You are on page 1of 2


INTENTIONAL TORTS- Intent: desire to cause harm, or know harm subst. certain to occur (GOOD MOTIVE DOES NOT
Battery: Intentional harmful or offensive contact,to PL or something close to PL
Harm must be offensive to reasonable person, unless particular susceptibility is known to D ( PL need not be aware of contact,
at the time of contact)
Assault- intentional act causes reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. ACTUAL AWARENESS IS REQUIRED.
Inability to actual battery does not defeat.
False Impr-intentional restraint of PL in bounded area, with knowledge of confinement, or injury due to confinement, by force
threats of harm to Pl or family or failure to release where there is a duty to do so. Brief confinement will suffice, Not confined
where there is escape route. Escape involving embarrassment or physical harm are not a reasonable means of escape.
IIED:-intentional extreme or outrageous conduct causing P to suffer severe emotional physical injury needed Intent
or recklessness Language not outrageous except for innkeepers and common carriers (for them , only reasonably offensive
conduct) THIRD PARTY- P is immediate family member, and D is aware of presence, or any other PL where distress results in
TRESPASS TO LAND- intent to enter PL land, or cause someone or something to enter, or stays longer than permission. Must
be physical invasion, even if just particulates. Any person with a POSSESSORY interest can bring suit. (landowners without
right to immediate possession may not bring suit) Mistake no defense. Nominal damages avail, even of no damage to land.
EJECTMENT- action to remove def from property.
TRESPASS TO CHATTEL- intentional minor interference with the chattel of another. Mistake not defense. Damages- must
have actual damages. Remedies- Damages or replevin.
CONVERSION-intentional act substantial interference or destruction of the chattel. EXERCISE OF DOMINION AND
CONTROL. Mistake not a defense. Money damages forced sale at market value or replevin.
DEFENSES TO INT TORTS CONSENT- express or implied(words or conduct)
May be implied as a matter of law in emergency situations. DEFENSES TO CONSENT-mistake, (where PL consents under a
mistake, AND def knows of the mistake) fraud, duress, incapacity, criminal act. SELF DEF- BUT if can correct mistake before
defending, should do so. OF OTHERS- same rules as self def. If third party makes a mistake about whether def needed, may be
liable for tort. DEF PROPERTY-reasonable force- to prevent RECAPTURE CHATTEL-prompt recover, but must demand
return first before using force to recover. NEVER DEADLY FORCE Cannot assert def if mistaken about the fact that his
property was taken. NECCESITY-PUBLIC to avoid a greater harm to the public- not liable for damages. PRIVATE- ok to avoid
greater harm, -is liable for damages. AUTHORITY- arrest- by police without warrant or citizen- not liable for tort if reasonable
belief to detain a person who has committed, or is committing a felony or breach of the peace
SHOPKEEPER PRIV-can detain on reasonable suspicion for reasonable time in a reasonable manner.
NEGLIGENCE- elements- duty breach causation damages. DUTY- law recognizes def conform to certain standard of conduct.
Usually only ordinary care. Duties only owed to forseeable -No general duty to act.- EXCEPTIONS 1)MALFEASANCE if the
def negligent actions caused the bad position of PL, duty to aid, incudes negligent omissions, like not stopping for stop sign, 2)
NONFEASANCE 3 kinds of nonfeasance when must act 1) to complete undertaken rescue. 2) when special relationship exists
(family member, common carrier, teacher, jailer, employer. 3) DUTY of person TO CONTROL THIRD PARTY- generally no
duty to assist, unless special relationship (parent/child, employer employee, on employer premises, if they know or have reason
to know necessity to control exists, and also for negligent hiring)
DRAM SHOP- commercial servers of alcohol liable if they knew or should have known the patron was intoxicated. DUTY TO
PROTECT- only if special relationship
NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- Ownership of vehicle- negligent entrustment owner should know of the negligent
propensities of the person who he is lending it to. FAMILY CAR DOCTRINE-Owner vicariously liable for act of agents of
family when using his car for family purposes
INVITEE-on the premises for the economic benefit of the owner or possessor of the land. DUTY- 1) to affirmatively inspect 2)
to repair and make safe
LICENSEE-invited on the premises for social reasons. Only a duty to warn of known dangers.
TRESPASSERS-unknown- no duty if known-reasonable care to protect. FOR PLs ADJACENT TO LAND-reasonable care
concerning activities, artif conditions, and the land. TREES- rural areas no duty, urban areas- duty of reasonable care
regarding care and maintenance of trees.
ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE- 1) artif cond poses forseeable risk to kids 2)foreseeable the kids likely to trespass 3)kids
unaware or unable to appreciate the risk, 4)risk of danger outweighs utility of condition
Landlord/tenant- WHEN DIVISIBLE, common areas remain LL responsibility. Prior to transfer of possession, must notify
tenant of latent defects (no duty patent or obvious defects) No duty for conditions that arise after transfer. If undertakes repair,
can be liable for negligent repair.
STANDARD OF CARE-1) generally- reasonably prudent person in similar circumstances, mental condition not matter,
physical does
2)child- assessed according to reasonable child of same age, education, intelligence and experience ( gen , under six incapable
of neg. 7-13 rebuttably presumed not negligent 14+presumed capable of negligence) IF engaged in adult activities, must
conform to adult SOC.
3) professionals- must act as reasonably prudent person of similar skill and education, higher if specialist
BREACH-res ipsa loquitor infers DEF breach of duty-satisfies to prevent directed verdict or SJ 1)PL injury would not occur
absent some negligence 2)instrumentality in def control, 3) PL had no comparative fault.
NEG PER SE- violation of a statute. Pl must prove member of class statute sought to protect, and harm suffered was that
attempted to prevent
CAUSE in fact- by direct or circumstantial evidence, but-for or substantial factor.
PROXIMATE OR LEGAL CAUSE- duty to to forseebale PL in the zone of danger, and full damages to eggshell PL, even

