Torts

Question 0

Intent required for intentional torts

Answer 0

The defendant has the purpose or desire to cause the consequences of act or knows with substantial certainty that the result would occur from the act

Question 1

What are the intentional torts

Answer 1

Battery
Assault
False Imprisonment 
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 
Trespass to Land
Trespass to Chattels 
Conversion

Question 2

Intentional torts

Answer 2

When a defendant commits a voluntary act with the intent to cause harm to the plaintiff and injury occurs and no privilege or defense exists

Elements

1. Voluntary Act
2. Intent
3. Causation
4. Harm
5. Lack of privilege or defense

Question 3

Intent for intentional torts: children and the mentally impaired

Answer 3

A majority of courts have held that both children and those who are mentally incompetent can be held liable for intentional torts if they either act with a purpose or know the consequences of their acts with a substantial certainty

Question 4

Torts: transferred intent

Answer 4

Transferred intent exists when a person intends to commit an intentional tort against one person but instead commits either a different intentional tort against that person, the intended tort against a different person, or a different intentional tort against a different person

The intent to commit one intentional tort suffices to satisfy the intent requirement for another intentional tort

Question 5

Transferred intent applies for what types of intentional torts

Answer 5

Transferred intent applies only when the intended tort and the resulting tort are among the following: battery, assault, false imprisonment, and trespass to chattels

Question 6

Battery

Answer 6

A defendant is liable for battery when he act with the intent to and does cause harmful or offensive contact to a victim’s person or property

Elements

1. Volitional Act
2. Intent to cause contact that is harmful or offensive
3. Causation of harmful or offensive contact

The plaintiff does not need to be aware of the contact when it occurs to recover
Property refers to something that is closely connected to the plaintiff, such as clothing, a pet on a leash, or a bicycle plaintiff is riding

Question 7

Battery: when is contact harmful

Answer 7

Contact is harmful if it causes injury, physical impairment, pain, or illness

Question 8

Battery: when is contact offensive

Answer 8

Contact is offensive when a person of ordinary sensibilities wold find the contact offensive

Hypersensitivity is not a factor unless the defendant was aware that the victim is hypersensitive but proceeds to act nonetheless in which the defendant may be liable

Question 9

Battery: damages

Answer 9

There is not actual proof of harm requirement for battery and the plaintiff may receive nominal damages even though no actual damage occurred

Many states allow for recovery of punitive damages if the defendant acted outrageously or with malice

Question 10

Battery: eggshell rule doctrine

Answer 10

The defendant is not required to foresee the extent of damages in order to be held liable for damages

Question 11

Assault

Answer 11

An act that is intended to and does cause reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery

Elements

1. Volitional Act
2. Intent to cause apprehension of immediate battery
3. Causation of immediate battery

Apprehension = awareness not fear
The ability to batter is irrelevant
Words alone are not enough (need words plus conduct)

Question 12

Assault: damages

Answer 12

No proof of damages is required for assault. The victim can recover nominal damages and, in appropriate cases, punitive damages

If the plaintiff suffers damages from physical harm, such as a heart attack, then he may recover these as well

Question 13

Intentional infliction of emotional distress

Answer 13

An intentional or reckless act by the defendant that is extreme and outrageous that causes the plaintiff sever mental distress

Elements

1. Intentional or reckless act
2. Extreme and outrageous conduct
3. Plaintiff suffers severe mental distress

Question 14

Intentional infliction of emotional distress: what is extreme or outrageous conduct

Answer 14

Conduct is extreme or outrageous if it exceeds the possible limits of human decency, so as to be entirely intolerable in a civilized society

Based on a reasonable person standard

Question 15

Intentional Infliction of emotional distress: When is a court more likely to find a defendant’s abusive language and conduct extreme and outrageous

Answer 15

If the defendant is in a position of authority or influence over the plaintiff, such as a police officer, employer, or school official, or traditionally an innkeeper or an employee of a common carrier; or the plaintiff is a member of a group with a known heightened sensitivity, such as young children, pregnant women, or elderly person)

Defendant in a position of authority
Plaintiff a member of a group with a known heightened sensitivity

Question 16

Defendant’s liability for IIED when the plaintiff witnesses extreme and outragous conduct towards a third party

Answer 16

The defendant is liable if he intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to a member of the victim’s immediate family who is present at the time of the defendant’s conduct whether or not such distress results in bodily injury if the defendant knew the person was present or any other bystander who is present at the time of the conduct if the distress results in bodily injury and the defendant knew the bystander was present

