consumer expectation can be measured by a cost/benefit test: benefit in greater safety outweighs the cost of design changes that would lessen the hazard to the consumer. * Defect in manufacturing, defect in design, and defect in warning * Res Ipsa Loquitur: Accident is the type that does not happen in the absence of negligence, negligence must be within scope of D’s duty to P, P did not contribute to his own injury. 3. Causation: Actual and Proximate cause of the injuries. 4. Damages: Personal/Property/Punitive damages if D’s conduct is reckless (No Pure Economic Loss). 5. Defenses: Contributory (Assumption of Risk) and Comparative Negligence (Partial/Pure).

Question 53

Products Liability - Warranty (Expressed)

Answer 53

When commercial supplier makes a representation of fact on which P has relied to his damage. **\*Can recover Pure Economic Loss.**

Question 54

Products Liability - Warrant (Implied Warranty of Merchantability)

Answer 54

A merchant selling goods warrants that they are of average and fair quality and fit for intended and normal use.

Question 55

Products Liability - Implied Warrant of Fitness

Answer 55

Implied Warranty of Fitness for intended use: If Seller knows of buyer’s intended use and buyer acting as an average reasonable person, relies upon Seller’s “special knowledge and skills” to his damage, then liability exists.

Question 56

Products Liability - Warranty: Causation

Answer 56

Actual and Proximate cause of the injuries.

Question 57

Products Liability - Warranty: Damages

Answer 57

Personal/Property/Punitive damages if D’s conduct is reckless (No Pure Economic Loss).

Question 58

Products Liability - Warranty: Defenses

Answer 58

Defenses * Misuse of Product: Use that is not foreseeable to manufacturer. * Assumption of Risk: P has knowledge, comprehension, and appreciation of a danger and voluntarily proceeded anyways. * Contributory (Assumption of Risk), Disclaimers, UCC defense of timely notice.

Question 59

Productions Liability - Strict Liability (Tort): Duty

Answer 59

Stream of Commerce: Mfg./Distro/Supplier knew that product would cause harm and a defective product placed into the stream of commerce the manufacturer will be held strictly liable in tort to all consumer-users for their injuries.

Question 60

Productions Liability - Strict Liability (Tort): Duty

Answer 60

Stream of Commerce: Mfg./Distro/Supplier knew that product would cause harm and a defective product placed into the stream of commerce the manufacturer will be held strictly liable in tort to all consumer-users for their injuries.

Question 61

Productions Liability - Strict Liability (Tort): Breach

Answer 61

Defective Product: Must be sold by a commercial seller and be unreasonably dangerous in its normal intended use (use Consumer expectation test). Defect in Existence: Defect in existence at time it left the hands of the manufacturer and then placed in the stream of commerce.

Question 62

Productions Liability - Strict Liability (Tort): Causation

Answer 62

Actual and Proximate cause of the injuries.

Question 63

Productions Liability - Strict Liability (Tort): Defenses

Answer 63

Indemnification: One secondarily liable is entitled to indemnification against defendant primarily responsible. Misuse of Product: Use that is not foreseeable to manufacturer.

Question 64

Productions Liability - Strict Liability (Tort): Damages

Answer 64

Personal/Property/Punitive damages if D’s conduct is reckless (No Pure Economic Loss).

Question 65

Defamation

Answer 65

P must prove that * the matter was false and defamatory, * published intentionally or negligently by D to 3P, * 3P understood the defamatory imputations applied to P, and * Defamation per quod: statements understood only as defamatory by use of extrinsic facts * Inducement: Extrinsic facts necessary to establish and understand defamatory meaning. * Innuendo: Meaning which results from the inducement. * Colloquium: Defamatory statement that makes no reference to P. P has burden to establish that the person to whom the defamation was published reasonably interpreted it as referring to P. * P suffered damage because of the defamation.

Question 66

Defamation - Damages: Slander

Answer 66

Slander (ear): Special pecuniary damages actually suffered that flow directly from defamation need to be proven unless per se (CLUB: Crime, Loathsome Disease, Unchastity, Business). Once specials proven, general damages are recoverable.

Question 67

Defamation - Damages: Libel (eye)

Answer 67

Libel (eye): Libel on its fact (Libel per se), specials not required and general damages are presumed.

Question 68

Defamation - Defenses

Answer 68

* Truth * Consent * Absolute Privileges * Judicial Proceedings * Legislative Proceedings * Executive – official statements of government officials * Husband/Wife * Broadcasters (equal time doctrine) * Qualified – D may assert defense if there is * a strong public interest, * common interest (business), * reports of public proceedings, * interest of publisher or others. * Constitutional Privileges – D may assert defense if: * Public Official/Figure: PFC + Actual Malice – Knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. * 1^st Amendment: Precludes holding the media liable for broadcasting a tape of a conversation that was illegally recorded, so long as the media played no role in the illegal taping and the tape concerned a matter of public importance.

Question 69

Invasion of Privacy

Answer 69

Interference with an individual's right to be left alone.

Question 70

Invasion of Privacy - Step 1: Appropriation of Plaintiff's Name/Likeness

Answer 70

Plaintiff can sue Defendant for appropriation of name or picture. To establish a prima facie case of appropriation, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **Defendant’s unauthorized use of plaintiff’s picture or name,** 2. **For defendant’s commercial advantage.** * **“Newsworthiness” exception – ex: tiger woods pic in sports illustrated is not appropriation**

Question 71

Invasion of Privacy - Step 2: Intrusion upon Seclusion

Answer 71

Plaintiff can sue Defendant for intrusion upon private affairs or seclusion. To establish a prima facie case for intrusion upon affairs or seclusion, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **Defendant pried or intruded,** 2. **Into plaintiff’s private affairs,** 3. **Which is objectionable to an reasonable person.** * **(1) P must be in a secluded place where there is a legitimate expectation of privacy; (2) no trespass is required for “intrusion”**

Question 72

Invasion of Privacy - Step 3: Public Disclosure

Answer 72

Defendant causes widespread dissemination of truthful private information.

