Tort Law Principles

A legal obligation to act in a certain way to prevent harm to others. Generally, there is no duty to act, but certain situations create a duty, such as creating a risk of harm, being a landowner, or having a special relationship.

The violation of a duty of care. This occurs when a person's actions fall below the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances.

This legal test determines whether a defendant's action was the actual cause of the plaintiff's injury. This can be proven with the 'But-For' test or the 'Substantial Factor' test.

This legal test determines whether the defendant's action was legally responsible for the plaintiff's injury. It focuses on foreseeability and public policy considerations.

These are the types of damages a court can award to a plaintiff who has suffered harm due to negligence.

These are legal defenses that a defendant can raise to avoid liability for negligence. These defenses can reduce or eliminate the defendant's responsibility.

This principle applies when a defendant's conduct is shown to be negligent based on the nature of the injury itself. It suggests that the incident could not have happened without negligence.

This rule holds that if someone is in peril and another person begins aiding, they have a duty to continue aiding and do so with reasonable care. In other words, you cannot start helping and then leave someone worse off than they were before you started. This does NOT apply to someone who had no prior responsibility for placing someone in the perilous position.

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

Damages awarded when a party's legal right was violated, but no actual harm occurred.

Damages awarded to punish the defendant for egregious conduct and deter future wrongdoing.

A legal doctrine preventing a plaintiff from recovering damages if they shared any fault for their injuries.

A legal doctrine where a plaintiff's damages are reduced proportionally to their share of fault.

Pure Comparative Fault: Plaintiff recovers damages regardless of their fault percentage, except when 100% at fault.

Modified Comparative Fault (50%): Plaintiff recovers damages only if their fault is less than 50%.

Modified Comparative Fault (51%): Plaintiff recovers damages only if their fault is less than or equal to 50%.

A complete defense where a defendant is privileged to damage property to prevent imminent public harm.

Damages awarded for emotional distress, pain and suffering, loss of companionship, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Negligence claims do not allow for punitive damages.

Negligence claims do not allow for nominal damages.

Contributory negligence is not a defense for intentional torts.

Insurance typically covers compensatory damages but not punitive damages.

Gross negligence claims can seek both punitive and compensatory damages.

A legal doctrine where the defendant is presumed negligent by violating a safety law or regulation, even if their actions didn't directly cause the harm.

A test used to determine if a defendant's actions directly caused the plaintiff's injuries, asking if those injuries would have occurred without the defendant's actions.

A test used to determine if the defendant's actions were a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries, even if other contributing factors were involved.

A legal principle where multiple defendants, sharing fault for an indivisible injury, jointly bear the burden of proving their individual liability.

A test used to determine if the defendant's careless behavior resulted in the plaintiff's specific injury, considering foreseeability and public policy.

Damages awarded for economic losses, such as medical expenses, lost wages, and future costs.

A legal doctrine that aims to protect the victim’s loved ones in the event of a wrongful death, allowing them to seek compensation for the loss of intangible benefits of their relationship.

A legal doctrine that holds all manufacturers of a product responsible for a plaintiff's injuries, proportionate to their market share at the time of the injury.

A legal doctrine that states if a plaintiff is injured by two or more tortfeasors almost simultaneously, those defendants bear the burden of proving their individual share of the harm.

A legal principle that holds that negligence occurs when someone's actions were a substantial factor in causing harm to another, even if other factors were also involved.

A test involving three components: actual cause, foreseeability, and public policy, used to determine whether a defendant is liable for an injury they caused.

A test determining if a defendant is liable for injuries caused by a stolen vehicle, considering the foreseeability of the theft and whether the defendant's negligence was a contributing factor.

A legal doctrine that shifts the burden of proof to defendants in cases involving multiple tortfeasors when it is impossible to determine which defendant caused the plaintiff's injuries.

Intentional conduct causing severe emotional distress to a close relative of a victim present at the time of the victim's injury, regardless of physical harm.

An intentional act of using or interfering with a chattel in another's possession.

An intentional act of exercising control over a chattel that significantly interferes with another's right to control it.

A legal defense allowing entry onto someone's land when necessary to prevent serious harm to yourself or others.

A test used to determine liability for IIED for bystanders, focusing on: 1. Relationship to the victim, 2. Witnessing the injury, 3. Victim's injuries, and 4. Bystander's emotional distress.

Liability for harm caused regardless of fault, focusing on certain activities or events.