Two types of people could be liable to
Immediate family members
-Present at time of event in which immediate family member is victim
Defendant knew the person was present
_Does not have to suffer a bodily injury from distress
Bystander
0must be present
-Defendant knew bystander was present
-Suffered a bodily injury from the distress

Question 17

IIED: damages

Answer 17

The plaintiff must prove severe emotional distress beyond what a reasonable person could endure and in many cases, the very extreme and outrageous character of the defendant’s conduct itself provides evidence that the plaintiff experienced sever mental distress

If the plaintiff is hypersensitive, then there is no liability unless the defendant knew of the plaintiff’s heightened sensitivity

No need to prove physical injury except in the case of a bystander recovery when the victim who experienced the extreme and outrageous conduct is not an immediate family member

Question 18

False Imprisonment

Answer 18

An act that is intended to and does confine or restrain to a bounded area, a plaintiff against his/her will and the plaintiff knows of or is injured by the confinement

Elements

1. Volitional Act
2. Plaintiff confinement or restraint in a bounded area
3. Against Plaintiff’s will
4. Plaintiff was aware of confinement or was injured by it

Infants or incompetents who are incapable of being aware may still recover for false imprisonment
Plaintiff has no duty to resist if defendant uses/makes credible threat of physical force

Question 19

What is confinement for false imprisonmnet

Answer 19

1. physical barriers
2. physical force
3. direct or indirect threats to to the plaintiff, a third party, or the plaintiff’s property
4. by the invalid assertion of legal authority, duress, or the failure to provide a reasonable means of safe escape
5. failing to release the plaintiff where the defendant had a legl duty to do so

Plaintiff is not confined if there is a reasonable means of escape of which the plaintiff is actually aware

Question 20

How long does a plaintff have to be confined for a false imprisonment claim

Answer 20

There is no duration element for false imprisonment but a longer duration may affect the amount of damages

Question 21

Shopkeeper’s privilege

Answer 21

A shopkeeper’s reasonable detention of a suspected shoplifter is not an invalid use of authority and hence is not a false imprisonment

Has to be reasonable in both duration and manner

Question 22

Requisite intent for false imprisonment

Answer 22

The requisite intent for false imprisonment is met if the defendant desires to confine or restrain the plaintiff in a bounded area or the defendant knows that such confinement substantially certain to occur

Question 23

What are the defenses to intentional torts

Answer 23

1. Privilege
2. Consent
3. Self Defense
4. Defense of others
5. Necessity
6. Authority

Question 24

Intentional tort defense: consetn

Answer 24

If a plaintiff consented to the defendant's act that constituted an intentional tort, the the defendant is not liable Consent must be effective and defendant must not exceed the scope of consent

Question 25

Intentional tort defense: what are the types of consent

Answer 25

1. Express consent is where the plaintiff affirmatively communicates permission to the defendant 2. Implied consent is where a reasonable person would interpret plaintiff's conduct as evidencing permission 3. Consent by matter of law is when the plaintiff is unable to consent and emergency action is necessary to prevent death or serious injury, a reasonable person would consent in the circumstances, and there is no reason to believe the plaintiff would not consent

Question 26

Intentional torts: what are the defenses to consent as a defese

Answer 26

1. Mistake 2. Fraud 3. Duress 4. Incapacity 5. Criminal Statute

Question 27

Intentonal torts: defense to consent: mistake

Answer 27

Consent by mistake is valid unless the defendant caused the mistake or knew of it and took advantage of it

Question 28

Intentional torts: defense to consent: fraud

Answer 28

Consent induced by raud is invalid if it goes to an essential matter but it is valid if the fraud that induced the consent goes only to a collateral matter

Question 29

Intentional torts: defense to cosnet: duress

Answer 29

Consent given while under duress (physical force or threats) is valid but the treat must be a present action, not of future actions

Question 30

Intentional torts: defense to consent: incapacity

Answer 30

Youth, intoxication, and incompetence each may undermine the validity of one's consent

Question 31

Intentional torts defense: self defense

Answer 31

A person may use reasonable force for protection against injury when the person reasonably believes he is in immediate danger Reasonable mistakes allowed Retreat is not necessary Self Defense is not available to aggressor unless other party uses deadly force and the aggressor only used non-deadly force Defendant cannot assert self defense when the plaintiff's threat is not about to happen, has been averted, or has ended

