Tort Law Concepts and Cases

A private or civil wrong or injury (other than breach of contract) for which the court will provide a remedy in the form of an action for damages.

Generally, there is no duty to act for the benefit of another. This means you're not obligated to help someone unless you've created a risk of harm

If you create a risk of harm to someone, you have a duty to act to prevent further harm. This might include warning them or actively intervening.

A legal rule stating that if you begin providing aid to someone in need, you have a legal duty to continue providing it until professional help arrives.

A test used to determine whether a defendant's actions were negligent. The Learned Hand Formula considers the probability of harm, the gravity of the harm, and the burden of taking precautions.

This doctrine applies when a defendant failed to meet the accepted industry standards, even if they behaved reasonably.

This doctrine applies when the very nature of an incident suggests negligence, even if the specific cause is unknown.

This occurs when a defendant violates a statute, ordinance, or regulation. This violation is considered negligence per se.

A person invited onto the property for the landowner's potential pecuniary profit (PPP). They are owed a duty of reasonable care, including no traps, protection from willful or wanton conduct, warning of known dangers, and a duty to inspect for potential harms.

A social guest invited onto the property for a non-business reason. They are owed a duty of reasonable care, including no traps, protection from willful or wanton conduct, and warning of known dangers.

Someone who is on the property without permission. They are owed a duty of reasonable care, including no traps and protection from willful, wanton, or intentional harm.

A legal doctrine that applies when a child trespasser is lured onto a property by an attractive condition (e.g., a pool, a swing set). The landowner may be liable for injuries caused by the condition.

The landowner's duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal conduct. This duty varies depending on the circumstances and the test used by the court.

A test under which a landowner owes no duty to protect invitees from criminal activity unless they knew or should have known that specific harm was occurring or about to occur.

A test under which a landowner may owe a duty of care to protect invitees from criminal activity if similar incidents have occurred in the area previously.

A test under which a court considers all circumstances, including the nature of the property, the time of day, and the history of crime in the area, to determine if a landowner owed a duty to protect invitees from criminal activity.

A test that balances the predictability of a crime against the burden of imposing a duty to prevent it.

A duty to go to someone's rescue that arises from a pre-existing special relationship between the victim and the defendant.

A duty to exercise reasonable care when voluntarily assisting someone in peril.

A manufacturer has a duty of care, even to those beyond the initial purchaser, to ensure their products are safe and free from defects.

A legal doctrine requiring a therapist to warn a potential victim if they learn their patient intends to harm them.

The failure to meet the standard of care, which is the standard of a reasonably prudent person (RPP).

The defendant can use this doctrine to claim they were justified in causing damage to property to prevent greater harm to the public.

The defendant can use this doctrine to claim they were justified in causing damage to property to prevent greater harm to themselves or others.

This doctrine allows the defendant to completely escape liability for damages to property when acting under Public Necessity.

This doctrine allows the defendant to avoid liability for damages to property when acting under Private Necessity, but they might be forced to pay for those damages.

A defense to a claim of intentional harm, where the victim voluntarily consented to the harmful conduct.

When a person's consent is invalid because they were tricked, misled, or deceived.

A defense to a claim of negligence, where the plaintiff knew of and voluntarily accepted the risk of harm.

A defense to a claim of products liability when the plaintiff modified or misused the product in a way that contributed to their injury.

A defense to a claim of negligence, where the plaintiff's own actions contributed to their injury.

A defense to a claim of negligence, where the plaintiff's contribution to the injury is considered when calculating damages

A defense to a claim of negligence, where damages are reduced proportionally to the plaintiff's contribution to the injury.

Damages awarded to punish the defendant for their reprehensible conduct and deter them from similar future misconduct.

Punitive damages are only available when the defendant's conduct demonstrates a higher level of culpability than negligence, such as intentional harm, recklessness, fraud, oppression, or outrageous conduct.

Punitive damages are not available in cases involving strict liability or strict products liability.

Economic damages cover measurable financial losses, like medical bills, lost wages, and property damage.

