Torts Outline Cheat Sheet by vickyb92

Rule

Intentionally
----enters or causes
-------entry on the land
--------------of another

Rule

Intent­ional
---intermedling
------with the property
--------------of another

Exceeds bounds of tolerable decency

Factors:
a.Repetitive/pattern of abuse
b.chronic
c.power differences
d.severity of conduct
e.vulnerabilities
f.context
g.discriminatory language
h.death [howard stern example

*When issue spotting, look for person's emotional well-b­eing: i.e.-d­idn't eat,di­str­aught

(EX) If it wasn't tuesday I cut your throat

Rule

Intentional
---exercise of dominion
-------------over property
--------------------of another

i.Physical restraint

ii.Durress of goods

iii.Physical barriers: No reasonable means of escaping

iv.Improper false assertion of legal authority

v.Threat of physical force to person, family, or property

D acted with purpose or substa­ntial certainty

Recapt­uring Chattel

1. You can use reasonable force to obtain property, but no room for mistake (hot pursuit) &&
2. TIME AND MANNER

DEFENSES OF PROPERTY

1. Reasonable force to defend property
[no deadly force plz]

You cant do by mechanical device what you can't do by person, i.e.-s­pring gun

In Loco Parentis

Parents can/are privilege to discipline their children
-->(and anyone else who stands in the place of parents, such as bus drivers, teachers, etc)

Bright line rule: not really one, but normally any child below the age of seven or six, depends on state statutes that declare when a child is able to or not able to form the intent to be guilty of a tort

Garrett v. Daley:
Dailey's intent to cause a harmful bodily contact is inferred from his knowledge that the contact would occur

1. Actual Harm

Physical injury and/or property damage

->Under pure joint several liability Jdx, plaintiff can get 100% damages from D1, even if D1 is only 25% at fault, but is more reasonable for P to obtain damages from D1 if it is unlikely D2 will be able to pay the 75% [or whatever it may be]. And then D1 can seek contri­bution of 75% from D2 on their own.

->In a pure several liability jdx, P is strictly limited to receving 25% of damages from D1 and 75% from D2

->Pure joint jdx, P is able to recieve 100% from D1 if D2 has indeminity

Negligence Por Que?

This means that violation of the statute, even though that statute itself does not say it, actually determines the actor's duty and breach

2. Class of Person?

Child Trespasser: On land w/o permis­sion; no privilege

Duty to warn/make safe reasonably where:
1.Trespass by kis is foreseeable
2.L knows or has reason to know of daner from artifical condition
3.Kids too young to appreciate dangers and avoid them

Invitee: Business visitor or public invitee on land for benefit to L or mutual benefit or because open to public

Duty of reasonable care including duty to inspect and make safe non obvious dangerous conditions and obvious conditions if injury forese­eable despite P's knowledge or if P must confront danger regardless of warning

Examples: Customers, building inspec­tors...

Trad'tl approach
Open & obvious doctrine: P barred from suing landowner for open and obvious dangerous situations

Modern: certain situations where duty to foresee
examples->grocier, ambulance paramedic, sometimes no choice but to confront obvious danger

FFR: T as necessity privilege= firefi­ghters?

Doctors
->duty defined by expert testimony
Traditional approach-pure locality
-->expert testimoney can only come from a local practi­tioner w/in same field and area

modified locality:
-->A physician of the same degree of care, skill and profic­iency from a similiar community

Majority rule:
-->National standard of care of other specialist in the field{{nl}

Informed Consent 50/50 A doctor's failure to disclose adequate inform­ation
Materi­ality standard
-->Doctor has a duty to disclose all signif­icant inform­ation that would be material to patients decision of operation

Altern­ative Approa­ch-­Medical Standard of Disclosure
-->Looks to what other medical profes­sions would disclose vis a vi locality rules in jdx

What should be disclosed?
1. Nature and probab­ility of risks
2. benefits
3.irreversability
4.Unpredictability
5.alternatives
7.Risks of refusing
-->a.Causation for IC: ((1))Risk materi­alized ((2)) P must show had she known, she would have refused ((3)) A reasonable prudent person would have refused

->D­efault?

---->R­eas­onable purdent person under the circum­stances

Specific Conduct v. Altern­ative Conduct, evaluate whether conduct was then reasonable via forese­eab­ility
B<PL

B: Burden of precau­stions to eliminate or reduce the risk of harm
->information
->cost/benefit
->giving up social activities
P: The forese­eable severity of any harm that may ensue
L: Likelihood that the person's conduct will result in harm

*HF is most useful with conduct that is a deliberate choice

Manuals are persua­siv­e->Walmart v. Wright;
->however reasonable care is an objective standard, not a private practice standard (w/ the exception with Doctors and other specia­list)

Circum­sta­ntial Evidence:
Defendant created dangerous condition OR Defendant knew of condition and failed to remedy

But for the defend­ant's negligent conduct, plaintiff would not have been injured [or as injured]

But for D's neglig­ence, "­des­troyed a substa­ntial possib­ili­ty" of achieving a more favorable outcome

The type of harm that occurs within the risk of defend­ant's negligence (fores­eeable harm)

J.Cardozo: Narrow Approach-D is resonsible for injuries that can be foreseen

J.Andrews: D is resonsible for any direct injuries

1. Forese­eable Plaintiff?

2. Forese­eable harm?

->Type/manner of harm does not have to be forese­eable and extent of harm

An interv­ening act is one which operates after the defend­ant's original negligence to bring about the harm

Must prove intervenor is superc­eding to relieve Defendent of liability, otherwise intervenor is dependant and is within the risk of D1's negligent conduct

Trad'tl Approach:
->criminal intervenor = superceding
->Acts of God and unforeseeable
->Risk terminated
->Suicide unless exception

Modern approach:
->Criminal acts are not superc­eding if defendant exposed plaintiff
->Suicide-->If your job is to prevent others from hurting themselves
->D's conduct put/left P in a position of Danger (i.e.-D­erd­iarian & wooden horse), cannot argue injuries from intervenor is superceeding
->dependent interv­enors that are forced to operate in response to defend­ent's negligence
-->Rescue Doctrine

Plaint­iff's failure to exercise care for own safety (mirrors pfc of NEG)

Changes damages
Traditonal/Minority Rule: Pure Compar­ative Fault
->Plaintiff's recovery is reduced entirely if Plaintiff is found to be contri­butorly negligent even by a small percentage

Modified Approach
a. 50 and less? able to recover minus portion of plaint­iff's portion of compar­ative fault
b. A plaintiff that shares more than 50% of fault recovers nothing