Question 32

Intentional tort defense: defense of others

Answer 32

If the plaintiff is attacking a third party, the defendant is entitled to defend the third party to the same extent that the third party would be entitled to defend himself agains the plaintiff As long as the belief is reasonable, the defendant is not liable even if he was mistaken in needing to defend the third party

Question 33

Intentional torts defense: defense of property

Answer 33

A defendant is allowed to use reasonable force to prevent a plaintiff from committing a tort against the defendant's property but the force used must be no greater than necessary to prevent threatened harm Defendant must first demand that the plaintiff stop the conduct unless doing so would be futile or dangerous Cannot use deadly force A defendant may use reasonable force to recover personal property tortiously dispossessed by the plaintiff Mistake is not allowed Use of force is not allowed to recover wrongfully dispossessed land

Question 34

Intentional torts defense: necessity

Answer 34

A defendant is permitted to injure a plaintiff's property if it is reasonably necessary to avoid a substantially greater harm to the pubic, the defendant, or the defendant's property Objective standard: would a reasonable person use force in defendant's place Mistake is okay as long as the defendant reasonably believes action is necessary If protecting the public interest, defendant's actions are only justified if the threatened harm is severe In most jurisdictions, defendant is still liable for damages to plaintiff's property if defendant acts out of private necessity If acting for public necessity, no liability for damages to the plaintiff's property

Question 35

Intentional torts: privelge

Answer 35

Under certain circumstances, a defendant may not be liable for his conduct even though he ordinarily would be due to a privilege May exist where the person affected by the defendant's conduct gave consent, some important personal or public interest will be protected by the defendant's ordinarily prohibited conduct and this interest justifies the harm caused or threatened by the defendant's conduct, and the defendant must act freely in order to perform an essential function Defendant has the burden of proving privilege and that the privilege was exercised reasonably

Question 36

Intentional torts defense: authority: arrest

Answer 36

With Warrant: a PO is not liable even if reasonable mistake made about identity Prevention of a felony in presence: Both PO and Private Citizens (PC) are not liable even if reasonable mistake on belief of felony in presence Arrest of person who committed a felony: No liability for PO or PC but a PC is liable if there was a mistake Arrest to stop a breach of peace: No liability for a PO or PC for a warrantless arrest even if there was a mistake Arrest for misdemeanor: the majority view is that there is liability for a warrantless arrest but the minority view is that there is no liability for a misdemeanor committed in the presence of a PO May enter onto an arrestee's land to make arrest

Question 37

Intentional torts defense: authoirty: discipline

Answer 37

A parent may use reasonable force or impose reasonable confinement as is necessary to discipline a child, taking into consideration the age of the child and the gravity of the behavior An educator has the same privilege unless the parent places restrictions on that privilege

Question 38

Trespass to chattel

Answer 38

An act where the defendant intends to and does interfere with the plaintiff's chattel, causing harm Elements 1. Act 2. Defendant intended to and does interfere with a plaintiff's chattel 3. Harm results (need actual damages) Mistake is not a defense Intent element is satisfied when the defendant performs the physical act Chattel: tangible personal property and intangible property that has a physical representation Plaintiff must have been in actual possession or have right to immediate possession Need either dispossession or intermeddling for this tort action -dispossession: direct interference with a possession -intermeddling: does not directly affect plaintiff's possession

Question 39

Tresspass to chattels: damages

Answer 39

In a case of dispossession, a plaintiff may recover for the actual damages caused by the interference and the loss of use In circumstances of use or intermeddling, the plaintiff may recover only when there are actual damages Plaintiff may be entitled to the diminution in value or the cost of repair

Question 40

Conversion

Answer 40

A defendant is liable for conversion if he intentionally commits an act depriving the plaintiff of possession of her chattel or interfering with the plaintiff's chattel in a manner so serious as to deprive the plaintiff of the use of the chattel Mistake is not a defense Defendant interferes with the plaintiff's chattels by exercising dominion or control over it

Question 41

What factors are considered in distinguisghing trspass to chattels and conversion

Answer 41

1. The duration and extent of the interference 2. the defendant's intent to assert a right inconsistent with the rightful possessor 3. the defendant's good faith 4. the expense or inconvenience to the plaintiff 5. the extent of harm to the chattel The greater the degree of these factors, the greater a likelihood that a conversion has occurred

Question 42

Intentional torts: conversion: damages

Answer 42

Plaintiff may recover damages in the amount of the full value of the converted property at the time of the conversion

