Torts Overview and Intentional Torts Quiz

Unlawful confinement of a person.

Valid consent can prevent a claim of false imprisonment.

Parents can limit a child's freedom if they believe the child is in danger or needs help.

Limited right to temporarily detain a suspected shoplifter.

A citizen's ability to arrest someone for a crime.

Consent must be freely given without coercion or trickery.

Key differences in structure and recruitment strategy between cults and legitimate religious groups.

Encouraging or participating in unlawful confinement makes one liable for false imprisonment.

A voluntary physical action, either by commission or omission, necessary for liability in battery.

A conscious, deliberate movement of the body.

An act intended to create the immediate apprehension of harmful or offensive contact.

The perceived immediacy of a harmful or offensive contact.

A contact that's unwanted or offensive in context.

Awareness of a threatened harmful or offensive contact.

The intent to harm one person can be transferred if a different person is harmed instead.

Mere words, without a physical act, are not an assault.

Using lethal force to protect yourself or property against a felony. You cannot be the initial aggressor, but a reasonable mistake is acceptable.

Most jurisdictions do not require you to retreat before using deadly force. However, some jurisdictions require retreat if it's safe and you are not in your home.

You can use reasonable force to protect another person. A mistake about the need for force might be excused.

In the 'defense of others' legal doctrine, you have the same rights as the person you're defending. If they could use deadly force, you can too.

A legal privilege to trespass or destroy property to prevent a greater harm (like saving someone's life).

Examples of private necessity include: saving property, detouring, sacrificing property to save life, fleeing harm, reclaiming stray animal, entering land to save goods from fire.

When someone is in danger of serious harm, they have a stronger right to enter or remain on property than the property owner, for a reasonable time.

A force of nature beyond human control, like a storm, that justifies necessity.

Common carriers have a legal obligation to ensure passenger safety while on their vessel, including protecting them from harm caused by luggage or other objects.

Generally, social hosts have no legal duty to prevent guests from injuring themselves or others due to alcohol consumption.

Statutory laws that impose liability on businesses selling alcohol to visibly intoxicated customers who subsequently injure third parties.

Government entities are generally not liable for injuries caused by their failure to protect individuals from criminal activity, unless a specific legal duty exists.

Landowners have a duty to warn known trespassers of dangerous conditions on their property.

Landowners generally do not have a duty to warn unknown trespassers, except to avoid intentional harm or reckless conduct.

Landowners must warn frequent or known trespassers about dangerous conditions even if they're not technically invited.

The legal responsibility of landowners to take reasonable care for the safety of those entering their property, based on their status as invitees, licensees, or trespassers.

When a defendant violates a statute meant to protect the public, and this violation causes harm, it's a breach of duty without needing a BPL analysis.

To use the Negligence Per Se doctrine, the statute must be designed to protect the specific person, the specific interest, from the specific harm caused, and the hazard.

Even if a statute is violated, there might be a valid excuse, making the violation not automatically negligent.

Violating a statute doesn't always mean negligence. You must also prove the violation proximately caused the harm.

The usual practices within a particular industry can establish a standard of care for determining negligence.

A defendant's own rules or procedures can be used to determine if they acted negligently, even if they don't meet the broader industry standard.

Common knowledge can establish a standard of care, but in some cases, expert testimony is needed to prove negligence.

Expert testimony is needed when the topic is complex or requires specialized knowledge to determine a standard of care.

A doctrine that allows a plaintiff to establish negligence without direct evidence of fault when the injury was caused by an instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant and wouldn't have occurred without negligence.

RIL can be applied to multiple defendants when they share control over the instrumentality causing the injury, but the specific cause of the injury is unknown.

RIL requires the injury to be caused by an instrumentality in the defendant's exclusive control and wouldn't ordinarily happen without negligence. The plaintiff must prove the injury was not due to their own actions.

RIL is more likely to apply to groups of defendants who work together, like a hospital staff, rather than those who are simply present in the same place.

The injury itself must be sufficiently unusual that it speaks of negligence without needing direct evidence.

