P. 1
001 Torts Outline

001 Torts Outline

|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Brandon Mancuso
Torts Outline
Torts Outline

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Brandon Mancuso on Feb 09, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/09/2013

pdf

text

original

Torts Class 1

01.14.2010

IntroductionCourse webpage…. STANLEY -- files- PP reviews, syllabus - PP slides will be posted after class. o Skeleton of outline for class - Announcements-- reading assignments are here Class participation- If not prepared, inform prof prior to class. No penalty assessed. Preparation- Always figure out the procedural posture of each case. - Where and how something occurred - Case briefs- facts, posture, holding, reasoning, dissent. Torts- civil wrongs not covered by contract law. Liability- intentional, negligent, strict liability (covered in torts 2) Common law- writ must be filed for court to hear case. Wrongdoing must fall under certain writ (correct) in order for case to be heard. Old Common Law Trespass vi et armis - trespass with force and arms.-----Direct commission of violence by defendant to plaintiff. - Harm caused directly by defendant (def. threw log directly at plaintinff) Trespass on the case – harm was caused indirectly (def. threw log in street, plaintiff tripped n log)

Brown v. Kendall Massachusetts, 1850. 60 Mass. (6 Cush.) 292. Parties: Plaintiff: Brown Defendant: Kendall

Summary of Case: The two men’s dogs were fighting. Kendall tried to break them up by hitting them with a stick. When he raised the stick, he accidentally hit the plaintiff causing serious injury to his eye. Brown filed suit for an action of trespass for assault and battery. Defendants wishes for specific instructions to jury were denied. 4ft. stick How far was plaintiff away from def? 15 ft (rod). Def. was walking backwards because dogs were moving in that general direction. Trespass for assault and battery. Vi et armis (directly caused injury)- correct cause of action was filed Trial jury found in favor of plaintiff. Necessary act? -- Did he use ordinary care? (Jury instructions at trial) Issues: Was it necessary or proper for Kendall to interfere in the dog fight? Care that must be given depends on this question. Must exercise extraordinary care if act was not necessary. Was the correct degree of care taken by defendant and plaintiff?

should be guilty based directly on fault (must prove intent. Courts trying t get away from the notion that def. This evidence contradicts the plaintiff’s.An actor that acts intending to cause harmful or . did he use extraordinary care? Whose jury instructions are correct? Decision: A new trial was ordered. or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it”…. Appellate court Reasoning: A new jury must answer and decide on the issues affecting this trial. not the contrary. have knowledge that plaintiff would incur injury and his contact was harmful? Decision: The case was remanded. 1955 Summary: Ruth Garratt filed suit against Brian Dailey (then 5) for battery. or it will be almost impossible to appeal. Dailey Supreme Court of Washington.Did defendant “intend” to cause such injury? Did def. Elements of battery: .) Contributory negligence? Garratt v. defendant was found guilty. Restatement states “the actor desires to cause the consequences of his act. After remand. on remand. Garratt fell to the ground and sustained a serious hip injury. Jury can come to a conclusion under the correct set of instructions for “necessary and care”.. . Reasoning: In order for Dailey to be found guilty of battery. Dailey claimed that he was trying to move the chair so Garratt could sit in it. negligence. etc. it must be proven that defendant acted “knowingly” and intentionally that plaintiff was about to sit in chair and that she would have hit the ground causing injury as a result. necessity. -The trial court ruled in favor of Dailey claiming that he did not intend nor know of injuries that could be a result of his “prank”. encompasses both knowledge and desire to a degree of substantial certainty.offensive contact or to cause imminent apprehension of such contact and . Defendant must propose different jury instruction. Issue.If defendant had no legal duty to intervene. Dailey allegedly pulled out a chair from underneath Garratt right before she sat down. Plaintiff sued for battery.Harmful or offensive contact actually results.

Notes: The judge is the trier of fact in this case.Yes.Can 5 yr old have necessary intent to commit an intentional tort? . - . . sufficient understanding that moving the chair will cause plaintiff to fall and hit the ground.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->