Question 43

Trespass to land

Answer 43

Trespass to land occurs when the defendant's intentional act causes a physical invasion of the land of another The defendant need only have the intent to enter the land, or cause a physical invasion. Does not need to know that the land belongs to another Mistake of fact is not a defense May be committed on, above, or below the surface of the plaintiff's land Anyone in actual or constructive possession can bring an action

Question 44

Private Nuisance

Answer 44

A thing or activity that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the plaintiff's land

Question 45

Private Nuisance: what is a substantial interference

Answer 45

One that would be offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to a normal, reasonable person in the community

Question 46

Private nuisance: what is an unreasonable interference

Answer 46

the gravity of the plaintiff's harm outweighs the utility of the defendant's conduct

Question 47

who may bring a private nuisance claim

Answer 47

anyone with possessory rights in real property

Question 48

How to distinguish trespass from private nuisance

Answer 48

trespass requires a physical invasion of the plaintiff's property but nuisance does not but physical invasion may constitute a nuisance Private nuisance requires a substantial interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of plaintiff's property and trespass does not

Question 49

Is obstruction to sunlight a private nuisance

Answer 49

No

Question 50

defenses to a private nuisance claim

Answer 50

Have to look at whether the defendant's conduct is intentional, negligent, or abnormally dangerous to determine which defenses might apply

Question 51

Private nuisance defense: regulatory compliance

Answer 51

The fact that a defendant's behavior is in compliance with a statute, local ordinance, or administrative regulation is not a complete defense to a nuisance action but it may be admitted as evidence as to whether the interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of her land is unreasonable

Question 52

Nuisance defense: coming to the nuisance

Answer 52

The fact that a plaintiff came to the nuisance does not entitled the defendant to judgement as a matter of law, but it is evidence that the jury may consider

Question 53

Public nuisance

Answer 53

A public nuisance is when there is an unreasonable interference with the health, safety, and morals of a community Typically brought by a government actor such as the Attorney General

Question 54

How can an individual recover under a public nuisance claim

Answer 54

For an individual to recover under a public nuisance claim, a plaintiff must have sufficient harm of a kind different from that suffered by other members of the public

Question 55

What are the elements of negligence

Answer 55

``` Duty breach Cause-in-fact Proximate cause harm ```

Question 57

Negligence: traditional approach to standard of care

Answer 57

what a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances would or would not do

Question 58

Negligence: modern approach to standard of care

Answer 58

To weigh the foreseeable likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm, the foreseeable severity of any harm that may result, and the burden of precautions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm to determine if a defendant failed to exercise reasonable care under all of the circumstances

Question 59

General duty rule

Answer 59

a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable persons who may be injured by the defendant's failure to follow a reasonable standard of care an actor has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor's conduct creates a risk of physical harm

Question 60

Who is a foreseeable plaintiff under the majority (Cardozo) rule

Answer 60

Only plaintiffs who are within the zone of foreseeable harm

Question 61

Who is a foreseeable plaintiff under the minority (Andrew) view

Answer 61

If the defendant can foresee harm to anyone as a result of his negligence, then a duty is owed to everyone, foreseeable or not, harmed as a result of his breach May still not be able to recover if the injury is not closely enough connected to the breach (proximate cause)

Question 62

Foreseeable plaintiff: rescuers

Answer 62

A person who comes to the aid of another is a foreseeable plaintiff so if the defendant negligently puts either the rescued person or the rescuer in danger, then he is liable for the rescuers's injuries Comparative responsibility is available to reduce the rescuers recovery if the rescuer efforts was unreasonable

Question 63

Foreseeable plaintiff: firefighter's rule

Answer 63

An emergency professional, such as a police officer or firefighter, is barred from recovering damages from the party whose negligence caused the professional's injury if the injury results from the risk inherent in the job

Question 64

Foreseeable plaintiff: intended beneficiaries

Answer 64

A defendant is liable to a third party beneficiary if the legal or business transaction that the beneficiary is a part of is prepared negligently, and the defendant could foresee the harm of completing the transaction

Question 65

Is there an affirmative duty to act

Answer 65

Generally, there is no affirmative duty to ac except in a few notable exceptions

Question 66

What are the circumstances in which there is an affirmative duty to act

Answer 66

``` Assumption of duty Placing another in peril By contract By authority By relationship ```