Activities considered inherently dangerous due to high risk of harm, even with reasonable care.

A type of strict liability focusing on wild animals or dangerous domestic animals.

Liability based on the manufacture or sale of a defective product.

A defect in the manufacturing process, resulting in a product not conforming to its design.

A defect in the design of a product, making it unreasonably dangerous.

A test for design defect that analyzes whether the product's design met consumer expectations.

A test for design defect that weighs the risk of harm against the product's utility and cost.

A defect in the product's warnings or instructions, making it unreasonably dangerous.

A test for design defect that combines the Consumer Expectation Test and the Risk Utility Test.

A privilege to enter or remain on another's land because it is reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm to yourself, your property, or others, but you can still be held liable for damages caused.

A privilege to use force against another person only when you reasonably believe they are about to cause you serious bodily harm or death and you cannot safely prevent this harm without using such force.

In intentional torts, the tortfeasor (the person causing harm) must have acted intentionally. This means they acted with a specific purpose, or knew their actions would almost certainly cause harm.

In intentional torts, the tortfeasor is liable even if their intended target was different from the actual victim. For example, if you throw a rock at A but it hits B instead, you are still liable for the harm to B.

Assault is the intentional act of causing another person to fear an immediate harmful or offensive contact.

Battery is the intentional harmful or offensive contact with another person. It does not need to cause serious harm, just a touching that is unwanted.

False Imprisonment is the intentional confinement of an individual within a bounded area. This can be done by physical barriers, threats, or psychological coercion.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) is the intentional or reckless infliction of severe emotional distress on another person through outrageous and extreme conduct.

The plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions were the actual cause of their injuries. This means that the injury would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's actions.

Consent is a defense to intentional torts. It means that the plaintiff agreed to the defendant's actions, therefore the defendant cannot be held liable.

A person is privileged to use force to protect themselves from imminent danger, but the force used must be reasonable and proportional to the threat.

A person is privileged to use force to defend others from imminent danger. This defense applies if you reasonably believe the person you are defending is in danger.

A person is privileged to use force to protect their property from harm. However, the force used must be reasonable and proportional to the threat.

Necessity is a defense that allows a person to commit an intentional tort if it is necessary to prevent a greater harm. This includes private necessity, which applies to protecting yourself or your property, and public necessity, which applies to protecting the public.

A legal doctrine that holds a manufacturer or seller liable for injuries caused by a defective product, regardless of whether they were negligent.

A person who is invited onto another's property for a potential pecuniary profit (PPP), for example a customer in a store.

A person who is invited onto another's property for social purposes, such as a guest in a home.

A product's condition that makes it unreasonably dangerous to use. It can arise from manufacturing, design, or inadequate warnings.

A person who is on another's property without permission and is not invited.

A landowner's duty to an invitee - ensuring no traps, no willful/wanton harm, warning of known dangerous conditions, and inspecting for potential harm.

A landowner's duty to a licensee - ensuring no traps, no willful/wanton harm, and warning of known dangerous conditions.

A landowner's duty to a trespasser - ensuring no traps, no willful, wanton, or intentional harm.

A doctrine that holds landowners liable for injuries to child trespassers caused by dangerous artificial conditions that attract children, often referred to as the 'turntable doctrine'.

The legal test used to determine whether a landowner owes a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harm, based on whether the landowner knew or should have known that specific harm was occurring or about to occur.

A case where a product exploded, and the user was injured. The court held the manufacturer liable for the incident, even though the defect was not apparent and there was no negligence.

The legal test used to determine whether a landowner owes a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harm, based on whether similar incidents have occurred previously in the area.

A case involving a jar of peanuts that shattered, injuring the user. The court held that the seller was liable for injuries caused by a defective product, even if the defect was introduced by a previous party in the manufacturing chain.

The legal test used to determine whether a landowner owes a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harm, considering all relevant circumstances, such as the time, place, and nature of the activity.

A case where a power tool with a design defect caused injury. The court held that manufacturers are liable for injuries caused by defective designs.

The legal test used to determine whether a landowner owes a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harm, based on balancing the predictability of the harm against the burden of imposing the duty.

A legal principle that creates a duty to assist someone in peril, particularly when the person attempting to help has started to help or has a special relationship with the person in need.

A case involving a dump truck hitch that was allegedly defective. The court held that the plaintiff needs to prove the existence of a safer alternative design to establish a design defect.

