You are on page 1of 2

TORT CHECKLIST Intentional Torts 1) 2)

a.

Is there a prima facie for a particular intentional tort? If yes, are all the elements met?

3) If all the elements are not met, then no tort. If all the elements are met then does the Defendant have a privilege?
a.

Battery 1. Intent = conscious act + purpose to produce the legally relevant consequences or knowledge that the legally relevant consequences are substantial certain to occur. 2. Intent to produce a harmful or offensive contact 3. Harmful or offensive Contact b. Assault i. Intent to produce a H or O contact; intent to produce a H or O contact that fails ii. A well founded (reasonable) fear of imminent H or O contact iii. The apparent present ability to produce H or O contact c. False Imprisonment i. Intent to restraint the liberty of another ii. Restraint (physical, failure to fulfill a duty to furnace an exist, apparent legal authority, threats to a legally protected interest) iii. Awareness of restraint d. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress i. Intent to produce SED or reckless conduct ii. Extreme outrageous conduct iii. Casual connection between conduct and SED iv. Severe emotional Distress (SED) e. Trespass to Land i. Intent to enter ii. Entry iii. Lack of consent f. Trespass to Chattels i. Dispossessing another of a chattel, or ii. Using or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another. Consent i. OK: actual consent, manifestation of consent through actions, life-threatening condition plus no manifestation of lack of consent ii. NOT OK: duress, deceit, incompetency, silence (unless outward manifestation) iii. If P hurt in process, D can be liable despite consent Self-defense i. Reasonable belief that force is necessary to protect self against tort & amount of force is limited to what is reasonable for protection against tort) Defense of others i. Same as self-defense, but must be correct, cannot reasonable perceive Defense of property i. Reasonable force to defend property of chattel Recovery of Property i. Must have right to recovery property, must be in immediate-fresh pursuit, and use reasonable force Necessity i. Public necessity: Harm to public, no reasonable alternative ii. Private: must compensate for any damage done Justification i. Doesnt meet anything but if there was liability the law would not be serving its purpose can claim justification

b. c. d. e. f. g.

4) If yes, then D is not liable. If No, then D is liable.

Negligence Was the defendant negligent? 1) Duty a. Reasonable person standard i. Standard of care given person and circumstances (age, mental, disability, professional) b. B > PL (least coast avoider) c. Advance or Limited Duty of Care d. Negligence per se (violation of statue) 2) Breach a. Direct Evidence b. Circumstantial Evidence c. Res Ipsa Loquitor 3) Cause in fact a. But for causation b. Substantial Factor c. Concurrent causes (two independent combine and cause one) d. Ambiguity of cause (either one sufficient to produce harm) e. Increase risk of harm (negligence didnt case harm but increase risk of harm) 4) Proximate Cause a. Foreseeable type of harm? PC b. Unforeseeable type of harm? NO PC c. Unforeseeable extent of harm? PC d. Unforeseeable plaintiff? No PC e. Unforeseeable manner of Harm PC f. Intervening cause PC g. Intervening, superceding cause No PC 5) Damages a. Physical or Non physical? i. If non physical can sue for negligent emotional distress b. No liability for pure economic loss, Is there a defense?
1) Contributory Negligence 2) Comparative Negligence 3) Assumption of Risk a. Implied; express 4) Last Clear Chance a. Helpless plaintiff, a negligent plaintiff Can the defendant be held strictly liable? 1) Strict liability a. Abnormally dangerous activity; non natural i. Inability to eliminated the risk by the exercise of reasonable care ii. Inappropriate of the activity to the place where it is cared on iii. Extent to which its value to the community is outweighed by its dangerous attributes iv. Existence of a high degree of risk of some harm to the person, land or chattel of others v. Likelihood that the harm that results from it will be great vi. Extent to which the activity is not a matter of common usage