1. who is PL?
2. who is the defendant?
Or responsible parties?
3. what are PL injuries?
4. what legal theory can
PL assert?
5. make sure torts
1) duty
2) standard of care
3) breach
4)cause in fact
5) proximate casue
1.special relationship?
2. forseeability
Only determines if they
negligence analysis

Int tort defenses-CRAP
chattel, arrest/authority,
def Prop, def self, def
others, necessity

though consequences more severe than normal b/c of a particular susceptibility.

INTERVENING CAUSE- produces harm after the def negligence. If foreseeable, orig def liable for this harm too.
SUPERCEDING CAUSES-breaks the chain of liability (natural phenomenon, crim act or int torts of third parties)
Concurrent tortfeasors- if PL unable to apportion damages, all or jointly and severally liable, Burden is on defs to apportioncontribution action.
Respondeat superior- employer liable for injuries caused by negligence of strict liability of employee if within the scope of
employment. FROLIC- outside scope, major deviation) DETOUR- small deviation from empl direction, within scope Not
generally liable for intentional torts unless commits in furtherance of employers business(ie bouncer commits battery)
Joint ventures-similar to partnership, each partner vicariously liable for torts of the others within scope of enterprise. (4
elements)1. Must be express on implied K 2) common purpose 3) community of interest 4) equal right of control
Example- two people sharing expenses is ONE factor . Make sure to evaluate all four elements
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR- gen rule -empl not vicariously liable, except in negligence on selecting or supervising, nondelegable duties, where ind cont engaged in work that is inherently dangerous
last clear chance doctrine ONLY APPLES IN CONTRIB NEG STATES- even if PL some at fault, if injury to the PL cold have
been avoided at the last minute by the def, it will not bar recovery.
Comparative negligence pure- recovery for percentage not at fault, even if more than 50%. Partial- recovery only of PL
percentage less than 50%. ASSUME PURE UNLESS TOLD OTHERWISE
ASSUMTION OF RISK-if pl expressly or impliedly consents to undergo risk created by def conduct eg. sports
WRONGFUL DEATH- at common law, actions not survive death. Defamation and privacy issues still do not. Now wrongful
death statutes, allowing recovery of personal injury and Prop damage by spouse or person rep. on behalf of the decedent.
Compensates survivors, losses resulting from decedents death, loss of support, loss of consortium, but not pain and suffering.
SURVIVAL STATURE preserves claim of defendant existing at death, damages for pain and suffering, expenses, lost wages at
time of death are paid to the estate
STRICT LIABILITY ADA- , activity that cannot be made safe even with due care ( explosives, chemicals, pile driving) injury
must be of the kind trying to avoid Slipping on spilled pesticide not strict liability, but, breathing it in because of collision is
WILD ANIMALS- non-domesticated animals, or domesticated ones with known dangerous propensity (one bite rule)
PRODUCTS- proper PL- all foreseeable users and consumers are protected PRIMA FASCIA CASE- left the sellers hand in
defective condition DESIGN OR MANUFACTURE
Proper def- all along the chain of supply, manufacturers, distributors, and retail sellers, if they are in the business of sales.
