Tort Law Overview

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

Consent

• 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.