Tort Law Overview
24 Questions
0 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What are the goals of tort law? (Select all that apply)

  • Fairness (correct)
  • Compensation (correct)
  • Administrative Efficiency (correct)
  • Economic Efficiency (correct)
  • Deterrence & Accident Prevention (correct)

    • What are the three categories of torts?

  • Strict Liability (correct)
  • Gross Negligence
  • Intentional Torts (correct)
  • Negligence (correct)

    • Which of these is NOT a type of harm/damage?

  • Property Damage
  • Economic Loss (correct)
  • Wrongful Death
  • Personal Injury

    • What does 'loss of consortium' refer to?

    <p>Loss of consortium refers to the loss or impairment of the intangible benefits of a relationship, such as companionship, love, affection, and support. It is a type of non-economic harm that can be claimed by a victim's loved ones when a tortfeasor is responsible for the loss of consortium.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the standard of proof in a civil case?

    <p>The standard of proof in a civil case is preponderance of the evidence, which means that the judge or jury must believe the plaintiff's story and evidence is stronger than the defendant's version. This generally equates to believing that the plaintiff's version is more likely true than not.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The ______ Formula is a method for evaluating the reasonableness of a person's conduct in preventing an accident.

    <p>Learned Hand</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Generally, there is a legal duty to act for the benefit of another.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of these situations DOES NOT create a duty to act?

    <p>You are a friend of someone who needs help</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the general standard of care that a person must meet to avoid negligence?

    <p>The general standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person (RPP) in the same or similar circumstances, using common sense and ordinary care to avoid causing harm to others.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of these does NOT relate to establishing Breach of Duty?

    <p>Substantial Factor Test</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the difference between 'actual cause' and 'proximate cause'?

    <p>Actual cause, also known as cause in fact, establishes that the defendant's actions were a direct cause of the plaintiff's harm. Proximate cause considers if the harm caused was a foreseeable and reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions, determining whether the defendant should be held legally responsible for the harm. In simpler terms, actual cause focuses on 'did the action cause the harm?' and proximate cause asks 'was the harm caused foreseeable and justifiable to hold the defendant liable'.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Contributory negligence and comparative fault are the same thing.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Under which type of comparative fault can a plaintiff recover damages even if they are 50% at fault?

    <p>Pure Comparative Fault</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Punitive damages are available in all tort cases.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What are the three parts of the 'Necessity' test?

    <p>The three parts of the Necessity test involve determining the defendant's reasonable belief of imminent physical harm, the duration of the confinement for preventing that harm, and the use of the least restrictive means to prevent the harm.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the legal effect of an effective 'Consent' defense in a tort case?

    <p>The defendant's liability is completely negated</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The majority approach to intent for battery requires the defendant to both intend the contact and intend harm or offense.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Match the intentional torts with their definitions:

    <p>Assault = Intentional confinement of an individual to a bounded area Battery = Intentional exercise of dominion or control over chattel that seriously interferes with another's right False Imprisonment = Intentional act causing apprehension of imminent harmful contact Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) = Intentional harmful or offensive contact with the person of another Trespass to Chattels = Intentional or reckless conduct causing severe emotional distress Conversion = Intentional use or intermeddling with chattel in the possession of another</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of these IS NOT a potential defense for a claim of an intentional tort?

    <p>Assumption of Risk</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Strict liability applies to all products liability claims.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Which of the following IS NOT a type of product defect under products liability law?

    <p>Negligent Defect</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the 'Risk-Utility' test for design defects?

    <p>The Risk-Utility test examines the risk or danger presented by a product's design against its utility or usefulness to determine if a safer alternative design exists. The test considers various factors such as the product's usefulness, safety aspects, availability of substitutes, manufacturer's ability to eliminate unsafe features, user's ability to avoid danger, user's anticipated awareness of risks, and manufacturer's feasibility in implementing changes.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Trespass to land is a strict liability tort.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the difference between 'indemnity' and 'contribution' in tort law?

