Torts

Question 1

Assault

Answer 1

(i) an attempt to commit a battery, or (ii) the intentional creation, other than by mere words, of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm

Question 2

Battery

Answer 2

battery requires plaintiff to prove (i) an act by defendant that brings about a harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff’s person, (ii) intent on defendant’s part to bring about harmful or offensive contact, and (iii) causation

Question 3

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 3

(i) an act of defendant that interferes 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. The act of interference may be either dispossession of or damage to the chattel.—Damages = replevin or repair costs

Question 4

Necessity Defenses

Answer 4

Private—not liable for trespass but will be liable for damages to property (themselves, family, or 1 person of community)

Public—absolute defense (to save members (non-family) of the community)

Question 5

IIED

Answer 5

Extreme and outrageous conduct—YES, high likelihood that they will suffer extreme distress.
Physical injury NOT required.

Question 6

Interference with Business Relations

Answer 6

(i) existence of a valid contractual relationship between plaintiff and a third party or a valid business expectancy of plaintiff; (ii) defendant’s knowledge of the relationship or expectancy; (iii) intentional interference by defendant that induces a breach or termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (iv) damage to plaintiff

Question 7

Negligence

Answer 7

(i) the existence of a duty (owe a duty of reasonable care to everyone) on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the plaintiff against unreasonable risk of injury, (ii) breach of that duty by the defendant, (iii) that the breach of duty was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (iv) damage to plaintiff’s person or property

Although the extent of precautions necessary may not be as great when the defendant’s conduct poses a risk of harm only to property and not to persons, the same general rules of negligence apply.

Question 8

Rescuers

Answer 8

Rescuers are always foreseeable actors. Only liable for injuries if they don’t do so in a manner in which a reasonably prudent person would.

Question 9

Negligent Hiring/Supervision—Right to Indemnification

Answer 9

Parents can be liable, however, for their own negligence, i.e., in not exercising due care under the circumstances.

Can be held for frolic/outside scope if gave means to commit the tort

Where one is vicariously liable for the torts of another, the former has a right of indemnity against the latter.

Question 10

Prox Cause

Answer 10

whether or not the cause was foreseeable. Usually criminal acts break the causation unless put in dangerous area

Question 11

Pure Comparative Negligence

Answer 11

Held to proportional share of liability (default)

Question 12

Dramshop Acts

Answer 12

create a cause of action in favor of any third person injured by the intoxicated vendee.

Question 13

Emotional Distress

Answer 13

most states allow recovery only if: (i) the plaintiff and the person injured by the defendant are closely related; (ii) the plaintiff was present at the scene of the injury; and (iii) the plaintiff personally observed or perceived the event.

Distress flowing from fear for her own safety, but she may prevail only if the defendant’s negligence placed her in a zone of danger

Question 14

RIL

Answer 14

While res ipsa loquitur is not generally available where more than one person may have been in control of the instrumentality causing the injury, it is available in a case where a particular defendant had the power of control over the site of the injury.

Question 15

Defective Products

Answer 15

Prove breach of duty in products liability case based on negligence P must show: (i) negligent conduct by D leading to (ii) the supplying of a defective product by D

May invoke res ipsa to show negligence—to rely on this, P must show the injury is the type that would not normally occur absent negligence and it usually occurse because of the manu’s negligence.

Question 16

SL

Answer 16

Defective products; Wild Animals; Dangerous Activities—if injured while running then still SL

Question 17

Defamation

Answer 17

(i) defamatory language on the part of the LIVING defendant; (ii) the defamatory language must be “of or concerning” the plaintiff (i.e., it must identify the plaintiff to a reasonable reader, listener, or viewer); (iii) publication (means communication of falsehood) of the defamatory language by the defendant to a third person; and (iv) damage to the reputation of the plaintiff.

Best defense is truth

Question 18

Qualified Privilege

Answer 18

As a former employer responding to queries of a prospective employer about a job applicant, the doctor has a qualified privilege. Such a privilege is not absolute; it exists only if exercised in a reasonable manner and for a proper purpose

Or if asked by P about their opinion

Question 19

Privacy—False Light

Answer 19

following elements must be proved: (i) publication of facts about plaintiff by defendant placing plaintiff in a false light in the public eye; and (ii) the “false light” must be something that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances

Question 20

Privacy—Public Disclosure of Private Facts

Answer 20

(i) publication or public disclosure by D of private info about P and (ii) the matter made public is such that its disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person—as long as made without actual malice, case may be privileged if matter of legit public interest

Reasonable mistake about consent not a valid defense

Question 21

Nuisance

Answer 21

o Private: substantial interference with P’s use and enjoyment of their land
o Public: Everyone in community experiences
o Defense: Hyper sensitive P
o Coming to the nuisance is not a defense
o Q80: Hypersensitive P is a defense; ordinary sensibilities would not be disturbed.

Question 22

Dr/Patient

Answer 22

o If an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in the patient’s position would have withheld consent to the treatment, the health care professional has breached this duty. However, breach of duty is only one element of a cause of action for negligence. The plaintiff must also establish actual and proximate cause and some damage to plaintiff’s person or property. Damage means actual harm or injury. Unlike for some intentional torts, damage will not be presumed and nominal damages are not available.

Complete absence of consent to a medical or surgical procedure may often constitute battery, which does not require damage as an element. However, a nondisclosure of the risks of the procedure is characterized instead as a breach of the duty of care.