Torts My Outline

Download Torts My Outline

Post on 27-Oct-2014




0 download

Embed Size (px)


<p>Tort- My Outline</p> <p>Goals of Tort Law: 1-11Torts as wrongdoing: Torts are wrongs recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit.</p> <p>Harm required: In all tort cases, the defendants wrong results in a harm to another person or entity. Torts, crimes and contracts. Breach of contract is often not considered to be a tort and must ordinarily be redressed under the rules of contracts, not the rule of torts. Some torts are crimes eg battery.. criminal law and Tort law sometimes overlap but are not identical. Criminal law aims at vindicating public interests, while tort law aims at vindicating individual rights and redressing private harms. Non-tort systems. There are alternatives to tort law. Eg. Workers Compensation Common questions in tort law. A) what conduct counts as tortuous or wrongful B) did the conduct cause the kind of harm the law will recognize C) what defenses can be raised against liability if the defendant has committed a tort.</p> <p>Some Broad and Conflicting Aims of Tort LawMorality or corrective justice. Tort law are largely erected under two large systems of thought.</p> <p>Morality or corrective justice attempts to hold defendants liable for harms they wrongfully caused on others. While good social effects may result from doing so, thats not the objective. The overall object of tort law as stated in a recent decision of the House of Lords, is to define cases in which the law may justly hold one party liable to compensate another. Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Servs., [2002] 3 All E.R. 305, 2002 WL 820081 (H.L. 2002) Social utility or policy. This school of thought bases tort law on social policy or a good for all of us view. Process. Rules must be made with the legal process itself in mind. Must be the kind of rules that judges and juries can understand and apply in practical ways. Potential conflict. Morality and Social utility basis for tort law are usually antithetical to each other.</p> <p>Ideas of Corrective JusticeFault and corrective justice. Tort law imposes liability upon defendants for conduct the law treats</p> <p>as wrong. In these situations, tort law seems to be commensurate with corrective justice ideals. Conversely, one may argue that it would be wrong to impose liability upon a defendant who is not at fault in causing the plaintiff harm. Society may wish to compensate injured people by the use of public funds, but it cannot justly force one innocent individual to compensate another.</p> <p>1</p> <p>This view emphasizes individual accountability for fault along with individual freedom to act without fault.Strict liability and corrective justice. Does tort law go beyond the principle of corrective justice</p> <p>when it imposes liability without fault? E.g. someone damages your property while the property is in my care..A rule that imposes liability upon me would be a strict liability rule because I was not at fault however, liability seems to accord with corrective justice as long as you and I both understand upfront.Uniting the potential gains and losses. Some thinkers advocate that a general regime of strict liability on the grounds that it is morally based and within the principle of corrective justice. This line of thought works best when an active person causes harm to a person or thingwhen both parties crash into each other for instance, it is much harder to work out strict liability based on corrective justice.</p> <p>Compensation, Risk Distribution, Fault..Risk distribution or loss spreading.. Some commentators argue that tort liability should be strict or expansive to secure more compensation for more injured persons. Some defendants such as product manufacturers, were seen as good risk distributors and could pay compensation for injuries they cause and then recoup some or all of those costs by raising price of product. In this view each purchase of the product will pay a tiny fraction of the cost of injuries inflicted by those products and injured person will not be compelled to bear the entire cost alone. Similarly, an enterprise would be forced to internalize losses typically generated by the business itself. Limited acceptance of risk distribution. The common law of tort has not generally adopted views that compensation is more important than corrective justice or that liability should be strict. Distribution arguments and strict liability have gone hand in hand in a few kinds of cases. They have not supplanted fault as the most common basis for tort liability. Moral and policy reasons for limiting compensation to cases of fault. Judges possibly do not adopt strict liability across the board and order compensation in every case in which defendant causes harm because judges feel heavily committed to a system of corrective justice and turn to social policy only when the feel that social policy and corrective justice coincide at least in part. Possibly, in spite of social policy favoring compensation, other social policies may only counsel limited compensation through the tort system. Risk distribution arguments may be sound but better suited to legislatures.