Bar Review
Torts
Always assume you're dealing with a normal person for the plaintiff. Ignore their oddities. Two elements: Harmful contact is never tested. It will only be offensive. Your person includes anything you're holding or intimately connected to like a horse you're riding. Two elements: You must see it coming, but you don't have to be afraid of the result. Words alone are not sufficient to create immediacy. There must be conduct—a menacing gesture, usually brandishing a weapon. Two elements: Threats are sufficient restraint. A failure to act can be an act of restraint if there is an owed duty. The plaintiff has to be aware of or harmed by the restraint. An area is not bounded if there is a reasonable way to exit the plaintiff should reasonably discover. Can be reckless. Two elements: Outrageous conduct is conduct that exceeds all bounds of decency tolerated in civilized society. No specific evidence is required. In theory, the plaintiff could just claim he was distressed. Two elements: A defendant is not required to know he crossed the boundary line. Land includes the air above and soil below for a reasonable distance. Chattels = personal property Property can be damaged or taken. If the magnitude of harm is great, it's conversion, if small, trespass to chattels. Question of ownership is not a defense for these. Consent is a defense to all seven intentional torts. People must have the mental capacity to consent. Consent can be express or implied. Consent can be implied by custom and usage. Consent can be also be implied by the defendant's reasonable interpretation of the plaintiff's conduct. You can consent by your body language. All consent has a scope. You only consent to what you consent to. All come from when there is a threat from the plaintiff. The threat must be in progress or imminent. The defendant must believe the threat to be genuine. But it includes if you are actually wrong. The force responded with must be proportional. Only apply to property torts When the defendant commits a property tort to protect the community as a whole or a significant number of people. You still have to pay for any actual harm. Elements: Duty is your obligation to reduce your risk to other people. You owe your duty to your foreseeable victims and not to unforeseeable victims. Your duty owed is the degree precaution that would have been exercised by a hypothetical reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances. Firefighters and police are never able to recover for injuries expected as an inherent risk of the job. Statutory standards of care apply if the statute is designed to protect the class of people the plaintiff is a member of and to prevent the class of injury that occurred in this case. (Negligence per se) There are no duties to act affirmatively. You never have to take an action, but if you do take a course of conduct, you have to act reasonably. This means there is no duty to rescue. NIED requires the defendant to act negligently. There are two ways to establish NIED: Breach can be because of doing something stupid or not doing something you should have, but you have to explain why that is a breach. Applies if shown that: Uses the but-for test Uses the substantial factor test, which isn't super clear, but if it could have caused the injury alone it's definitely a substantial factor If the cause is unknown but multiple defendants were negligent and could have caused it, they are jointly liable unless they can prove they didn't do it. Think of proximate cause as fairness. Judged by whether the result was foreseeable. Four main fact patterns where the resulting harm is foreseeable: (If you injure people and it gets worse or hurts others by malpractice, someone trying to help, people panicking, or the victim hurting himself because of his injuries, you're liable for all those results.) At common law, requires that: If subject is a matter of public concern (newsworthy), two additional elements are required for defamation: Privacy is basically four small torts:Intentional Torts
Intentional Torts
Incapacity is not a defense for torts.
Intent to commit a tort transfers to other torts. Battery
Offensive = unpermittedAssault
An apparent ability creates a reasonable apprehension.Immediacy
Words can negate immediacy though, by implying it won't be immediate.False Imprisonment
"If you leave, we'll call the police" is a restraining threat.
Leaving a handicapped customer can be imprisonment.
A gross or dangerous way to escape is not a reasonable means of escape.Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Often based on repeated behavior, such as with sexual harassment or debt collectors.
If a common carrier does something to distress its customers, it's often IIED.
Often IIED if against emotionally vulnerable people, mainly children, elderly, or pregnant women.
If the defendant has advanced knowledge of some emotional fear or weakness, targeting that is outrageous.
Problems just can't say that the plaintiff was "mildly annoyed".Trespass to Land
A physical invasion can also include, throwing a tangible object onto the land.Trespass to Chattels and Conversion
In conversion, the damage is so great, that the full value of the item is the damages.Intentional Torts' Affirmative Defenses
Consent
People with limited mental capacity can consent to things they understand.
Consent obtained through fraud or duress is void.Protective Privileges
There cannot be preemption or revenge.Necessity
Public Necessity
This will be like saving a neighborhood from a fire or flood by damaging or taking property.Private Necessity
You don't have to pay for nominal or punitive damages.
The property owner is not allowed eject a trespasser during an emergency.Negligence
Negligence
Duty
Foreseeability
People are unforeseeable outside the zone of danger.
People far away are probably unforeseeable.
An exception is rescuers, who are foreseeable victims, even if they started far away. "Danger invites rescue."Reasonably Prudent Person Standard
The standard is the same for every person. It doesn't matter if the defendant is stupid, clumsy, or a novice.
However, if the defendant has increased skill or knowledge in an area, he will be held to the standard of a reasonably prudent person with that skill or knowledge. A race car driver driving to work will be held to the standard of a reasonably prudent race car driver. Someone who knows of a dangerous situation should act reasonably in accordance with that knowledge.
A defendant's physical characteristics are taken into consideration. A blind person should act like a reasonably prudent blind person.Special standards of care
However, if they were participating in adult activities (Read: operating a motorized vehicle), use the reasonably prudent person standard.
This will require and expert witness, typically allowed to be from anywhere.Premises Liability
A property owner must exercise reasonable prudence to trespassing children with regard to trespassing children. (Something dangerous that pulls children in, an attractive nuisance)
The easiest way to satisfy the duty is to put up a warning sign to convert a hidden danger to an open danger.
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Breach
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Causation
Factual Causation
Merged Causation
Proximate Causation
Typically self-evident, so only relevant in weird cases
Defamation
Defamation
Defenses
Privacy
Privacy
Defenses