    <p>Indemnity involves one party (typically an employer or principal) being held liable for the actions of another (employee or agent) and seeking full reimbursement from that party for their losses. Contribution, on the other hand, involves multiple parties being found liable for causing the same harm and sharing the responsibility for damages, with each liable party paying a proportionate share of the total damages.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Study Notes

    Goals of Tort Law

    • Deterrence and accident prevention
    • Compensation
    • Economic efficiency
    • Administrative efficiency
    • Fairness

    Categories of Torts

    • Intentional torts: Fault + Intent
    • Negligence: Fault
    • Strict liability: No fault

    Types of Harm/Damages

    • Wrongful death: Loss of consortium (personal injury too)
    • Personal injury: Lost earnings (past and future), medical expenses, pain and suffering (past and future), loss of consortium
    • Property damage (includes damage to third-party property)

    Loss of Consortium

    • Loss of intangible benefits of a relationship
    • Victims of torts can recover if a loss of consortium was caused by a tortfeasor

    Preponderance of the Evidence

    • Standard of proof in civil cases
    • Plaintiff's evidence must be stronger than defendant's

    Negligence Case Map (MAP)

    • Duty: Generally no duty to act, but duty can arise if a risk of harm is created, by a landowner/occupier, special relationship, or by initiating aid
    • Breach: Failure to meet the standard of care (reasonably prudent person); can be proven by the Learned Hand Formula, state of the art doctrine, res ipsa loquitur, negligence per se, breaking industry custom, circumstantial evidence or child performing adult risk
    • Causation:
      • Actual cause (but-for test or substantial factor test)
      • Proximate cause (foreseeability + public policy considerations)
    • Damages: Contributory negligence, comparative fault, assumption of risk
    • Affirmative Defenses:
    • Conclusion

    Duty Exceptions

    • Creating a risk of harm
    • Landowner-occupier trichotomy
    • Landowner duty to protect invitees from criminal conduct
    • Special relationship
    • Initiating aid
    • Manufacturers of products that can become dangerous.
    • Tarasoff Doctrine

    Yania v. Bigan

    • No duty to rescue someone unless responsible for putting them in peril

    Rowland v. Christian

    • 3 categories of people on another's land: invitee, licensee, trespasser
    • Landowner has varying duties to each category (invitee highest, trespasser lowest)

    Attractive Nuisance Doctrine (Restatement 2d § 339)

    • Landowners can be liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions attracting children
    • Landowner's liability depends on if conditions are dangerous for children, condition was created by possessor, harm is minimal compared to risk to child, or if there was a failure to exercise reasonable care.

    Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson

    • Landowner may owe a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal conduct if one of the 3 tests is met → Specific Harm Test, Prior Similar Incidents (PSI) Test, or Totality of the Circumstances Test

    Farwell v. Keaton

    • Duty arises if someone attempts or knows of peril in a special relationship

    MacPherson v. Buick

    • Manufacturers of products have a responsibility for the safety of their product.

    Tarasoff Doctrine

    • Therapists have a duty to warn potential victims if a patient threatens them.

    Proving Breach

    • Learned Hand Formula (B < PL)
    • State of the art doctrine
    • Res ipsa loquitur
    • Negligence per se
    • Breaking industry custom
    • Child performing adult risks
    • Circumstantial evidence

    Vaughn v. Menlove

    • Standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person

    U.S. v. Carroll Towing

    • Negligence liability established by the Learned Hand Formula (B < PL)

    State of the Art Doctrine (TJ Hooper)

    • Breach can be proven by showing the defendant didn't use available safety technology

    Trimarco v. Klein

    • Breach can be proven if a custom or accepted practice exists and is ignored

    Res Ipsa Loquitur ("The thing speaks for itself")

    • Breach can be inferred from the fact that an accident occurred

    Byrne v. Boadle

    • Res Ipsa Loquitur can establish a breach of duty.

    Negligence Per Se

    • Breach occurs by violating a safety law

    Ferrell v. Baxter

    • Breaking a safety law is negligence per se

    Robinson v. Lindsay

    • Children performing adult activities held to adult standards

    Clark v. Kmart

    • Circumstantial evidence can be enough to prove negligence

    Actual Cause (Cause in Fact)

    • Did the defendant's actions cause the plaintiff's harm?

