Torts and shit

Question 1

Intentional Torts Elements

Answer 1

Intent, act, causation, injury

Question 2

Two different kinds of intent in intentional torts

Answer 2

Specific = purpose is to act in a way that brings about the specific result
General = Knows w/ substantial certainty that these consequences will result

Question 3

Transferred Intent (IT)

Answer 3

Battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattel

Question 4

To determine liability (IT)

Answer 4

Act is done with intention of harm, offensive contact or apphrension thereof to another, contact is not consented or consented by fraud, contact is not otherwise privileged

Question 5

Battery defin & other application of it

Answer 5

• An act by the D which brings about a harmful or offensive contact to the P’s person and intent to bring the contact, and causation
• Apprehension is not necessary
• Liability extends to the consequences that the D didnt intend specifically and those that couldnt be anticipated

Question 6

Assault Defin and other ideas

Answer 6

• An act by the D creating a reasonable apprehension in a P of immediate harmful or offensive contact to the P person
• Must be aware of assault, immediate, D apparent ability to act is sufficient

Question 7

False Imprisonment defin & other ideas

Answer 7

An act or omission to act on the part of the D that confines or restraints the P to a bounded area AND intent on the part of the D to confine or restrain the P to the area AND P is aware of the confinment
- The P is not required to resist force, doesnt stand if they knew of a reasonable means of escape, moral pressure doesnt constitute FI

Question 8

Shopkeepers Privilege

Answer 8

There must be a reasonable belief as to the act of theft AND the detention must be done in a reasonable manner AND the detention must be made for a reasonable period of time

Question 9

IIED defin & other ideas

Answer 9

• An act by the D that is extreme and outrageous conduct, intent to cause the P severe emotional distress OR a recklessness as to the effect of the D conduct
• No physical injury required, D must know of their presence, conduct that transcends all bounds of decency tolerated by society

Question 10

Trespass to land

Answer 10

An act of physical invasion of the P real property, intent to bring about the invasion causes third party or object to invade the property, remains on property after consent has expired
- The intent is to step on the land not to trespass

Question 11

Trespass to chattels

Answer 11

• An act by the D interfering with the Ps right of possession in the chattel, intent to perform the act, damages
• Just intent to the act of interference
• Intermeddling = act that damages property

Question 12

Conversion

Answer 12

• The D interfering with the P right of possession of the chattel, intent, interference is serious enough D has to pay full value of chattel
• The longer the withholding and more extensive of use of the chattel the more likely a conversion has happened

Question 13

Nuisance

Answer 13

Requires a substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment of anothers land
- Can be intangible object

Question 14

Consent (Defense to IT)

When is it effective, two kinds, who cannot consent

Answer 14

• To be effective: a person must have the capacity to consent or must be able to appreciate the nature, extent, and consequences of the conduct consented to
• Express consent = P has expressly shown a willingness to submit to the D conduct
• Implied consent = Apparent consent, Consent implied by law
• Children, drunks, incompetents

Question 15

Self defense Defin (Defense to IT)

Answer 15

• A person has reasonable grounds to believe that they are being or about to be attacked may use force that is reasonably necessary for protection against injury

Question 16

Self defense, factors that determine if defense is reasonable

Answer 16

Amount of force, the means or object which force was applied, manner or method use, surrounding circumstances

Question 17

Self Defense - castle doctrine

Answer 17

Allows a person to protect their occupied dwelling at night by using deadly force without asking questions or retreating

Question 18

Self defense - deadly force

Answer 18

Deathly force is only available if an actor believes themselves to be facing death and must try retreating first unless they believe it to be futile

Question 19

Defense of others

Answer 19

• A person can defend another in the same manner and conditions as one could protect self from attack
• If mistakenly believes someone was in danger then it still available if mistake was reasonable

Question 20

Defense of property

Answer 20

P was trespassing AND reasonably believed force was necessary AND asked them to leave or reasonably believed that would be futile

• Deadly force can never be used for this
• May not be used to recapture property with exception of hot pursuit

Question 21

Necessity defin & two types

Answer 21

A person may interfere with real or personal property of another if interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force and where the threatened injury is more substantially serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it

• Public = where the act is for the public then it is a complete defense
• Private = if only for the actor or small number of ppl then you have to pay damages

