Tort Law

A legal obligation to act in a certain way to prevent harm to others.

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's conduct fell below the accepted standard of care.

The defendant's actions must have directly caused the plaintiff's injuries. Two types: actual and proximate.

Damages are the harm or injury that the plaintiff has suffered as a result of the defendant's negligence.

A legal defense that reduces or eliminates the defendant's liability.

The plaintiff's behavior contributed to their own injuries.

The plaintiff's negligence is compared to the defendant's negligence to determine liability.

A legal defense where the defendant's actions were justified by an emergency situation.

A person who is invited onto land for the purpose of potential pecuniary profit (PPP), such as a customer.

A person who is invited onto land for social purposes, such as a guest visiting a friend's home.

A person who is not invited and is not allowed to be on the landowner's property.

A doctrine under which landowners are liable for injuries to children who are attracted to dangerous artificial conditions on their property.

The standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation.

A formula used to analyze the reasonableness of taking precautions to prevent an accident based on the burden of taking the precaution, the probability of injury, and the likely harm.

A doctrine that establishes a breach of duty when a company fails to implement new safety technology, even if it's not an industry custom.

A doctrine that establishes a breach of duty when a company ignores a common custom or accepted practice that results in injury.

A legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to prove a breach of duty by showing that the harm could not have occurred without negligence.

A test for determining a landowner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harmful conduct.

A test for determining a landowner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harmful conduct, based on previous similar incidents in the area.

A test for determining a landowner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal activity, considering all relevant circumstances.

A test for determining a landowner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harmful conduct, balancing the predictability of the harm against the burden of imposing a duty.

A legal doctrine that imposes a duty on someone who commences aid to another in peril to exercise reasonable care.

A legal doctrine that imposes a duty on a therapist to warn a potential victim of danger if the therapist learns from their patient about intent to do harm.

A legal doctrine that holds a defendant liable for negligence if they violate a safety law or regulation.

The "but-for" test determines if the plaintiff's injuries would have occurred without the defendant's actions. If the answer is YES, then the defendant is NOT liable.

The substantial factor test is used when multiple actions contribute to an injury. If a defendant's action was a substantial factor in the plaintiff's injury, then the defendant is LIABLE.

If it is impossible to determine which of two or more defendants caused a plaintiff's injuries, ALL defendants can be held jointly liable.

This rule applies when two or more people injure a plaintiff at the SAME TIME. The defendants must prove that the damages are SEPARATE, or they are jointly liable.

This legal doctrine holds all manufacturers of a product liable in proportion to their market share, even if it's unknown which specific manufacturer sold the product that caused the injury.

Proximate cause asks if the defendant's negligence was a DIRECT cause of a foreseeable harm.

The 3-part Proximate Cause test is a tool for analyzing how the defendant's negligence led to the harm. It looks at: 1) Was the negligence a direct cause? 2) Was the harm foreseeable? 3) Should the law cut off the defendant's liability for policy reasons?

Wrongful death damages are awarded when a plaintiff's loved one is killed due to the negligence of another person.

Loss of consortium refers to the loss of companionship, love, and emotional support from a partner or loved one. Such loss may be compensable in wrongful death or personal injury cases.

Personal Injury Damages compensates for the pain, suffering, and loss caused by another person's negligence.

Economic damages refer to expenses that can be easily calculated, such as medical bills and lost wages.

Non-economic damages are harder to quantify, such as pain and suffering.

Damages awarded to compensate for actual losses, aiming to restore the injured party to their pre-accident state.

Damages awarded when a party's right is technically violated, but no actual harm or losses occurred.

Damages imposed to punish reprehensible conduct and deter future misconduct.

A complete privilege that absolves a defendant from liability for damaging or destroying property to prevent serious harm to the public.

A type of comparative fault where recovery is reduced, but not barred, by the plaintiff's share of fault, regardless of the percentage.

A type of comparative fault where recovery is barred if the plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault.

A type of comparative fault where recovery is barred if the plaintiff is found to be 51% or more at fault.

Claims that can seek both punitive and compensatory damages.

Claims that can seek both punitive and compensatory damages.

Claims that can only seek compensatory damages.

Claims that can seek compensatory, punitive, and nominal damages.

Claims that can seek compensatory or punitive damages.

A legal defense where a person's actions are justified by an emergency situation, allowing them to enter or remain on another person's land to prevent serious harm.

A private necessity is a legal defense that allows a person to enter or remain on another person's land to prevent serious harm. However, the person whose property was affected can still sue for damages, but not for punitive damages.

A person's intentional act that causes another person to reasonably believe they are about to be harmed. The person must feel the harm is immediate or imminent.

A person's intentional act that causes harmful or offensive contact with another person. The contact must actually occur. The action does not need to cause actual harm, just be offensive.