    But-For Causation Test (Single Defendants)

    • Plaintiff's harm would not have occurred but for defendant's actions

    Sowles v. Moore

    • Negligence proven by "but-for" causation

    Substantial Factor Test (Multiple Defendants)

    • Defendant's actions were a substantial factor in plaintiff's harm

    Corey v. Havener

    • Multiple actions/actors cause harm, court doesn't need to divide causes

    Reasonable Inference (Ingersoll v. Liberty Bank of Buffalo)

    • Causal connection between negligence and harm needed to support a negligence claim.

    Alternative Liability (Summers v. Tice)

    • If multiple defendants cause harm unknowingly, burden of proof shifts to them

    Single-Indivisible Injury Rule

    • If plaintiff harmed almost simultaneously by multiple tortfeasors, burden to prove damages apportionment is on defendants.

    Fugere v. Pierce

    • Single indivisible injury rule applies even if injury occurs from consecutive acts.

    Market Share Liability (Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly & Co.)

    • Manufacturers liable proportionally to their market share for injuries caused by a shared product

    Proximate Cause

    • Policy considerations limit liability; defendant's obligation included the type of injury?

    McClenahan v. Cooley

    • Intervening act doesn't break causal link if reasonably foreseeable and substantial factor.

    3-Part Proximate Cause Test

    • Actual cause
    • Foreseeability
    • Public policy cut off liability

    Compensatory Damages

    • Goal is to make plaintiff whole again through monetary compensation. Nominal damages may also be awarded if no harm was suffered. Compensatory can be divided into economical and noneconomic forms of compenation.

    Punitive Damages

    • Purpose is to punish reprehensible conduct and deter future conduct. Unintentional torts, strict liability, or products liability cannot have punitive damages awarded.

    Economic v. Noneconomic Damages

    • Economic: medical expenses, lost wages; Noneconomic: pain and suffering, loss of consortium

    Remittitur & Additur

    • Remittitur: Judge lowers a jury award; Additur: Judge raises a jury award

    Calva-Cerqueira v. United States

    • Prime purpose of damages is to compensate the victim fully.

    McDougald v. Garber

    • Loss of enjoyment of life is part of pain and suffering, determined by the trier of fact.

    Contributory Negligence

    • Prevents plaintiff from recovering if they were at fault.

    Comparative Fault

    • Plaintiff's damages reduced proportionally to their fault

    3 Types of Comparative Fault

    • Pure: Plaintiff recovers unless 100% at fault
    • Modified (A): Plaintiff cannot recover if fault is equal to or greater than defendant's
    • Modified (B): Plaintiff cannot recover if fault is greater than defendant's

    Public Necessity

    • Complete privilege; no recovery permitted for damage to protected harm against public. Defendant must show (1) damage avoided or minimized serious/immediate harm, (2) reasonable belief that the action was needed, (3) that action taken was a reasonable response to need (i.e. firefighters destroying property).

    Restatement § 196 Public Necessity

    • Privilege to enter land to avert public disaster.

    Complete Privilege

    • Prevents recovery of damages for property damage.

    Private Necessity

    • Incomplete privilege; recovery permitted for damage to protected harm.

    Restatement § 197 Private Necessity

    • Privilege to enter land to prevent serious harm (to oneself, others, or property)

    Necessity Test (3 parts)

    • Reasonable belief of imminent physical harm
    • Right to confine lasts only to lawful authorities
    • Least restrictive means to prevent harm
    • Effective consent is a complete defense to intentional harm claims; fraudulent consent is equivalent to no consent. Assume risk of harm as a result of consent (HOGAN v. TAZVEL). Consent is binary.

    Misuse

    • Modifying a product after purchase can be considered misuse.

    Self-Defense (Restatement § 65)

    • Privilege to use force to defend oneself if reasonably believing imminent harm of death or serious harm

    Dual-Purpose Intent (Minority)

    • Tortfeasor must intend both the contact and that contact is harmful or offensive

    White v. Muniz

    • Dual intent jurisdiction requires both the intentional contact and intent to harm or offend for liability.

    Single-Purpose Intent (Majority)

    • Only needs an intent to commit the tort.

    Villa v. Derouen

    • Majority rule for intentional torts.

