Madison Regan

Law Notes · Chapter 4 – The Law of Torts

Section 4.1 Intentional Torts

The Law of Torts is grounded in rights. Every individual has rights when those rights are infringed upon you can sue. It is
not a crime because it is not against society, just an individual. They are not a threat.
You have the right to enjoy a good reputation, the right to free from bodily harm, the right to conduct business without
unwarranted interference, and the right to own property free form damage or trespass.
Tort – a person’s interference with another’s right
Civil cases – majority (they settle in favor of)

Intentional Torts – when a person knows and desires the consequences of his or her act
Example: You own a business that many people walk by. You don’t pay someone to shovel when it snows because
you hope people are just being careful when walking. Someone slips and falls. You are liable. If you shovel and salt, you did
what a normal and reasonable person would not and they would take that into consideration because you did your duty.
Things can be both a tort and a crime. (Murder of a wife – murder is crime, taking away the mother is a tort)

Assault and Battery – two separate torts, can be committed together or separately
Tort of assault – a person has to deliberately lead another person to believe that they are going to harm that person (victim
has to fear that it is going to happen); tort of assault = to one person only; fears they are in immediate danger
Tort of battery – unprivileged touching of another person even if it not harmful (an unwanted touch)
Tort vs. crime – the victim has to know the tortfeasor (the person committing the tort) is going to harm them; the person
has to intend to commit harm; has to have that frighten part of it
Crime – you don’t have to know the person committing the crime

Trespass – the wrongful damage to or interference with the property of another; don’t need to do harm, just someone’s
unwanted presence
Common law – person owned the air space above and to the center of the Earth, below and above the land, not
restrict the above because of air travel

Nuisance – anything that interferes with the enjoyment of life or property; loud noises at night, odors
Private nuisance – affects only one person
Public nuisance – one that affects many people, local residents, bar, etc

False Imprisonment, false arrest

Police must have probable cause or a warrant to arrest someone
Can detain for shoplifting, but they must have reasonable grounds that it definitely occurred
Defamation – the wrongful act of injuring another’s reputation by making false statements
Categories: Libel and slander fall under defamations
Libel – false statement in written or printed form that injures another’s reputation or reflects negatively on that person’s
character (recordings, movies, signs, newspapers)
Slander – spoken statement made orally to a third party
Celebrities have more difficulty proving libel and slander because you chose to have that profession in the lime light –
harder case to prove
Libel – must be false, damages your reputation, and communicated to at least one other person
Congress people cannot be sued for libel and slander; not vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit – they have privileged speech

Invasion of privacy – interfering with a person’s right to be left alone, which includes the right to be free form unwanted
publicity and interference with private matters
The Federal Privacy Act of 1974 – provides safeguards for individuals against the invasion of privacy by agencies of the
federal government; lets you determine what person records will be kept by any agency; right to know what records are
being kept about you, to receive copies of any records, and to correct any errors; protects your rights; they must correct
their wrongs

Section 4.2 Negligence and Strict Liability

Unintentional tort – don’t mean to do it

Negligence – the failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same
circumstances; injury that is caused by a person’s mere carelessness
If one of the four elements do not fit, they cannot be tried
1. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In other words, the defendant failed to act as a reasonable person
who have acted.
2. This failure to use the degree of care required under the circumstances is called a breach of duty.
3. The breach of duty by the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff suffered some actual harm or injury.

Duty of Care – who owes who a duty of care; not always the person you think it is that owes you are duty of care
Breach of Duty – neglected to do their duty of care
Proximate Cause – the breach of duty was the cause (Proximate cause – the legal connection between unreasonable
conduct and the resulting harm)
Actual harm – can’t sue if nothing happened to you

Defenses to Negligence:
1. Prove that one of the elements is missing (they can argue that they owed no duty to the plaintiff, their conduct
conformed to the reasonable person standard, their conduct was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries,
or that the plaintiff suffered no injuries)
 2. Contributory negligence – the behavior of the plaintiff helped cause the injury (someone dancing on ice, etc); used
to mean that the plaintiff would lose the lawsuit if they had anything to do with it no matter how slight the
negligence the case was thrown out; too strict
3. Comparative negligence – less strict; negligence of each party is compared, the amount of the plaintiff’s recovery is
reduced by the percent of his or her negligence (dancer on ice is 40% negligent, person that didn’t ice is 60%
negligent, so the dancer gets 60% of the reward); protects plaintiffs from realizing huge losses for comparatively
minor acts of negligence
4. Assumption of risk – the defendant shows that the plaintiff knew of the risk involved and still took the chance of
being injured; you are assuming the risk (of siting at a baseball or Flyers game); you can still sue but it depends on
how negligent you were and what the assumes were