Non-economic damages are awarded for intangible losses, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.

A judge can reduce an excessive jury award if it's deemed unreasonable, using the logic that no rational jury would find such a high amount.

A judge can increase an insufficient jury award if considered too low, using the logic that no rational jury would find such a low amount.

This doctrine allows a surviving relative to recover damages for the loss of a loved one’s companionship, emotional support, and care in a wrongful death case.

This doctrine focuses on the plaintiff's ability to enjoy life after an injury, even if they are unaware of their limitations.

Modified comparative fault jurisdictions restrict recovery based on the plaintiff's percentage of fault, with varying thresholds.

A fact or legal argument that, if proven, can defeat a valid claim.

A legal doctrine that holds defendants accountable for injuries caused by defective products, regardless of fault or negligence.

A landowner owes an invitee a duty to keep the premises free from 'traps' and to warn them of potentially harmful conditions.

A landowner owes a licensee a duty to warn them of dangerous conditions they are aware of. They also have a duty not to intentionally or recklessly harm the licensee.

A landowner owes a trespasser a duty to not intentionally harm them and a duty not to set 'traps' that could cause harm.

Attractive-Nuisance Doctrine applies to situations where a landowner has a dangerous condition that attracts children.

A landowner is liable for child trespasser's harm if the dangerous condition attracts children, poses a serious risk, and the landowner knows or should know of the danger.

The 'Prior Similar Incidents (PSI) Test' considers if similar incidents have occurred in the past at the location.

The 'Totality of the Circumstances Test' considers all relevant factors when determining a landowner's duty, such as the location, foreseeability of harm, and potential risks.

When a person starts helping someone in danger, they have a duty to exercise reasonable care in continuing their assistance.

A manufacturer is responsible for making sure their products are safe for all users, not just the initial buyer.

The 'but-for' test is used to determine if the defendant's actions were the actual cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It asks: 'But for the defendant's actions, would the plaintiff have been injured?' If the answer is yes, then the defendant's actions were not a cause of the injury. If the answer is no, then the defendant's actions were the actual cause of the injury.

The substantial factor test is used when multiple actions or actors have contributed to the plaintiff's injuries, and it's impossible to pinpoint exactly which one caused the harm. It asks: 'Was the defendant's actions a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries?' If the answer is yes, then the defendant can be held liable.

Reasonable inference occurs when evidence demonstrates a reasonable connection between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's harm. The plaintiff must show that it's more likely than not that the defendant's negligence caused the injury, based on the evidence presented.

Alternative liability occurs when there are two or more potential tortfeasors and it's impossible to determine which one actually caused the plaintiff's injuries. The burden of proof shifts to the defendants to prove they didn't cause the harm.

The single-indivisible injury rule applies when a plaintiff suffers injuries from multiple tortfeasors acting almost simultaneously. Here, the burden shifts to the defendants to prove that the damages can be divided among them.

Market share liability arises in cases where many different companies produce a harmful product, and the plaintiff can't identify which specific company made the product that injured them. Each company is held liable proportionally to their market share at the time of the injury.

Proximate cause is a legal concept used to determine whether the defendant's actions were a sufficiently direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It asks: 'Was the plaintiff's injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligence?'

Foreseeability in proximate cause involves asking whether a reasonably prudent person could have foreseen the general type of harm caused by the defendant's actions. If the harm was foreseeable, the defendant could be held liable.

Public policy is a set of principles that guide legal decision-making. When determining proximate cause, courts consider public policy to decide whether it's fair to hold the defendant liable for the specific harm that occurred, even if it was foreseeable.

Compensatory damages are awarded by a court to make the injured party 'whole' again, compensate for the loss they suffered. These damages can cover lost wages, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other expenses related to the injury.

Nominal damages are awarded when a party's rights have been violated, but no actual harm has occurred. These damages are typically a small amount, recognizing that a wrong occurred even if no real loss occurred.

Actual Cause is the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. It can be established through the 'But-For' test or the 'Substantial Factor' test.