</p> <p>B. Overview of Damage Awards: 13-16 C. Overview of Procedure: 17-242</p> <p>II. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. Battery: 27-35, 35-43 B. Elements of Battery: (Dual Intent) a. Intent i. Intent to touch/contact and ii. Intent to harm or offend b. Result i. Contact, and ii. Contact was 1. Harmful, or 2. Offensive Single Intent Jurisdiction a. Intent iii. Intent to touch/contact and iv. Intent to harm or offend b. Result v. Contact, and vi. Contact was harmful or offensive Effects of classifying a tort as intentional. Restatement Third of Torts calls itsomewhatironic that intentional torts are generally deemed considerably more serious than torts of mere negligence and yet in some situations, the plaintiff is worse off if the tort is classified as intentional rather than negligent. - --insurance may not pay for intentional torts; statutes of limitation is typically shorter on intentional tortsas a result, plaintiffs sometimes underplead..</p> <p>Cohen v Smith debrief: Note that professor is interested in procedural context Facts: P expressly indicated that she did not want a health care learners working on her. And was reassured by anesthesiologist. When she was anesthetized, Dr allowed student D to practice intubation on her. D lacerated Ps esophagus. P required additional surgery and recuperation time as a result of the laceration. Procedural Context: Issue: Holding: Legal Reasoning</p> <p>Garatt v Dailey Facts: Rule: Actual intent to contact or Knowledge substantial certainty of contact Absence of any intent to injure the plaintiff or to play a prank on her</p> <p>3</p> <p>Additional Consideration: ***Contact need not be direct. Intent and result could be both direct or indirect.*** Even if knowledge of substantial certainty of contact is not there and Intent Element is still met if actual intent or contact is determined. Probability of harm not magnitude of harm. ***Show similarity and difference with Cohen (if nurse did not know)*** White v Muniz</p> <p>Additional Consideration: .. One way to group tort claims is: i) the interests the protect; a. physical injury to person or property b. dignitary and emotional harm c. economic harm ii) ii) the levels of culpability they require. a. Serious wrongdoing (intent or malice) b. Negligence (lack of reasonable care) c. Defendant is guilty of no fault (strict liability)</p> <p>Think about how we treat children and mentally ill * possible exam questions Battery Prima Facie Case Intent Element: 1. Intent to touch / contact a. Actual intent to contact or knowledge of substantial certainty of contact b. Intent to contact plaintiff or intent cause plaintiff to come into contact with something / someone c. Intent to contact another transfers to plaintiff And 2. Intent to harm or offend a. Actual intent to harm / offend or knowledge of substantial certainty harm/offend b. Knowledge can be found if: i. People typically harmed/offended by conduct ii. Defendant knew plaintiff would be harmed / offended Result Element: 1. Contact4</p> <p>i. Direct contact or cause plaintiff come into contact with something/someone And 2. Contact was harmful or offensive i. Offensive if reasonable people offended or plaintiff reasonably offended Assault Prima Facie Case Intent Element: Intent cause harmful or offensive contact, or Imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive contact Result Element: Reasonable apprehension of a battery False Imprisonment Prima Facie Case Intent Element: Intent to confine Result element: Confinement, and Plaintiff either (1) aware of confinement, or (2) harmed by confinement McCann v. Walmart Stores Inc. Debrief</p> <p>FACTS: s shopping at s store When leaving, s were prevented from leaving the store by two employees of the who stepped in front of the shopping cart, blocking their path to exit and actually placing their hand on the cart, stating that the police were on their way. s son was mistaken for the son of a different family who had been caught shoplifting two weeks before. s were detained near the front of the store and waited for the police, which later turned out to be a security guard who stated that they had the wrong boy. PROCEDURE: Jury awarded the McCanns $20,000 in Compensatory damages. Wal-Mart appealed. ISSUE: Whether the jury, by the facts presented, would conclude that the was falsely imprisoned by the ? HOLDING: The court concluded that a reasonable jury could conclude that s employees intended to confine the s within boundaries fixed by , that the employees acts did result in such a confinement, and that 5</p> <p>the were conscious of the confinement. REASONING: False Imprisonment: conduct by the actor which is intended to, and does in fact, confine another within boundaries fixed by the actor where, in addition, the victim is either conscious of the confinement or is harmed by it. Restatement 2d., Torts 35 Physical barriers or physical force, as well as mere threats of physical force can suffice as confinement