Strict Liability – no matter what the degree of care, it wouldn’t have helped you; the law will apply neither the principles of
negligence nor the rules of intentional torts to them; the people engaged in the activities will be held liable, regardless o f
how careful they were and regardless of their intent because no degree of care could have prevented what went place ;
covers product liability as well (when people are injured from defects in products that they bought in the marketplace, the
firm that manufactures the products is liable for injuries; doesn’t apply if the seller of the defective product does not usu ally
engage in the sale of such items); applies to ultra-hazardous activities that involve a great risk to people and property

Pg. 87 Section 4.1 Assessment #1-4:

1. What is the difference between a crime and a tort?
When people commit a crime, they harm not only specific individuals but also the general welfare. A crime is
an offense against the public at large and is therefore punishable by the government. In contrast, a tort is a
private wrong committed by one person against another. It involves one person’s interference with another
person’s rights. Such an offense does not call upon the government to punish wrongdoers and to protect
society.
2. What concept is at the heart of tort law?
The law of torts is grounded in the concept of rights. Under tort law, all people are entitled to certain rights
simply because they are members of our society. Some rights arise only under special circumstances.
3. How can a tort be committed?
Torts can be committed either intentionally or unintentionally. An unintentional tort occurs when a person
knows and desires the consequences of his or act. The person who commits an intentional tort does not share
this same mental determination.
4. What are the most common intentional torts?
The most common intentional torts are assault (threatening to harm), battery (unlawful, unprivileged touching
of another person), trespass (wrongful damage to or interference with the property of another), nuisance
(anything that interferes with the enjoyment of life or property), interference with contractual relations, deceit,
conversion, false imprisonment (false arrest), defamation (the wrongful act of injuring another’s reputation by
making false statements), invasion of privacy (interfering with a person’s right to be left alone), misuse of legal
procedure, and infliction of emotional distress.

Pg. 93 Section 4.2 Assessment #1-4:

 1. What is negligence?
Negligence is an accidental or unintentional tort resulting because of the failure to exercise the degree of car
that a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances.
2. What are the elements of negligence?
To succeed in a tort suit for negligence, the plaintiff must prove all of the following elements:
 The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care. In other words, the defendant failed to act as a
reasonable person would have acted.
 This failure to use the degree of care required under the circumstances is called a breach of duty.
 The breach of duty by the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff.
 The plaintiff suffered some actual harm or injury.
3. What are the major defenses to negligence?
People can defend themselves in a negligence suit by eliminating one of the four elements. Other defenses are
contributory negligence, comparative negligence, or assumption of risk. Contributory negligence is behavior by
the plaintiff that helps his or her injuries. If the defendant can prove that the plaintiff’s own negligence helped
cause the injuries, then the plaintiff loses the lawsuit. It does not matter how slight his or her negligence was.
The negligence of each party is compared under the doctrine of comparative negligence, and the amount of
the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percent of his or negligence. If the defendant can show the [plaintiff
knew of the risk involved and still took the chance of being injured, he or she may claim assumption of risk as a
defense/
4. What is strict liability?
Strict liability is the doctrine that states that people engaged in ultra-hazardous activities will be held liable,
regardless of how careful they were and regardless of their intent. It has been also applied in product liability in
recent years.

Pg. 96 Chapter 4 Assessment #21-27:

21. Jake Richards decided to play a practical joke on Ursula Brakestone. As Ursula prepared to sit down at her table in the
cafeteria, Jake pulled the chair out from under her. Ursula fell to the hardwood floor and fractured her hip. Jake says he
committed neither assault nor battery. Is Jake correct on either count? Why or why not?
He didn’t commit assault because she didn’t know it was happening so she didn’t feel threatened or fear. He did
commit battery because he pulled the chair out from under her.
22. A photographer took a photo of Maria Lao without permission while Maria was sunbathing by the pool in her own
backyard. Maria later discovered that the photo had been used in an advertisement for suntan lotion. What tort, if any, has
been committed?
Invasion of privacy
23. Al asks to borrow Juanita’s videocassette library. He likes several of the videocassettes so much that he decides to keep
them. Despite repeated requests from Juanita, Al refuses to return the cassettes he borrowed. What tort, if any, has been
committed?
Conversion – the unauthorized taking or borrowing of personal property of another for the use of the taker
24. Philip Carstairs kept a poisonous spider in his locker at school. He was very careful to keep it locked up so that it would
not harm anyone. One day, while Philip was in class, two students got the spider out of Philip’s locker and let the spider
loose in the girl’s gymnasium. Judy Norton was bitten by the spider. Is Philip legally responsible for Judy’s injuries? Explain
your answer.
Yes, because of strict liability – he cared, but no matter what degree of care, he can’t protect the school
25. An elderly woman was beaten and robbed by an unknown person. Emily Simpson told several people that Max
Newmark was guilty of the crime. This was a false statement. Has Emily committed a tort for which Max can recover
damages?
Yes, defamation (slander)
26. Ramona Booker entered a drugstore by pushing her way through one door and then through a second. She had to use
two hands to push the heavy doors open. As a result, she dropped her cane, which caught on the exposed coil of a security
device and caused her to fall and hurt herself. Ramona brought suit against Revco DS, Inc. to recover for her injuries. Did
the drugstore owe a duty to its customers to provide an establishment that was safe? Why or why not? Is this lawsuit based
on an intentional tort or negligence? What test would be used to judge whether the drugstore owners should be held liable
for Ramona’s injuries? Explain your answer.
Yes, the drugstore owed their customers a duty to provide an establishment that was safe because that is what
should be done. This lawsuit is based on negligence. The reasonable person test would be used.
27. Myers slipped and fell and was injured on ice on the front walkway of the Canton Centre Mall. The mall was owned and
run by Forest City Enterprises. Certain employees from Forest City were supposed to keep the walkways clear of ice. They
had cleared the ice from the walkway a short time before Myers fell. One of the employees guessed that after they had
cleaned the walk, passing cars may have splashed water on it, which froze. Was Forest City negligent in failing to keep the
walk clear of ice at all times? Why or why not? What test would be used to judge Forest City’s conduct? Explain your answer
No, because they did their duty of care by clearing the ice. The reasonable person test would be used to judge
Forest City’s conduct.

Word Bank:

1. Defamation – a wrongful act that injures another’s reputation with false statements
2. Tort – one’s interference with the rights of another; a private wrong committed by one person against another
involving one person’s interference with another person’s rights
3. Nuisance – interference with another’s enjoyment of life or property
4. Battery – the unlawful, unprivileged touching of another person
5. Assault – the tort that results when one person deliberately frightens another person into the reasonable belief that
he or she is about to be inured
6. Strict Liability – responsibility to answer for harm that results from an ultra hazardous activity; also, manufacturers
or supplies are responsible for selling goods that are unreasonably dangerous
7. Breach of Duty – the failure to use the degree of care that would have been used by a reasonable person
8. Proximate Cause – the link between unreasonable conduct and an injury in a negligence suit
9. Intentional Tort – a wrong that occurs when a person knows and desire the consequences of his or her act
10. Unintentional Tort – occurs when a person does not have the mental determination of the consequences of his or
her acts
11. Invasion of Privacy – Interfering with a person’s right to be left alone, which includes the right to be free from
unwanted publicity and interference with private matters
 12. Actual Harm – one of the four elements of negligence that has to be proven; the proof that a plaintiff suffered
physical injuries, property damage, or financial loss
13. Libel – false statements in written or printed form that injure another’s reputation or reflect negatively on that
person’s character
14. Slander – A false statement that is made orally to a third party
Test Information:

Possible True and False! Check that quizlet!!!

Know about the law of torts and what it is grounded in.

Know all about negligence.
Know about libel and slander.
Know the difference between a tort and crime.
Know about the different intentional and unintentional torts.
Know the difference between ordinary people and public figures concerning a defamation suit.
Know the different between an unintentional and intentional tort.
What has to be proven in a case of negligence?
What does tort mean? How is it classified?
Know about ultrahazardous activity.
Know the defenses in a negligence suit and the differences between them.
Know the elements that have to be proven in a negligence suit and explain them.
Know all the defenses.
What did the Federal Privacy Act of 1974 include?
What would be an intentional tort vs an unintentional tort?

**Famous people or those in the limelight must use the actual malice test in a defamation lawsuit – they chose that
profession, public profession so they must really prove that there was malice