A person's intentional act that causes another person to be confined to a specific area without their consent. The person must be aware of the confinement or suffer harm from it.

A person's intentional act that causes severe emotional distress in another person through outrageous and reckless conduct.

The legal principle that allows the intent to harm one person to be transferred to another, making the perpetrator liable for the unintended harm. This avoids the need for proximate cause in intentional torts.

The intent to commit an intentional tort exists when the person acts with the purpose of causing harm or has knowledge to a substantial certainty that the harmful result will occur.

The defendant's action must have directly caused the plaintiff's injury. The "but for" test or the substantial factor test is used to determine this.

Damages are the legal remedy for harm caused by the defendant's actions. These can be compensatory damages to make the plaintiff whole again, or punitive damages to punish the defendant.

The intent to cause harmful or offensive contact must be present for a battery claim to be valid. Under the majority Single-Purpose Intent test, the tortfeasor must intend the conduct itself, not necessarily the resulting harm. This is different from the minority Dual-Purpose Intent test, which requires the tortfeasor to intend both the contact and the harm.

Intentional conduct that causes severe emotional distress to a person related to the victim who is present at the time of the incident, regardless of bodily harm, or to another person present if bodily harm occurs.

Intentional use or intermeddling with a chattel in the possession of another.

Intentional exercise of dominion or control over a chattel that seriously interferes with the rightful owner's control.

A legal defense allowing entry onto another's property if necessary to prevent serious harm to the actor, their property, or another person, provided the benefit recipient consents or there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

The test used to determine whether a bystander can recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Liability imposed regardless of fault, usually for specific actions deemed inherently dangerous.

Activities with a high risk of serious harm, difficult to eliminate by reasonable care, uncommon usage, inappropriate location, and dangers outweighing benefits.

Strict liability applies to both wild and dangerous domesticated animals.

Liability of manufacturers and sellers for defective products causing harm.

A defect that exists due to a deviation from the product's intended design or manufacturing process.

A defect in the product's fundamental design, making it unreasonably dangerous.

Testing a product's design based on consumers' reasonable expectations of its safety. (Often used for design defects.)

Comparing the risks and benefits of a product design to determine if a safer alternative was feasible. (Often used for design defects.)

A defect arising from inadequate instructions or warnings about potential hazards.

A legal doctrine that states that a seller of a product is liable for injuries caused by a defective product, even if the defect was introduced by a previous party in the manufacturing chain.

A legal doctrine stating that if an open and obvious risk is associated with an adult product, it doesn't need to be childproof.

The legal precedent established in the case of MacPherson v. Buick, which expanded the liability of manufacturers to include consumers not in direct contract with them.

This case established that manufacturers are absolutely liable for injuries caused by defective products they put on the market.

A legal doctrine stating that a person who voluntarily assumes a risk cannot sue for injuries that result from that risk.

A legal doctrine limiting liability for defects that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time the product was made.

A legal principle that holds individuals or entities accountable for damages caused by their actions or omissions, regardless of their intention.

Refers to the process of assigning responsibility for a particular harm or incident to a specific individual or entity.

A legal claim based on a defective product resulting in purely economic harm (such as damage only to the product itself) is generally not allowed - only physical injuries or damage to other property.

A manufacturer has a duty to ensure the end user or consumer is aware of the potential dangers associated with the product, including proper use and handling.

A trespass to land occurs when someone intentionally enters or remains on another person's property without permission. It doesn't require proof of actual harm, but the plaintiff can still seek damages.

Trespass to land is a unique tort recognized as both an intentional tort (requiring intent) and a strict liability tort (liability without intent).

In a trespass to land case, the plaintiff must prove ownership or lawful right to possess the property, intentional and physical entry by the defendant, and damage caused by the trespass. Negligence is not required.

When a person acting on behalf of another in a commercial setting is held liable for another's action, the party held liable can seek reimbursement from the responsible party.

In the context of trespass to land, a person who intentionally enters another's property and causes damage may be liable even if they believed they had permission or owned the property.

A homeowner may only use force to protect their property when there's a threat of imminent harm to their personal safety. Using excessive force to protect property is generally unacceptable.

Nuisance is a tort that protects the right to private enjoyment of land. It involves an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property.

Public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, often pursued by a governmental entity.

Private nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of a specific property. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the interference is substantial and unreasonable.

Causation in a nuisance claim involves evaluating the actual cause of the harm using a gravity of harm test and utility of the conduct test. It also considers proximate cause, evaluating foreseeability and scope of liability.

Damages in a nuisance claim can include compensatory damages (money for actual losses), punitive damages (punishing the defendant), and possibly injunctive relief (court orders to stop the nuisance).