A complete legal privilege that allows a defendant to avoid liability for damaging someone's property if they acted reasonably to prevent a serious public threat.

In a negligence case, this doctrine means a plaintiff can't recover any damages if they are found to be partially at fault.

A negligence claim where the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault but can still recover damages, with the amount reduced by the percentage of their fault.

A type of comparative fault where a plaintiff can only recover damages if their fault is less than 50%.

A type of comparative fault where a plaintiff can only recover damages if their fault is 50% or less.

Contributory negligence is not a defense for deliberate actions like intentional torts, negligence per se, gross negligence, trespassing, or strict liability.

Comparative fault is a defense against negligence claims, but not against intentional torts, trespass to land, or strict liability claims.

This test determines if a defendant's actions were a proximate cause of the harm. It asks:

1. Was there actual causation?
2. Could a reasonably prudent person have foreseen the risk?
3. Are there public policy reasons to limit liability?

This type of damage refers to the loss of companionship, love, care, and affection of a deceased person. It can also include the loss of household services provided by the deceased person.

This type of damage compensates for physical injuries and their consequences, including:

• Past and future medical expenses
• Pain and suffering
• Loss of earning capacity
• Loss of consortium

This type of damage covers the cost of repairing or replacing property damaged by the defendant's negligence. It's not limited to personal property, but can also extend to third-party property.

A private necessity is an incomplete or qualified privilege, meaning that the plaintiffs CAN recover damages for property harmed. This means the person acting out of necessity can be held liable for the damage.

It allows a person to enter or remain on another's land if it is reasonably necessary to prevent serious harm to themselves, their property, or others, unless the owner clearly expresses their unwillingness.

The Necessity Doctrine ONLY covers compensatory damages, which are meant to cover actual losses, NOT punitive damages, which are meant to punish.

Self-defense is a privilege to use force to defend oneself against another when one reasonably believes that the other is about to inflict harm and that the use of force is the only way to prevent serious harm.

The defendant must act with a desired purpose to bring about a certain result, OR with knowledge to a substantial certainty that a particular result will follow.

The defendant intended the act AND caused the result.

The tortfeasor is liable if they intended to harm person A, but instead harm person B. This eliminates the need to prove proximate cause in intentional torts.

Assault is an intentional act that creates a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Battery is an intentional act that causes harmful or offensive contact with another person.

False imprisonment is the intentional act of confining or restraining a person without their consent.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress involves intentional or reckless conduct that causes severe emotional distress to another.

Trespass to chattels is an intentional act that harms or interferes with another's personal property.

Conversion is an intentional act that deprives another of their personal property permanently or for an unreasonable time.

Actual cause is established using the 'But-for' or 'Substantial Factor' tests. The focus is on the actual cause, not proximate cause in intentional torts.

Intentional torts can result in BOTH compensatory and punitive damages. Courts can award economic and non-economic damages for intentional torts.

An unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public. Can include significant interference with public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience, conduct proscribed by statute, ordinance, or regulation, or conduct with a lasting effect on the public right.

A public nuisance requires an individual to suffer harm different from the general public to recover damages. Authority as a public official or agency may represent the state in the matter.

A substantial and unreasonable interference with the Plaintiff's right to enjoy their land. The intrusion must be significant enough to affect the use and enjoyment of the property.

To determine if a nuisance exists, courts consider the gravity of the harm (how bad is it?) and the utility of the conduct (how useful is it?).

A nuisance occurs when the Plaintiff proves that the interference with their use and enjoyment of the property is substantial and unreasonable.

The actual cause test in nuisance examines whether the conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm.

Proximate cause in nuisance relates to foreseeability and the scope of liability. Would a reasonable person foresee the harm? Was it within the scope of the risky conduct?

Damages in nuisance cases can include compensatory damages to make up for the harm and punitive damages to punish the defendant.

A particular type of activity that is inherently dangerous and potentially harm-producing, even with the exercise of due care.

The victim must be bound in all directions, with no reasonable means of escape. This can be imposed by duress.