Threats of confinement may be implicit as well as explicit, and can also be based on a false assertion of legal authority to confine. Restatement, Supra, 41 Confinement may occur by other unspecified means of duress. Id. 40A. The mere threat of physical force, or a claim of lawful authority to restrain, as enough to satisfy the confinement requirement for false imprisonment. The directions to the , the reference to the police, and the continued presence of the s employeeswere enough to induce reasonable people to believe either that they would be restrained physically if they sought to leave, or that the store was claiming lawful authority to confine them until the police arrived, or both. HOLDING: Affirmed ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION / NOTES: Note that the court also stated that the action would induce reasonable people to believe either that they would be restrained physically if they sought to leave, or that the store was claiming lawful authority to confine them.</p> <p>It is not enough that the action The fact that the walmarts employee did not necessary have bad motive is not a factor in this case. Their action caused false imprisonment Remember intent knowledge of substantial certainty..</p> <p>Trespass to Land Prima Facie Case Intent Element: Intentional entry anothers land, or Intentional causing object to enter land, or 6</p> <p> Unintentional entry + intentional refusal to leave Result Element: Entry on anothers land, or Caused object to enter anothers land The public policy here is to protect the right to the exclusive possession of property</p> <p>Nuisance: Nuisance is an interference with anothers use and enjoyment of ones property. Here there is a balancing act. Conversion of Chattels Trover - Prima Facie Case Intent Element: Intent to exercise dominion over chattel Result Element: Interferes with anothers right to exclusive control *must be nontrivial interference</p> <p>*In the earlier hypothetical Proser v. Keeten, Proser wins. Note that in some cases, U.C.C. will state that the buyer wins. In situation where you have a conflict the statute winsi.e, UCC wins.</p> <p>.Intent can be established either through actual intent or knowledge of substantial certainty Tresspass to Chattels Prima Facie Case Intent Element: Intent to interfere with anothers use and enjoyment of personal property Result Element: Interference, and Plaintiff harmed thereby</p> <p>School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz, 771 N.Y.S.2d Different b/w trespass to chatell and conversion is that in one, the perpetuator does not have dominion or control over the property. Most torts law is based on state law. What happens when an action false into section 1983 and common law of tors?7</p> <p>If you prevail on both section 1983 and torts, you can only collect damages once. You would go for both to get 2 bites at the apple. Eg- you might be able to collect more damages in one over the other or you may lose in one,. Defenses to Intentional Torts.Types of Affirmative Defenses</p> <p>Self-defense Arrest detention Defense of property Privilege to discipline Arrest and searches Privileges to enter land/premise pursuant in connection</p> <p>Self Defense/Defense of Others Must show: 1Reasonable person would have a perceived an imminent 3. Threat requiring defense, and 4. Response was reasonable and not excessive. Defense of Third Partysimilar to self defense. However, some courts (minority) take the view that if you make a mistake, you are liable.</p> <p>Defenses to Intentional Torts Privileges Arrest and Detention Peters v. Menard, Inc., 589 N.W.2d 395 (Wisc. 1999) Must show: a. b. c. d. Reasonable cause for believing merchandise taken; Detained for purpose of delivering plaintiff to law enforcement; Detained for reasonable amount of time; and Actions reasonable8</p> <p>Side notecourt held that even if the defendants action was unreasonable, the deceaseds action was more unreasonable. Assuming shop talked to shoplifter but did not call authorities?</p> <p>Arrest and Detention (General) Must show: e. f. g. h. i. Reasonable cause for believing crime committed; Detained on or near premises Detained for purpose of investigation or delivering plaintiff to law enforcement; Detained for reasonable amount of time; and Actions reasonable</p> <p>*Always check what the law is in your state *Check intent element, result element Defense and Repossesion of Property Defense of Property Permissible if: 1. Action reasonably necessary to defend property, and 2. Force used commensurate given threat * Deadly force not reasonable if no threat to life or lime</p> <p>Katko v. Briney The underlying principle here is that we value protection of human life more so than we value protection of property</p> <p>B. Other Intentional Torts: 44-59 (8/29/11) C. Defenses to Intentional Torts: 60-73, 73-81</p> <p>9</p> <p>In TX you can use deadly force to defend your property or your neigbors if they have asked you to protect their property.</p> <p>Brown v. Martinez, debrief Transfer of intent both sides could potentially use the same do...</p>