Question 22

Firefighters rule

Answer 22

• Prohibits emergency personnel from holding a person liable for injuries suffered when responding to a situation created or caused by that person

Question 23

Negligence rule proof

Answer 23

Duty, breach, causation, injury

Question 24

Negligence - RPP factors

Answer 24

• Factors: cost of various courses of actions and reduce risks found to be worth it, risks in light of utility of conduct, foreseeable risk of injury, alternatives, extent of the risks posed by their conduct, adherence/departure to custom, likelihood of the risk causing harm

Question 25

Negligence - hand formula

Answer 25

B is less than or more than PL

Question 26

Negligence - RPP Medical Standard, informed consent

Answer 26

- Knowledge and skill of an ordinary member of the profession, requires expert testimony at trial - Informed consent = risks of procedure, necessity, alternative forms of treatment, material risks are disclosed - Defenses to IC = alarm and emergency

Question 27

Negligence - RPP Children

Answer 27

- Degree of care that child of like age, intelligence and experience - Exception is child doing an adult activity

Question 28

Negligence per se

Answer 28

- P is apart of the class statute is designed to protect, D did the type of act statute is trying to prevent - Statute creates the duty not the RPP

Question 29

Res Ispa Loquitor

Answer 29

- D had full control of the instrumentality, the circumstances could not have happened without negligence, the injury was a direct result of this

Question 30

Causation rule proof

Answer 30

Actual cause and proximate cause

Question 31

Actual cause

Answer 31

- Whether the conduct led to the injury, "but for" | - If there are two actors both can be actual cause

Question 32

Post hoc ergo propertr hoc

Answer 32

- The fact that one thing happened after another doesn't mean the first one caused the second one - More to prove causation then a sequence of events

Question 33

Actual cause - multiple sufficient causation

Answer 33

- If two actors did different negligent acts then they will ask if each alone was sufficient and if yes both are liable - Pre emptive causation doesn't count -- when a negligent act happens after the injury

Question 34

Actual Cause - Alternative liability

Answer 34

- Both actors did a negligent act at the same time and unsure which caused injury then both are liable unless they can prove they didn't cause injury

Question 35

Proximate causation and risk rule

Answer 35

- Injury was among type foreseeable from the negligent act - Risk rule: Risks of possible harms that a reasonable person would regard the conduct as negligent, did the actual harm match one of those?

Question 36

Proximate causation - egg shell skull

Answer 36

- Take the P as you find them even if a sensitivity made injury worse or injured when another wouldn't be

Question 37

Proximate causation - Rescue doctrine

Answer 37

Rescuers are a foreseeable risk when a negligent actor puts others in danger

Question 38

Proximate causation - foreseeable P

Answer 38

Negligent liability is limited to the class of persons who are placed at risk of foreseeable harm by the actors conduct

Question 39

Loss of chance doctrine - Traditional Rule

Answer 39

- Must show the outcome was most likely because D was negligent - 51% or more - Damages is all

Question 40

Loss of chance doctrine - Loss of Chance rule

Answer 40

- P must prove the D negligence caused the loss of the P chance of a favorable outcome - Recovery = total damages x amount of loss of chance

Question 41

Loss of chance doctrine - Relaxed standard rule

Answer 41

- P must prove the negligence substantially contributed to their outcome - Recovery is a question for the jury

Question 42

Exceptions to the no duty to rescue rule

Answer 42

1) Prior innocent/tortious conduct created a risk of harm 2) Statutory duty (good Samaritan laws) 3) Special relationship to π (employer-employee, landlord-tenant, store owner-customer, etc) 4) Special relationship to the source of risk (parent-child, employer-employee, etc) 5) Voluntary undertaking/taking charge

Question 43

Comparative negligence

Answer 43

If a D proves the P has failed to take precautions for their own safety then the jury will weigh the fault of the P against the fault of the D aka compare their respective degrees of fault and P recovery will reduced to proportion to the percentage of fault

Question 44

Contributory negligence - traditional & modern rules

Answer 44

Failure to use proper care for one's own safety b) Traditional approach is that if the jury believes the P contributed then they recover nothing c) Modern approach: i) If the D hadn't just acted negligently but recklessly then courts ignore the P involvement ii) Last clear chance doctrine - Allow P to recover if their act of negligence still gave the D an opportunity to avoid the harm but failed to do so - not said as a defense but used by the P to argue their contributory negligence shouldn’t dismiss the case