Question 67

Affirmative duty to act exception: assumption of duty

Answer 67

A person who voluntarily aids or rescues another is liable for injury caused by a failure to act with reasonable ordinary care in the performance of that aid or rescue Good Samaritan statutes: some states have statutes that exempt medical professionals from liability or ordinary negligence but not from gross negligence

Question 68

Affirmative duty to act exception: placing another in peril

Answer 68

A person who places another in peril is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm by rendering care or aid

Question 69

Affirmative duty to act exception: by contract

Answer 69

There is a duty to perform contractual obligations with due care

Question 70

Affirmative duty to act exception: by authority

Answer 70

One with actual ability and authority to control another, such as parent over child and employer over employee, has an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable control and this duty is generally imposed upon the defendant when the defendant knows or should know that the third person is apt to commit the injuring act

Question 71

Affirmative duty to act exception: by relationship

Answer 71

A defendant with a unique relationship to a plaintiff, such as business proprietor-patron, common carrier-passenger, employer-employee, or parent-child, may have a duty to aid or assist the plaintiff and to prevent reasonably foreseeable injury to her from third parties

Question 72

Reasonably prudent person: mental and emotional characteristics

Answer 72

A mentally disabled person is held to the standard of someone of ordinary intelligence and knowledge A defendant who possesses special skills or knowledge is held to a higher standard so she must exercise her superior competence with reasonable attention and care

Question 73

Reasonable prudent person: intoxication

Answer 73

Intoxicated individuals are held to the same standards as sober individuals unless their intoxication was involuntary

Question 74

Reasonably prudent person: physical characteristics

Answer 74

The defendant's particular physical characteristics are taken into account in determining the reasonableness of the defendant's behavior A person with a physical disability will be compared to a reasonably careful person with the same disability

Question 75

Reasonably prudent person: children

Answer 75

The standard of care imposed upon a child is that of a reasonable child of similar age, intelligence, and experience, however, a child engaged in an adult activity is held to the same standard as an adult More subjective then than the adult standard because children are unable to appreciate the same risks as an adult Children under the age of five are generally found incapable of negligent conduct

Question 76

Cost-benefit analysis factors to consider in determining whether the defendant acted negligently

Answer 76

the foreseeable likelihood that the defendant's conduct would cause harm the foreseeable severity of any resulting harm Defendant's burden in avoiding the harm

Question 77

Standard of care: custom

Answer 77

Evidence of custom in a community or industry is admissible as evidence to establish the proper standard of care but it is not conclusive

Question 78

Standard of care for professionals

Answer 78

A professional person is expected to exhibit the same skill, knowledge, and care as another practitioner in the same community

Question 79

Standard of care: physicians

Answer 79

Many jurisdictions have changed to a national standard to determine standard of care and ask did the physician conform her conduct to the customary practice of the average qualified practitioner Physicians are under a specific obligation to explain the risks of a medical procedure to a patient in advance of a patient's decision to consent to treatment

Question 80

When is a physician not under an obligation to inform a patient of risks for informed consent

Answer 80

When the risk is a commonly known risk When the patient is unconscious When the patient waives or refuses the information When the patient is incompetent but the physician must try and get informed consent from a guardian When disclosure would be too harmful to the patient

Question 81

Negligence per se

Answer 81

When there is a criminal or regulatory statute that imposes a specific duty for protection of others and the defendant neglects to perform that duty, then the defendant is liable to anyone in the class of people intended to be protected by the statute for any accidents or harms of the type the statute was intended to protect against and that was proximately caused by the defendant's violation of the statute Statute gives specific duty Defendant neglects that duty liable to anyone in class meant to be protected for any accidents or harms intended to protect against Harm was proximately caused by defendant's violation `

Question 82

What defenses are available for negligence per se

Answer 82

Compliance was impossible An emergency justified the violation The violations was reasonable under the circumstances

Question 83

What circumstances would be reasonable under the reasonable circumstance defense for negligence per se

Answer 83

If the violation is reasonable in light of the defendant's physical disability or incapacitation If the defendant is a child If the defendant exercises reasonable care in attempting to comply with the statute If the statute imposes an obligation only under certain factual circumstances that are not usually present, and the defendant is not aware that these circumstances are present and further proves that his ignorance was reasonable If the requirements of the statute were presented to the public in a confusing manner

Question 84

Standard of care for common carriers

Answer 84

At common law, a common carrier was held to the highest standard of care consistent with the practicable operation of of the business and the majority of courts today still follow this rule