While RIL allows an inference of negligence, the defendant can still disprove it by presenting evidence showing they were not negligent.

The plaintiff cannot be responsible for the harm that caused their injury. It must be solely attributable to the instrumentality in the defendant's control.

When events are unclear or everyone involved is dead, RIL can be a vital tool to determine if the event was caused by negligence.

An intentional act that interferes with a landowner's exclusive possession of their property.

Landowners have rights not only to the surface of their land but also to the space above and below it, to the extent they can make beneficial use of that space.

An unintentional and non-negligent entry onto another's land is generally not trespass, unless it involves an abnormally dangerous activity.

Consent to enter a property can be a defense against trespass, unless obtained through fraud or mistake, or the act exceeds the scope of consent.

Even with consent, exceeding the agreed-upon limits or purpose of the entry can constitute trespass.

The intentional act of interfering with someone's rightful possession of property, causing them to lose it.

A legally recognized right to control and use property, even if you're not the owner.

A deliberate act that directly affects someone else's possession of property.

The causal connection between the wrongful act and the loss of property.

Intangible assets like domain names, copyrights, and patents can be subject to conversion.

A trespass occurs when a person intentionally enters another's land without permission, even if no harm is caused. This can include causing a thing or a third person to enter, remaining on the land, or failing to remove something they are obligated to remove.

Trespass can occur even if the defendant never physically steps onto the land. This applies if they cause something else (like flooding, rocks, or animals) to invade the property.

If someone enters land with permission but stays past the authorized time limit, it becomes trespass. Their lawful right of entry has expired.

Even if someone doesn't have legal title to land, they can still possess it constructively (like a tenant). This means they can claim trespass even if they don't have a formal deed.

Trespass can occur not only on the surface but also below (underground) or above (airspace).

Consent to an unlawful act is generally not a defense to a claim of battery, even if the plaintiff was aware of the illegal nature of the act. It is a general rule that consent to an unlawful act is no defense to a claim of battery. A person may not consent to an unlawful act.

Consent given while the plaintiff is intoxicated or impaired is generally ineffective if the defendant knew or should have known about the impairment.

If a patient consents to a specific medical procedure but the doctor performs a different procedure, it is considered battery unless the change is an emergency.

Trespass to land occurs when an individual intentionally intrudes on the property of another, regardless of their intention to trespass specifically.

The intent for trespass to land is not about the intent to trespass, but rather the intent to be on the land. Mistake is not a defense.

Trespass to land is a tort that protects the owner's right to exclusive possession of their land. It is not about the nature of the intrusion, but rather the legal basis on which the intrusion is occurring.

For trespass to land, a person only needs to intend to be where they are, not necessarily intend to trespass. Their intent is simply to be in that location.

Mistaken entry onto another's property is trespass. The intent is the act of being on the land.

A person who is allowed to enter or be on land only because the owner intends for them to be there, not because they are invited.

Landowners have a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of licensees, especially regarding dangerous conditions they know about.

Landowners have a reduced standard of care for licensees they don't know are on their property.

Landowners have a reasonable standard of care for licensees they know are on their property or are known to frequently use the property.

A dangerous condition on a property that is attractive to children, requiring a higher standard of care.

A case that established that landowners are not liable for harm caused by a hazardous condition if they did not know about it or had no reason to know.

A case that established that a landowner is not liable for harm caused by a dangerous condition if they could have discovered it but did not.

A person who enters another's land without permission or a legal right to do so.

Behavior that is so extreme and shocking that it goes beyond all possible decency, considered atrocious and intolerable in a civilized society. It must be truly devastating.

When someone with a position of authority or influence uses their power to threaten or harm someone else in a way that goes beyond normal persuasion or demands.

When someone's actions cause emotional distress to a third party, even if they weren't directed at that person specifically, it can be considered intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The emotional distress must be significant and debilitating. Simple insults, petty remarks, or annoyances are not enough.

The plaintiff must prove they experienced real and measurable harm due to the emotional distress. This harm must be severe and demonstrable.

When a power imbalance exists between parties, the person with greater power has a higher standard of conduct to avoid outrageous behavior.

