Assault

-Not necc for there to be contact

Battery
-Contact offensive if not consented to unless medically necessary
IIED
-Extreme and outrageous conduct
-P suffers severe emotional distress
-humiliation
-embarassment
-anger
-grief
-mental anguish
-naesuea
-insomnia
False Imprisonment
-sufficient method of confinement:
-physical barriers
-physical force
-threats of force
-failure to release
-**invalid use of legal authority (locked in 1 hour = too long)
-P must know of confinement or be harmed by it
-irrelevant how short period of confinement is
Trespass to Land:
-intentional entry (no damage reqd)
-negligent/reckless entry (damage reqd)
-accidental entry (no liability generally)
-mistake of ownership NO DEFENSE even if reasonable
Private Necessity:
-will relieve D for trespass but not off hook for damage to property
Trespass to Chattels:
-minor intergerence with personal property of another
-remedy: dimunition of chattel at time and place of trespass/tort

Conversion:
-major interference with personal property of another
-remedy: FMV of chattel at time and place of tort
Negligence:
Duty of care owed
Breach
Causation
Damages
2 things: 1) was the P foreseeable? AND 2) if so, what is applicable stnd of
care?
-typically reasonable person standard: objective test
-sometimes: child, disability, special ability = use a person similar to our D
-individual shortcomings (cant read/ignorance) is NOT considered
-no legal duty to assist someone in peril
-exceptions: **creation of peril, contract (lifeguard), special relationship
(H-W)(P-C)(EE-ER), and statute
Res Ipsa Locquittar:
-Inference of directed verdict but NOT conclusive
-If can establish RIL, DV will never be granted because causation and
damages still need to be proven
Vicarious Liablity:
-ER not vicariously liable for intentional torts of EE UNLESS EE carrying out
tort in furtherance of ER business or within scope of business
-can be liable for independent (own) negligence
Landowner Duties:
Trespasser (no permission to enter/enter without permission): generally no
duty owed unless KNOWN/DISCOVERED. If so, same duty as owed to
LICENSEE
Licensee (permission to enter and social guests): duty to warn of KNOWN
DANGEROUS ARTIFICAL conditions that create an UNREASONABLE RISK of
harm and that licensee is UNLIKELY TO DISCOVER. Owner/occupier does NOT
have duty to inspect/repair defects for licensees.
Invitee (enter in response to express/implied invitation usually connected to
business):

1) duty to inspect AND

2) duty to make safe
**someone can lose status while on property if exceed scope
Attractive Nuisance:
-child need not be attracted onto land by condition
Violation of Statute (Negligence Per Se):
-may be excused where compliance caused more danger than violation or if
compliance beyond Ds control
Contributory Negligence:
-if P even 1% at fault, NO recovery
-if D reckless and wanton, kicks contributory neg out
Modified Comparative Fault:
-P recovers only if P negligence less than Ds (usually a threshold = 49/51)
Pure Comparative Fault:
-P recovers regardless the amount of her negligence
-P recovery reduced by her % of fault
Joint and Several Liability:
-when 2 or more tortious acts combine, each liable to P for entire judgment
amount (cause indivisible harm)
Products Liability:
1) mfc must be in business of selling such goods (COMMERCIAL SUPPLIER)
2) mfc must anticipate reasonable foreseeable uses of product (even if
misuse)
3) injury must come from a defective condition of the product
4) everyone down the line is liable (mfc, wholesaler, retailer)
5) indemnity issues arise shifts loss to the one who should bear it
-compliance with government requirements NOT conclusive evidence
-for STRICT LIABILITY purposes, lack of sufficient warnings = product defect
-look out for divisible injury
Defamation:

-public figure/public concern = actual malice = knowledge of falsity or

reckless disregard
-mere hostility of dislike of P IS NOT MALICE
-accuracy not a defense to privacy concerns
-consent must be specific (commercial approp)