A person must act with reckless disregard as to whether the victim would suffer severe distress. This behavior is beyond acceptable societal norms.

The distress must be significant enough for a reasonable person to experience, considering the intensity and direction of the distress. However, if the defendant knew about a victim's hypersensitivity, liability can still be imposed.

A test to determine if emotional distress damages are recoverable in IIED cases. It considers the victim's relationship to the injured person, their sensory experience during the event, whether they suffered substantial injuries, and whether they experienced serious emotional distress.

The intent required for trespass to chattels is the desire or knowledge to touch the specific property, not necessarily to cause harm. This intent can also be inferred from substantial capacity.

A defendant may have assumed physical control over the chattel and used it in a way that could harm or deprive the rightful owner of its use. This can be assessed by considering damage to the property, control over the chattel, and loss of use by the owner.

A defendant has intentionally assumed physical control over a chattel and interfered with the rightful owner's rights to control it. This involves more serious interference than trespass to chattels.

A defendant has taken control of someone's property to the full value. This is a more significant interference than trespass to chattels. It considers several factors: intent, extent of interference, defendant's good faith, and harm to the chattel.

The plaintiff must prove that, but for the defendant's actions, the injury would not have occurred. It's used to show a direct causal link.

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions were a significant factor in causing the harm. Typically used in intentional torts.

Intentional tortfeasors are expected to bear the far-reaching consequences of their harmful actions. This is why the actual cause is a key focus in intentional torts.

A defense to intentional torts where the plaintiff agrees to the actions taken by the defendant. It can be expressed verbally or in writing.

This consent is inferred from actions, behavior, or inaction. It's not explicitly stated but can be understood from the circumstances.

A defense to an intentional tort when a person uses reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent unlawful force by another.

An animal that is not customarily used for human benefit, regardless of how carefully the animal is kept, will result in strict liability for harm caused by the animal.

A person who keeps a domestic animal knowing it has dangerous tendencies beyond its breed can be held strictly liable for harm caused by that animal.

A defect in a product that deviates from its intended design due to an error in the manufacturing process.

A defect in a product that exists in all products of that design, making them inherently dangerous.

A design defect is proven by showing the product is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use, either by failing to meet consumer expectations or by failing to meet a risk-utility test.

A legal test used to determine design defects by considering the product's usefulness and desirability, safety aspects, availability of safer alternatives, and other factors.

A legal test used to determine design defects by comparing the product's design to reasonable consumer expectations for safety.

A product is considered defective if a reasonable warning about its dangers was not provided to consumers.

The plaintiff must prove that the defect in the product was the actual cause of their injury.

The plaintiff must prove that the defect in the product was a foreseeable cause of their injury, and public policy favors holding the defendant liable.

Strict products liability allows for only compensatory damages, which are meant to restore the plaintiff to their pre-injury condition.

Defenses to strict products liability claims include failure to be aware of the defect, comparative fault, assumption of risk, misuse, modification or alteration of the product.

A legal doctrine that applies when the risk of harm is open and obvious, and the product is intended for adult use, meaning childproofing may not be required.

The law relies on the assumption that the product will reach the consumer without significant changes, creating liability for the seller even if the defect occurred before they sold it.

A legal doctrine holding that a manufacturer has a duty to ensure the end user/consumer is aware of the dangers associated with their product, even if warnings are provided to distributors or businesses.

A legal claim brought when someone intentionally enters, remains on, or fails to remove something from another person's land without permission.

A legal concept stating that a manufacturer may be liable for failing to warn about a product's potential dangers, even if the warning was present but ineffective.

A legal doctrine that states a plaintiff can't generally receive compensation for economic losses directly caused by a defective product, only for physical injuries or damage.

A type of legal remedy where a party that has been held liable for the actions of another is required to pay for the loss suffered by that party, even though they did not bear any fault.

A legal test used to evaluate the effectiveness of warnings on products, considering factors like clarity, conspicuousness, explicitness, and the means used to convey the message.

A defense to a product liability claim where the plaintiff modified or misused the product in a way that caused or contributed to their injury.