    Doctrine of Transferred Intent

    • Liable if intended to harm one person, actual victim is different

    Map of Intentional Torts

    • Intent+Definition of Tort(Assault, battery etc)
    • Causation (actual, proximate)
    • Damages (comp, pun)
    • Affirmative defenses (consent)
    • Conclusion

    Assault (Rest. 2d § 21)

    • Intentional act causing apprehension of immediate harmful contact.

    Battery (Rest. 2d §§ 13, 18)

    • Intentional harmful or offensive contact

    False Imprisonment (Rest. 2d § 35)

    • Intentional confinement to a bounded area

    Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED) (Rest. 2d § 46)

    • Intentional/reckless outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress

    Trespass to Chattels (Rest. 2d § 217(b))

    • Intentional use/intermeddling with another's chattel

    Conversion (Rest. 2d § 222(a))

    • Intentional exercise of dominion/control over chattel significantly interfering with another's rights.

    Clohessy v. Bachelor Test

    • Close relation to injury victim, contemporaneous sensory perception, substantial victim injuries, serious bystander distress

    Strict Liability

    • Abnormal dangerous activities and wild animals

    Abnormally Dangerous Activity (Rest. 2d § 520)

    • Criteria for determining abnormally dangerous activities.

    Map of Strict Liability Cases

    • Abnormal dangerous activity
    • Wild/domestic animals
    • Causation (actual, proximate)
    • Damages (compensatory only)
    • Affirmative defenses (assumption of risk)
    • Conclusion

    Wild/Domestic Animals (Rest. 2d § 506 & 509)

    • Liability for harm caused by wild or abnormally dangerous domestic animals.

    Strict Products Liability

    • Sellers liable for harm caused by defective products.

    Products Liability (Rest. 2d § 402A)

    • Criteria for products liability.

    Map of Products Liability Cases (SPL)

    • Manufacturer/seller
    • Defect (manufacturing, design, warning)
    • Causation (actual, proximate)
    • Damages (compensatory)
    • Affirmative defenses (misuse)
    • Conclusion

    Welge v. Planters

    • Seller liable for defective product even if introduced by another party.

    Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

    • Manufacturer is absolutely liable if product proves defective.

    Open and Obvious Doctrine

    • No childproofing required for obvious adult risks

    Floyd v. Bic Corp.

    • Open and obvious risk in adult product doesn't require childproofing

    Manufacturing Defect

    • Product departs from intended design.

    Design Defect

    • Product design has a dangerous characteristic in all produced products.

    Greenman v. Yuba Power Products

    • Creator and promoters of products are liable for injuries from design defects.

    Valk Manufacturing Co. v. Rangaswamy

    • 7 factors to determine if design is defective.

    Consumer Expectations Test

    • Product doesn't meet reasonable consumer expectations

    Risk-Utility Test

    • Risk outweighs product's utility, must show safer alternative.

    Leichtmaer v. American Motors Corp.

    • Plaintiff needs to show a safer alternative exists.

    Inadequate Warning Defect

    • Failure to warn consumers about potential dangers

    Nowak v. Faberge U.S.A., Inc.

    • Inadequate warning can be a products liability claim.

    East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerican Delaval

    • Defective products causing purely economic harm is not a tort.

    Trespass to Land (Rest. 2d § 158)

    • Protects one's right to exclude; intentional entry or remaining on land.

    Whitehead v. Toyota Motor Corporation

    • Comparative fault is a defense in strict products liability cases.

    Creel v. Crim

    • Indemnity may apply where one person is held liable for the trespass of another.

    Map for Trespass to Land

    • Definition of elements
    • No causation analysis,
    • Damages (compensatory, punitive, nominal),
    • Affirmative defenses,
    • Conclusion

    MacRie v. SDS Biotech Corp.

    • Manufacturer has obligation for consumer awareness of product's danger.

    Indemnity

    • Payment to one held liable for the acts of another with no fault.

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Explore the fundamental goals, categories, and types of harm associated with tort law. This quiz covers concepts like negligence, intentional torts, loss of consortium, and the standards of evidence in civil cases. Test your understanding of the key principles and applications of tort law.

    More Like This

    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Open
    Browser
    Browser