Torts Outline V2 PDF

Factors considered in determining the magnitude of risk (applies to the hand formula) a. The social value attached by the law to certain interests b. The extent to the actor's conduct will cause the perpetration of an interest c. The extent of the harm likely to be caus...

Factors considered in determining the magnitude of risk (applies to the hand formula) a. The social value attached by the law to certain interests b. The extent to the actor's conduct will cause the perpetration of an interest c. The extent of the harm likely to be caused d. Number of persons whose interests may be harmed Tort law has three theories of recovery 1. Intentional torts: The actor intends to invade a legally protected interest of another person 2. Unintentional torts: The actor creates an unjustifiable risk of invading another's legally protected interest 3. Strict liability: impose liability without regard to whether the actor's conduct is blameworthy Three kinds of statutory violation proofs 1. Strict liability: liability without proof of fault, no excuse allowed 2. Negligence per se: breaking of a statute is inherently negligent (certain excuses allowed) 3. Evidence of negligence: statutory violation implies negligence (evidentiary implication) Variety of approaches in determining proximate cause 1. Directness test: treats a defendant's conduct that is a cause-in-fact of a plaintiff's harm as a proximate cause if there are no intervening forces between the defendant's act and the plaintiff's harm 2. Substantial factor test: treats a defendant's conduct as a proximate cause of a plaintiff's harm if the conduct is important enough, compared to other causes of the harm, to justify liability a. A number of other factors b. Created a force or series of continued forces that caused that harm c. Lapse of time 3. Foreseeability test: treats a cause-in-fact as a proximate cause of the type of accident that occurred was reasonably foreseeable 4. Risk standard: imposes liability only for injuries within the scope of the risk that supported an initial finding of an actor's negligence Case Rule Notes Reasonable Person Standard Vaughn v. The plaintiff may recover if: 1. The defendant owed the The reasonable person standard is the Menlove plaintiff a duty to act a certain way (Duty) 2. The only standard to determine negligence. defendant breached the duty by failing to act as well as the duty required (breach) and 3. Caused (causation) some 4. harm to the plaintiff (damages) Parrot v. Circumstances can excuse an actor from negligence if Wells Fargo the actor is shown to have been innocently ignorant of unavoidable harm. McCarty v. The use of a cost-benefit analysis can at times be used Breach of duty of care: Negligence that Pheasant to clarify the reasonableness standard (Hand formula: results in a foreseeable injury that Run, Inc. B