A person can sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress if they witness someone else being subjected to outrageous conduct, especially if they are closely related to the victim.

If the emotional distress caused by someone's outrageous conduct leads to physical harm, it strengthens the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

A voluntary movement of the defendant's body that causes offensive contact. It can be an act of commission (doing something) or omission (failing to do something).

The defendant must have acted intentionally, meaning they either (1) purposely touched the plaintiff, or (2) were substantially certain that their act would result in contact with the plaintiff.

The defendant's act must be a conscious, deliberate movement of their body. Unconscious actions like sleepwalking or seizures don't qualify.

The plaintiff's consent to the contact is a complete defense to battery. If someone agrees to be touched, it's not battery.

The defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm caused by their battery, regardless of the plaintiff's pre-existing vulnerabilities or fragility.

The contact must be offensive or harmful to a reasonable person. It's not just any touching, it must be something objectionable in the context of the situation.

Intentional torts require the defendant to have acted with intent, while negligence involves the defendant failing to meet a reasonable standard of care, causing harm.

In strict liability cases, the defendant is liable for harm caused by their activity, even if they acted reasonably and didn't intend to cause the harm.

A legal privilege to act, potentially causing harm to property, to prevent a greater harm to the public, such as averting a disaster.

A limited privilege for certain individuals, like parents and teachers, to use reasonable force to maintain order and discipline.

A failure to exercise reasonable care, leading to harm or injury to another person.

Failing to act as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances, leading to harm to another.

These cases illustrate that municipalities are responsible for damage caused by police actions to third-party property while apprehending a suspect, even if deemed necessary as part of police power.

Extreme and outrageous conduct that intentionally causes severe emotional distress to another person.

A landowner generally owes no duty to unknown trespassers, but there are exceptions, like intentional harm or extremely dangerous conditions.

Landowners have a higher duty of care to trespasser children when the property has features that are attractive and dangerous, like a pool or abandoned machinery.

A landowner does not have to make their property perfectly safe for trespassers, but they must act with reasonable care to avoid causing harm.

If a landowner knows or should know that trespassers frequently enter a specific area of their property, they have a duty to act reasonably to avoid causing harm to them.

A landowner's duty to trespassers increases if the trespassers are consistently using a specific area of the land, regardless of whether the landowner explicitly welcomes them.

Generally, there is no legal duty to come to the aid of another person in danger. However, a person can be held liable for negligence if they interfere with someone else's attempt to help.

Once a person voluntarily starts to help someone, they must act reasonably in continuing that assistance and cannot discontinue it if it would leave the other person in a worse position.

Certain special relationships, like captain and crew, common carrier and passenger, or landlord and tenant, can create a legal duty to take reasonable care to prevent harm to the other party.

If a person relies on another's promise of assistance, the assisting person assumes a duty to act reasonably, even if there was no initial duty.

There is no duty to prevent a third party from causing harm to another person, unless there's a special relationship or the defendant took an affirmative action to put the person in danger.

A person who undertakes to act may not discontinue assistance if they have put the other person in a worse position.

Once a defendant has voluntarily chosen to act, they must act reasonably, even if they started helping without an initial duty.

A person's mental incompetence is generally not a defense to their wrongful actions. However, it may be considered if the incompetence resulted solely from their efforts to perform their duty.

When dealing with someone with diminished mental capacity, you must exercise reasonable care, considering their limitations. This includes providing necessary warnings.

If you have superior qualities like strength or vision, you must use them to exercise reasonable care and avoid danger, if possible.

Individuals with physical disabilities must exercise reasonable care for their own safety, taking necessary precautions. Others must also act reasonably to avoid harming them.

Children under 7 are presumed incapable of negligence. Between 7 and 14, they are presumed incapable but this can be overruled based on circumstances. Over 14, they are held to the standard of a reasonable person of their age, intelligence, and experience.

To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove four key elements: duty, breach, causation, and harm.

Generally, the standard of care is to act as a reasonable person would in the same or similar circumstances.

The practices commonly used in a particular industry often set the standard of care for determining negligence.