One of two tests used to balance the utility of a nuisance's conduct against the gravity of the harm it causes; it considers the extent, character, social value, suitability, and burden of avoiding the harm.

One of two tests used to balance the utility of a nuisance's conduct against the gravity of the harm it causes; it considers the social value, suitability, and practicality of preventing the conduct.

A case where a company's pollution harmed a farmer's land, highlighting the balance between harm and benefit.

A case where a cement plant's pollution harmed nearby residents, leading to the court's acceptance of permanent damages instead of an injunction.

A case where a smelting factory's emissions caused trespass and nuisance, showing the potential overlap of these legal concepts.

An intentional intrusion on a person's solitude or seclusion, private affairs or concerns, that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

A case where an employee used a company laptop for personal emails, raising questions about the company's intrusion on her privacy.

The intentional use of another person's name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without their consent.

Publicity given to private facts, such as embarrassing personal information, that is highly offensive and not of legitimate public concern.

The publication of false information about a person that portrays them in a false light, which is highly offensive to a reasonable person.

The 'but-for' test determines whether the plaintiff's injury would have occurred without the defendant's actions. If the answer is YES, then the defendant is NOT liable.

The substantial factor test is used when multiple actions contribute to an injury. If a defendant's action was a substantial factor in the plaintiff's injury, then the defendant is LIABLE.

The intrusion upon someone's private affairs would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. This is how we determine if someone has been violated in their privacy.

The defendant published private facts that would make a reasonable person deeply offended by the publication. AND it is not of legitimate public concern, meaning it's not a public record.

The defendant gave publicity to a matter concerning the plaintiff's private life. The publicity would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. AND the matter is not of legitimate concern to the public.

The defendant used truthful facts in the article about the plaintiff for a legitimate public concern. The court found that the publication was newsworthy.

A plaintiff only needs to show negligent conduct from a media defendant to support an action for false light invasion of privacy.

A civil wrong or injury other than breach of contract for which the court will provide a remedy.

A private or civil wrong or injury for which courts will provide a remedy.

Fault + Intent.

Fault.

To prove a prima facie case of negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following: Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages.

Generally, there is no duty to act for the benefit of another.

A legal duty to act in a way that prevents harm to others, specifically when you create the risk of harm yourself.

The case where Yania died after jumping into a water pump at Bigan's mining operation. The court ruled that Bigan did not have a duty to rescue Yania because Bigan did not create the risk of harm.

The case where Christian invited friends to her house, knowing her faucet was broken and did not warn them. Rowland cut his hand on the broken faucet. This case abolished the landowner/occupier distinction and established the duty of reasonable care for landowners, regardless of the visitor's status.

The outdated land-owner/occupier trichotomy was established in this case, where a boy fell down a gap in stairs at his father's office building.

The case about a fraternity sexual assault. This case sets the standards for a landowner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal conduct.

The case that established how liability arises from a manufacturer supplying products that could be dangerous if improperly made.

The case where US Gov't hired Carroll Towing to move the barge, but left it unattended, which led to it sinking. This case established the Learned Hand Formula.

A legal doctrine that allows a defendant to be absolved from liability for damaging or destroying property if they acted reasonably to prevent a serious threat to the public.

A type of comparative fault where the plaintiff cannot recover if they are found to be 50% or more at fault.

A type of comparative fault where the plaintiff cannot recover if they are found to be 51% or more at fault.

A legal concept where the intent for harm to one person is transferred to another, even if there is no intent to harm the second person.

A type of tort where the defendant intends to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff. The contact must actually occur.

A legal case where a car and truck crashed in Alaska. The court ruled that breaking a safety law is automatically negligence.

A famous case where a man got hurt when a glass shower door broke in his apartment. He thought it was safety glass, but it wasn’t. The court ruled against the landlord for not following industry standards.

Children performing adult activities are held to adult standards of care.

A case where a 13-year-old had an accident on a snowmobile. The court ruled that because he was performing an adult activity, he was held to adult standards.

Evidence that doesn't directly prove something but suggests it through a logical connection.

A case where a woman slipped on grapes in a Kmart. Her husband said the grapes had been stepped on before she fell. The court ruled that her claim could proceed despite only circumstantial evidence.

A question about whether the defendant's conduct directly caused the plaintiff's harm.

A case where a man driving a horse-drawn cart was scared by a car, leading to an accident. Because multiple actions could have caused the harm, the court didn't need to identify a specific cause.

A situation where the plaintiff can prove actual cause by showing a reasonable connection between the defendant's actions and the harm.

A case where a man fell downstairs in a house owned by a bank. The bank knew about a broken step but didn't fix it. The court ruled that the bank could be held liable for the man's injury.

A case where two hunters shot at birds, but one bullet hit a third hunter. It was impossible to determine who shot him, so both hunters were held liable.