Question 73

Invasion of Privacy - Step 4: False Light in the Public Eye

Answer 73

Plaintiff can sue Defendant for false light publication. To establish a prima facie case for false light publication, a plaintiff must prove: 1. **Defendant made widespread dissemination of** 2. **A material misrepresentation about the plaintiff (can either be defamatory or non-defamatory)** 3. **Which is objectionable to a reasonable person.** * **More damages = P can get “dignitary” damages over “economic damages”** * **D has no defense that he thought the information was correct**

Question 74

Invasion of Privacy - Defenses

Answer 74

* Consent * Truth is no defense – exception: False Light * Newsworthy (press can report on matters of legitimate public interest and concern) * Public figures: enter vortex of controversy but should not exceed realm of decency * Must prove actual malice: Private plaintiff v. media defendant as to a matter of public interest * No constitutional privilege if matters are of private concern

Question 75

Invasion of Privacy - Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 75

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **an intentional or reckless act by the defendant,** 2. **amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct,** 1. “Outrageous conduct” = exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in out civilized society 2. Hallmarks of outrageous conduct: 1. Conduct is continuous or repetitive in nature 2. The D is a common carrier or an inn keeper (obligation to be dubiously kind + courteous) 3. P is a member of a “fragile class” (young children, elderly, pregnant women) 4. Conduct if outrageous if D knows of Ps “hyper-sensitivity” and then exploits this “sensitivity” 3. **causation,** 4. **severe emotional distress.**

Question 76

Intentional Misrepresentation (Fraud/Deceit)

Answer 76

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for intentional misrepresentation. To establish a prima facie case for intentional misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **Misrepresentation of a material fact,** 2. **D has knowledge of the falsity,** 3. **Intent to induce the plaintiff to act or refrain from acting,** 4. **causation,** 5. **justifiable reliance, and** 6. **actual economic damages.**

Question 77

Negligent Misrepresentation

Answer 77

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for negligent misrepresentation. To establish prima facie case for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **misrepresentation of a material fact,** 2. **defendant was acting in a business or professional capacity,** 3. **defendant owed plaintiff a duty,** 4. **breach of the duty,** 5. **causation,** 6. **justifiable reliance, and** 7. **damages.**

Question 78

Malicious Prosecution

Answer 78

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for malicious prosecution. To establish a prima facie case for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **institution of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff,** 2. **resolution of the case in plaintiff’s favor,** 3. **defendant did not have probable cause,** 4. **defendant’s purpose was improper, and** 5. **damages.**

Question 79

Abuse of Process

Answer 79

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for abuse of process. To establish a prima facie case for abuse of process, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: 1. **defendant wrongfully used legal process,** 2. **based upon an ulterior motive, and** 3. **acted against or threatened the plaintiff to accomplish the ulterior motive.**

Question 80

Interference with Business Relations

Answer 80

Plaintiff could sue Defendant for interference with business relations. To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must show: 1. **Defendant knows of,** 2. **The existence of a valid contractual relationship or expectancy between plaintiff and a third party,** 3. **Defendant intentionally interfered with that contact or expectancy relationship, and** 4. **Damages.** 5. **Defense of Privilege - Defendant’s conduct may be privileged where it is a proper attempt to obtain business for itself or protects its interests.**

Question 81

Approaches - Intentional Torts

Answer 81

1. Intent 2. ABC-FITT + Private/Public Nuisance 3. Defenses 4. Remedies

Question 82

Approaches - Negligence: Special Duties

Answer 82

1. Violation of Statute 2. Guest Statute 3. Omission to Act 4. L/O of Land 5. Duties Owed By Lessors Of Land \* V-GOLD

Question 83

Approaches - Strict Liability

Answer 83

1. Activity 2. Rylands v. Fletcher 3. R1/R2 4. Absolute Duty To Make Safe 5. Foreseeable P/Harm 6. Causation 7. Damages 8. Defenses

Question 84

Approaches - Products Liability: Intent

Answer 84

1. Intent * Knowledge * Substantial Certainty * Battery * Punitive $

Question 85

Approaches - Products Liability: Negligence

Answer 85

1. Negligence * Duty * Breach * Causation * Damages * Defenses

Question 86

Approaches - Products Liability: Warranty

Answer 86

1. Warranty * Expressed * Implied Warranty of Merchantability * Implied Warranty of Fitness * Causation * Damages * Defenses

Question 87

Approaches - Products Liability: Strict Liability (Torts)

Answer 87

1. Strict Liability - Torts * Stream of Commerce * Defective Product * Defect in Existence * Causation * Damages * Defenses - Indemnity

Question 88

Approaches - Defamation

Answer 88

1. Prima Facie Case 2. Damages 3. Defenses * Truth * Consent * Absolute * Qualified * Constitutional Privileges

Question 89

Approaches - Invasion of Privacy

Answer 89

1. Appropriation 2. Intrusion 3. Public Disclosure 4. False Light in Public Eye 5. Defenses 1. Consent 2. True - Not False Light 3. Newsworthy 6. IIED?