-

14 Qs negligence
5 Qs intentional torts and defenses
4 Strict/ products liability
4- Defamation/invasion right to privacy/ nuisance

5 Intentional Torts where transferred intent applies:

1. assault
2. battery
3. false imprisonment
4. trespass to land
5. trespass to chattels
Damages are required for:
- IIED
- Trespass to chattels
- Conversion
Intentional torts:
- Act; intent and causation
Negligence theory usually what you apply for medical procedureslook at what reasonable
person would want to know before a surgery
Concerted action- need to show all defendants were acting together in concert to be jointly
and severally liable
- Res ipsa is generally not used in multi- defendant situations b/c for res ipsa the
defendant must have exclusive control of the instrumentality. If you dont know who
exactly did what in a situation with defendants you wont use it!
o Exception: surgical procedure with whole medical team
False Imprisonment: an act by defendant intended to confine plaintiff within fixed
boundaries; plaintiff must be conscious of confinement or harmed by it
- Duration of confinement is irrelevant
- Can be confined and then find an escape to make out false imprisonment
IIED- need extreme and outrageous actthat exceeds bounds of decency; intended or
substantially certain to cause severe emotional distress
- Physical injury is not required but need damages
Qualified Privilege- qualified necessity--privilege to interfere with the real or personal
property of another where reasonably necessary to avert imminent harm. No liability for
the trespass BUT unlike public necessity you have to pay for damages
- Landowner cant expel person/ persons property in an emergency
Conversion- an act in dominion of control intended or substantially certain to cause serious
interference with Plaintiffs right to immediate possession
- Remedy: full market value at the time of conversion
- Trespass to chattels remedy: loss of use or cost to repair
** Conversion: more than dispossession but in case where someone intends to take
something and then that item is stolen there is conversion!

Negligence
1. Duty
a. Defendant owes a duty of ordinary and reasonable care under the
circumstances
i. Law considers physical disabilities not mental deficienciesdefendant
owes a duty of reasonable care for a person with that disability
2. Breach
3. Actual Cause
4. Proximate Cause
5. Damages
For a defendant to cut off liability the higher up the ladder the stronger the answer choice
will be. Ex. If you are D and call says plaintiff will not prevail b/c D was not the prox cause,
but another says D owed no duty which is better? Duty will trump prox cause b/c its
higher on the ladder.
There is no duty to act BUT once you start to act you have to do so with reasonable care
Directed Verdicts
- To avoid a directed verdict the plaintiff has to show defendant owed a duty and a
breach of that duty
- Plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict will almost always be denied
o Is there a triable issue of fact for the jury? If yes then deny the motion for
directed verdict!
o Defendants motion is usually denied but sometimes may be granted
- Both motions deny is usually correct
Duty to control conduct of a 3rd party
- Usually there is no duty BUT there is a duty where one has the authority and actual
ability to control the 3rd party and knows or should know of the need to do so
o Vicarious liability: respondeat superior- a master is vicariously liable for the
negligent acts of his servants committed within the scope of employment
APPLIES TO NEGLIGENCE
Force inherent in the nature of employment (security guard, bouncer etc)
can impose liability
Landowner Duties
1. Duty owed to unknown trespasser: no duty owed
2. Duty owed to a known or anticipated trespasser: duty to warn of known dangerous
artificial conditions
3. Licensee: policeman, fireman, social guestduty to warn of known, dangerous
natural or artificial conditions (if obvious danger no need to do anything)
4. Invitee: same as licensee + duty to reasonably inspect and make safe
Attractive nuisance doctrine: possessor of land is liable for physical harm of trespassing
children if:
1. An artificial dangerous condition exists on the land
2. The possessor knows or should know that children are likely to trespass
3. The child herself because of age/immaturity fails to realize the risk or appreciate the
danger involved
4. The utility of maintain the condition is slight compared to the risks involved
Negligence per se: breach of statutory standard of care

Plaintiff has to be a member of the class of person the statute was designed to
protect
Plaintiffs harm must be of the type the statute was intended to prevent
o Breach of statutory duty can be excused if defendant if confronted with
emergency without his control!

Comparative Negligence
Pure: plaintiff may recover no matter how great her fault
Modified: plaintiff must be less than 50% at fault in order to recover
Joint and several liability: each joint tortfeasor is liable for the full amount of plaintiffs harm
Comparative: plaintiffs recovery is reduced by % of fault attributed to them
Contributory negligence- complete bar for a plaintiff to recover if they had fault
Rebuttals:
- Last clear chance- negligent plaintiff can avoid liability where the defendant had the
last clear chance to avoid plaintiffs harm and failed to do so
- Where the plaintiff proves defendant is more wrong then the plaintiff can still win (if D
was reckless/ wanton)
Products Liability: a commercial seller strictly liable for any defective condition
unreasonably dangerous existing at the time of sale
- Who can bring products liability action?
o Any foreseeable user, consumer or bystander (privity is not required)
o Who can be sued under products liability?
Any commercial seller in the manufacturing chain
o Defenses
Assumption of risk is a complete defense for products liability
Contributory negligence is not a defense
Product misuse can be a defense
Adequate warnings may provide a defense
Strict
1.
2.
3.

liability: breach of an absolute duty of care proximately causing harm to plaintiff

Abnormally dangerous activities
Overt hazardous activities
Wild animals

**if person gets hurt but not because of the dangerous activity then there is no recovery
under strict liability
DPDPD
-defamatory statement of fact
- publication of the statement (any 3rd party who reasonably understands)
-damages
General damages to reputationpresumed
Special Damages--Pecuniary lossspecial damages not required for slander (per se)
or liable
-Plaintiff Status. Plaintiff has to prove fault and falsity
- Public official/figure: plaintiff must prove maliceknowing falsity or reckless disregard
for the truth
- Private person matter of public concern: plaintiff must show negligence (fault/ falsity)

Private person matter of private concern: plaintiff has to prove publication

Defenses to defamation
o Truth
o Privilege
Qualified
absolute