A case involving a Jeep that flipped over. The court held that a plaintiff can demonstrate a design defect by showing that the product did not meet the reasonable expectations of consumers.

A principle established by the legal case MacPherson v. Buick, holding that a manufacturer has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its products for all foreseeable users, not just the original purchaser.

A legal doctrine that requires a therapist to warn a potential victim if the therapist learns from their patient about an intent to harm that third party.

A case involving a hairspray can that exploded. The court held that manufacturers have a duty to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with using their products.

A legal doctrine that holds that a product manufacturer is not liable for injuries caused by an open and obvious risk associated with the product.

A formula used to analyze the reasonableness of a defendant's actions, considering the burden of taking precautions, the probability of harm, and the gravity of the potential injury.

The principle that a defendant can be held liable for breach of duty if they failed to implement new safety technologies that were generally available at the time of the incident, even if those technologies were not industry customs.

The principle that a plaintiff can establish breach of duty by showing that a custom or accepted practice exists within the relevant industry and was ignored by the defendant, leading to the plaintiff's injury.

A warning that is so unclear, confusing, or misleading that it essentially provides no useful information to the consumer.

This test determines whether the manufacturer's failure to provide an adequate warning is the reason for the plaintiff's injury. Did the lack of proper warning cause the harm?

Five factors courts consider when determining the adequacy of a product warning.

The warning must be clear and explicit about the risks involved. No ambiguity.

The warning must be written in a way that is easily understood by the average consumer. No technical jargon.

The warning must be written in a clear, concise, and organized manner. Easy to read and follow.

The warning must be easily seen and noticeable. Not hidden in fine print.

The method used to convey the warning must be appropriate for the intended audience and the product. Different methods have different effectiveness.

A tort that occurs when someone intentionally enters onto the land of another person without permission.

The intentional entry onto the land of another person. This act must be intentional and voluntary, but the trespasser does not need to be aware of the property line.

Proof that the plaintiff owns the property or has the right to possess it.

Proof that the defendant's actions caused damage to the plaintiff. But there is no need to prove negligence!

A doctrine that holds an employer liable for the actions of their employees, even if the employer did not authorize the actions.

The unreasonable and offensive intrusion into the private life of another person, where the information is not of legitimate interest to the public.

An individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to their personal affairs if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a normal person.

Unauthorized use of someone's name or likeness for commercial gain without their consent.

The publication of false information that casts someone in a negative light, causing them damage or distress.

A defense in privacy lawsuits where the defendant argues that the information published was truthful and of public interest, such as news reporting or information about a criminal case.

In the case of publicity given to private life, to be successful, the plaintiff must prove that the information would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and was not a matter of public record.

Even if a falsity is flattering, it still makes one look bad, as it is a fabricated portrayal of someone's life.

A plaintiff only needs to show negligence, not malicious intent, in a false light case against a media defendant.

A medical assistant released Yath's private information about her treatment for a sexually transmitted disease, leading to its publication online for her husband and community.

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. published a book about African American migration, including details about the lives of Ruby Lee Daniels and her husband. The book mentioned his arrest record and their reliance on food stamps.

An interference with an individual's right to reasonable private use and enjoyment of their property, often due to noise, odor, or other disturbances.

An interference with the public's right to use and enjoy property, often due to pollution or obstruction.

Conduct that significantly interferes with public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience.

Conduct prohibited by laws, rules, or regulations like zoning ordinances or environmental standards.

Conduct that is continuous or has lasting negative effects on the public's right.

To win a private nuisance case, a plaintiff must show they suffered a unique harm compared to the general public.

To sue for public nuisance, a plaintiff must have the right to sue for damages, be a public official, or represent the public interest.

A plaintiff's harm must be substantial and interfere with reasonable use of their property.

Analyzing the severity of the harm caused by a nuisance, considering factors like extent, character, social value, and suitability.

Analyzing the benefits of the nuisance-causing conduct, considering factors like social value, suitability, and practicality.

A case where a factory polluting a stream caused significant damage to nearby farmland.

An injunction preventing a nuisance, but paid for by the defendant to compensate the plaintiff.

A case where a cement plant polluting nearby homes was ruled to pay permanent damages rather than shut down.

A case involving a factory emitting gas particles onto nearby property, leading to trespass and nuisance claims.

Intrusion on a person's solitude or private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.