TORT LAW

DEFINITION
 ACT OR OMISSION (OTHER THAN
VIOLATION OF AN AGREEMENT)
 RESULTING IN INJURY OR DAMAGE
TO ANOTHER PERSON OR ANOTHER
PERSON’S PROPERTY
 LEGAL REMEDY AVAILABLE
TYPES OF TORTS
 INTENTIONAL – THE ACT OR
OMISSION THAT CAUSED DAMAGE
WAS INTENTIONAL
 NEGLIGENCE – THE ACT OR
OMISSION THAT CAUSED DAMAGE
WAS AN ACCIDENT
TYPES OF TORTS
INTENTIONAL
 BATTERY
 ASSAULT
 DEFAMATION
 NUISANCE
 CONVERSION
 FRAUD
TORTS V. CRIMES
 CRIME
 AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE

 REMEDY IS PUNISHMENT

 STATUTORY LAW

 NEGLIGENCE
 AN OFFENSE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON

 REMEDY IS COMPENSATION TO VICTIM FOR

INJURY
 COMMON LAW
INTENTIONAL TORTS
AGAINST PERSONS
 BATTERY
 INTENTIONAL ACT

 CAUSES HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE

CONTACT TO ANOTHER PERSON

 THE OTHER PERSON DID NOT

CONSENT
INTENTIONAL TORTS
AGAINST PERSONS
 ASSAULT
 INTENTIONAL ACT

 PLACES ANOTHER PERSON IN

APPREHENSION OF IMMINENT
HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE
CONTACT
 THE OTHER PERSON DID NOT

CONSENT
INTENTIONAL TORTS
AGAINST PERSONS
 DEFAMATION
 LANGUAGE

 ORAL (“SLANDER”)

 WRITTEN (“LIBEL”)

 ADVERSELY AFFECTS ANOTHER’S

REPUTATION
 INTENT TO COMMUNICATE TO A THIRD

PARTY (“PUBLICATION”)
 TRUTH IS A DEFENSE
INTENTIONAL TORTS
AGAINST PROPERTY
 NUISANCE
 HUMAN ACTIVITY ON (OR

PHYSICAL CONDITION OF) LAND

 HARMFUL OR ANNOYING TO

NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS OR
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
INTENTIONAL TORTS
AGAINST PROPERTY
 CONVERSION
 INTENTIONAL EXERCISE OF

CONTROL OVER ANOTHER

PERSON’S PERSONAL PROPERTY
 TO THE EXTENT THAT THE VALUE

IS DIMINISHED OR THE OWNER’S

RIGHT TO USE AND POSSESS IS
VIOLATED
INTENTIONAL TORTS
AGAINST PROPERTY
 FRAUD
 INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION

 MATERIAL FACT

 JUSTIFIABLE RELIANCE UPON THE

MISREPRESENTATION
 RESULTING DAMAGE
DEFENSES TO INTENTIONAL
TORTS
 SELF-DEFENSE
 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
 CONSENT
 NECESSITY
 NEGLIGENCE
"Negligence is not the act itself, but the fact
which defines the character of the act, and
makes it a legal wrong." (Stephenson v.
Southern Pac. Co. (1894) 102 Cal. 143, 147.)

 ACT OR OMISSION
 BREACH OF LEGAL DUTY OF CARE
 CAUSATION (BETWEEN THE ACT OR
OMISSION AND THE INJURY)
 RESULTING DAMAGES
NEGLIGENCE
 DUTY OF CARE
 REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD

HOW WOULD A NORMAL,

AVERAGE PERSON HAVE ACTED

UNDER THE SAME

CIRCUMSTANCES
NEGLIGENCE
 BREACH OF DUTY
 FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE

STANDARD OF CARE
NEGLIGENCE
 CAUSATION
 ACTUAL CAUSE

 INJURY WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED

BUT FOR THE DEFENDANT’S ACT

 PROXIMATE CAUSATION

 WOULD THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE

DEFENDANT’S ACT HAVE BEEN

FORESEABLE TO A REASONALBE
PERSON
DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
 PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE A FACTOR IN

PLAINTIFF’S INJURY
 ACTS AS A COMPLETE BAR TO

COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES

 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE
 COMPARE THE DEFENDANT’S

NEGLIGENCE TO THE PLAINTIFF’S

 PLAINTIFF’S COMPENSATION REDUCED BY

PERCENTAGE OF NEGLIGENCE
STRICT LIABILITY
 LIABILITY IMPOSED WITHOUT PROOF OF
FAILURE TO LIVE UP TO THE STANDARD
OF CARE
 APPLIED TO INHERENTLY DANGEROUS
ACTIVITIES
 KEEPING WILD OR VICIOUS ANIMALS

 USE OF EXPLOSIVES

 DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS THAT ARE

UNREASONABLY DANGEROUS