Question 85

Standard of care for innkeepers

Answer 85

At common law, a majority of jurisdictions held an innkeeper to the highest standard of care consistent with he practicable operation of the business but today a majority of courts hold that an innkeeper is only liable for ordinary negligence

Question 86

What is the standard of care for common carriers and innkeepers according to the Third Restatement

Answer 86

They must exercise reasonable care towards their passengers and guests and have an affirmative duty to act based on a special relationship

Question 87

Standard of care for automobile drivers

Answer 87

They owe a duty of ordinary care to their guests as well as their passengers In a minority of jurisdictions distinguish between guests and passengers by applying a guest statute which imposes only a duty to refrain from gross or wanton and willful misconduct with a guest in the car

Question 88

who is a a trespasser

Answer 88

someone who enters or remains upon the land of another without consent or privilege to do so

Question 89

what standard of care does a land possessor owe to a trespasser

Answer 89

A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct towards trespassers.

Question 90

What duty do landowners owe to a discovered or anticipated trespassers

Answer 90

They owe a duty to warn or protect them from concealed, dangerous artificial conditions They owe a duty to use reasonable care while conducting activities on their land, as well as to control the activities of third person on their property

Question 91

what duty does a landowner owe to an undiscovered trespasser

Answer 91

They generally owe no duty, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers but when a landowner should reasonably know that trespassers are consistently entering his land, the landowner owes a duty to the trespasser, regardless of the landowner's actual knowledge, as if the trespasser were a licensee

Question 92

When is a landowner liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land under the attractive nuisance doctrine

Answer 92

If an artificial condition exists in a place the owner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, the land possessor knows or has reason to know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to children, the children, because of their youth, do not discover or cannot appreciate the danger presented by the condition, the utility to the land possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk of harm presented to children, and the land possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect children from harm

Question 93

Who is an invitee

Answer 93

An invitee is a person who enters onto the defendant's land at the defendant's express or implied consent with a purpose relating to the defendant's interests or activities Classified as business or public invitees Public invitee: someone invited to enter or remain on the land for the purposes for which the land is held open to the public Business invitee: someone invited to enter or remain on the land for a purpose connected to business dealings with the land possessor

Question 94

What duty does a landowner owe to an invitee

Answer 94

The duty of reasonable care, including the duty to use reasonable care to inspect the property, discover unreasonably dangerous conditions, and protect the invitee from them If an invitee goes beyond the scope of invitation, the invitee is treated as a trespasser in areas beyond the scope of the invitation Duty to invitees is non-delegable

Question 95

Who is a licensee

Answer 95

Someone who enters the land of another with the express or implied permission of the land possessor or with a privilege Social guests Those whose presence is tolerated by the land possessor such as children that routinely cut across the land Emergency personnel

Question 96

What duty does a landowner owe to a licensee

Answer 96

a duty to either correct or warn a licensee of concealed dangers that are either known to the land possessor or which should be obvious to her Must exercise reasonable care in conducting activities on the land No duty to inspect for dangers

Question 97

Modern approach owe to invitees and licensees by landowner

Answer 97

Duty to exercise reasonable care under all circumstances to all land entrants except for trespassers Land possessor must use reasonable care to prevent harm posed by artificial conditions or conduct on the land Commercial land possessors also owe a duty to use reasonable care to prevent harm to the visitor posed by natural conditions If a natural condition is known to the non-commercial land possessor or the risk is obvious then there is a duty to prevent harm from that natural condition

Question 98

What liability does a landlord retain

Answer 98

The landlord remains liable for injuries to the tenant and others occurring in common areas, injuries occurring as a result of hidden dangers about which the landlord fails to warn the tenant, injuries occurring on premises leased for public use, injuries that occur as a result of a hazard caused by the landlord's negligent repair, or injuries involving a hazard that the landlord has agreed to repair

Question 99

What liability does a tenant have

Answer 99

The tenant is liable for injuries to third parties arising from dangerous conditions within the tenant's control, regardless of whether the land possessor has liability

Question 100

Duty owed to off-premises victims by landowner

Answer 100

Generally there is no duty to a person not on the premises who is harmed by a natural condition on the landowner's land except with respect to trees in urban areas Generally owes a duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to person who are not on the premises from an artificial condition on the landowner's land Generally owes a duty of reasonable care to persons who are not on the premises with respect to activity conducted on the premises by the owner or by someone subject to the owner's control