Occasional sellers not strictly liable .ASSUMTPION OF RISK ONY DEFENSE no contrib neg, not even misuse of the product,
where misuse is foreseeable.. FAILURE TO PROVIDE INADEQUATE WARNINGS may make it unreasonably dangerous
and provide strict liability, Disclaimers do not provide valid defense in strict liability. Allow damages for personal injuries and
property damages, NOT for lost profits and other intangible economic losses.
Remember to consider strict liability and negligence and warranty issues. For negligence- have to show breach of duty, and
failure of reasonable care in inspection of the product.
Warranty theory- express and implied warranty-discuss merchantability and for particular purpose
DEFENSES TO PROD LIAB- misuse-if uses in manner not intended or forseeable.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK (opening up sparking dryer)
IF product altered by someone in chain of distribution, cts usually relieve def of liability
NUISANCE- PUBLIC AND PRIVATE (different from trespass, as no physical entry ) PUBLIC significant interference with
public health, safety peace. Continuing in nature. PL must suffer harm different than other members of the public ( not just more
often) PRIVATE substantial and unreas interference with PL enjoyment of land. Cannot be especially sensitive. Only those with
possessory interest can sue. DEFENSES- contr neg., assump of risk, coming to nuisance-will not by itself bar PL action, but a
factor REMEDIES- usually damages, but where inadequate, my do injunctive relief. Can do both. PL can also enter def land to
abate nuisance after notice to the def and their refusal to act. Privilege extends to all reasonable action, even if destroys prop, as
long as not disproportionate
TRADE LIBEL- false statement injurious to PL business or products-have to plead and prove special damages.
Interference with contract relations-must be contract, and def caused interference.
MISREPRESENTATATION (FRAUD DECEIT) knowing or negligent mirep of material fact, justified reliance damages
DEFAMATION-elements 1) false statement of fact 2( of or concerning the PL 3) comm to 3 rd party 4) damage to PL reputation
(PUBLIC FIGURES MUST PROVE MALICE- knowledge of falsity or recklessness of truth) private persons needs only to
prove negligence
slander,-spoken, must prove special damages slander per se (pl committed crime of moral turpitude, loathsome disease, bx
incompatible with proper conduct of his business, unchastity in a woman) DAMAGES PRESEMED libel written, or broadcast
on radio or tv, gen damages presumed.
DEFENSES TO DEFAMATION- consent and truth (complete defenses), absolute privilege,(legislator, part in judicial
procedings) qualified privilege (job recommendation, as long as believes to be in the interest of others on the public, and
without malice , or recklessness as to the truth or falsity.
INVASION OF PRIVACY- NOT THE SAME AS DEFAMATION ( 4 kinds) intrusion into seclusion DEF unreasonably
intrudes into PL seclusion, DEFENSE-consent, appropriation, use of def name or image for commercial adv. Without consent.
Public disclosure private facts, highly off to PL and not of public concern DEFENSE-defamation priviledge, consent
portrayal in false light-attirbuting views to PL he does not have or actions he did not take, reasonable person find offensive.
Must be communicated to subst. number of people. IF matter of public interest, PL must show malice DEFENSE truth,
consent, defamation privileges,