Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
i. Torts are injuries/wrongs
ii. Purposes of a torts lawsuit
1. Compensate people for their inuries
a. Get them back to where they were before the incident
2. Prevention of future injuries
a. enjoin certain behavior
3. Punish wrongdoer
4. Deterrence of tortuous behavior by defendant or others
b. Corrective Justice & Utilitarian Approaches
i. Instrumental/Utilitarian
1. Prevention is major goal
2. Tort law ought to benefit society in general
3. Case is bigger than just the named parties-> deterrence
ii. Corrective Justice
1. Compensation of injured parties
2. Retribution/punishment
c. Argumentative techniques
i. Slippery slope
1. COUNTERARG: limiting principle
ii. Rights (liberty vs. security)
1. Liberty-individual rights
2. Security- greater good
iii. Fairness (between parties)
1. Expectations, reliance, culpability
iv. Utilitarian
1. Types of behavior produced by rule (deterrence)
v. Systemic- effect of a given interpretation on the judicial system
1. Too much discretion
2. Easy/hard to apply
3. Flood of litigation
4. Rules vs. standards
vi. Institutional Competency
1. Deterrence to legislative
2. Judge can decide
d. Areas of tort law
i. Intentional torts
1. Purposefully caused harms
2. There are specific affirmative defenses against all intentional torts
ii. Unintentional Torts
1. Negligence
2. Recklessness
3. Carelessness causing injury
4. There are specific defenses against all unintentional torts
iii. Strict liability
1. Liability w/o fault
2. You caused it, you must pay for it
e. Prima facie case
i. Elements of the tort that must be proven for a case to lie
f. Types of defenses
i. Derivative
1. Derived from prima facie case
2. EX: pf case requires elements a,b,c. failure of other party to prove an
element would be a derivative defense.
ii. Affirmative
5. Polmatier v. Russ
a. Man shoots father in law to death (man was insane)
b. No insanity defense...irrational motive doesnt mean that it was
c. When the court refers to injury, they mean the invasion of a
persons legally protected interest
6. Nelson v. Carroll
a. Carroll hits nelson with gun b/c of debt owed; accidentally shoots
Nelson
b. Didnt matter that he shot him by accident; he clearly intended
to invade Nelsons legally protected interests
c. It is more appropriate for those losses to fall on Carroll as the
wrongdoer than to Nelson as the innocent Victim
7. White v. Muniz
a. Alzheimers patient hits nurse in jaw
b. Colorado has dual intent law
i. Defendant must intend both contact and
offensiveness/harmfulness
1. Doesnt change what is harmful or offensive
ii. B/c she was mentally ill, D did not really intend the
offense/harm
8. Offensive contacts
a. Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications, Inc.
i. Radio host blows smoke in face of anti-smoking advocate
1. Offensive contact? Yes; contact which is offensive
to a reasonable sense of personal dignity is
offensive contact (OBJECTIVE TEST)
2. NOMINAL DAMAGES: used where there is minimal
injury (no actual harm here); can be as low as $1.
c. Assault
i. Intent
1. Desire to cause or KSC of causing contact
ii. Conduct
1. Causing apprehension of imminent contact
a. Apprehension must be objectively reasonable
2. Words alone are not enough for assault.
a. Actions must fill the gap
d. Transferred Intent
i. 2 types
1. Transfer of intent between two intentional torts (only battery and
assault)
a. Intended to commit one tort, inadvertently committed another
i. Intent to commit an assault satisfies battery, and visa
versa
2. Transfer of intent between two people
a. Intended to commit tort against one person, inadvertently
committed it against another (intent follows the bullet)
b. For assault, In a crowded room, only people who were
reasonably apprehensive (objective)can sue
e. False Imprisonment
i. Intent
1. Confine person
ii. Conduct
1. Causing the confinement of another
f. Trespass
i. Intent
1. Enter, even if you think its your land
ii. Conduct
1. Entry onto the property of another
g. Trespass to chattels
i. Intent
1. Use or possess the chattel, even if you think its yours
ii. Conduct
1. Interference with the use or possession of chattel of another
h. Conversion
i. Intent
1. Use or posses the chattel (so as to destroy, or maybe depreciate)
ii. Conduct
1. Use so as to destroy the chattel of another
i. IIED
i. Intent
1. desire or ksc of inflicting emotional distress or recklessness
ii. Conduct
1. Outrageous and causes severe emotional distress
j. Defenses to Intentional Torts
i. Consent
1. 2 types
a. Express
i. Closely tied to contract law
ii. Written waivers
iii. Verbal waivers
b. Implied
i. Consent is implied from the plaintiffs actions (using
objective test of reasonableness)
ii. A reasonable person in the defendants shoes would have
the impression that consent was given
2. Withdrawal of consent
a. Did the plaintiff do something that a reasonable person would
recognize as a withdrawal of consent (objective std)
b. McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts of America
i. Boys shooting paper clips at eachother (game); plaintiff
was playing, then left and sat down
ii. Was later shot in eye
iii. Implied consent at question
1. Consent lasts as long as a reasonable person would
expect
2. OR, until it is withdrawn
a. Expressly withdrawn- I quit
b. Reasonable person test
i. A reasonable person in the
defendants shoes would have to
understand that the plaintiff had
withdrawn consent
3. Consents Limits
a. Boxers consent to a fistfight, not shooting each other
b. Rules of the game...
i. If outside rules of the game, not consented to
c. Defining scope of consent
i. Example 3, p. 54
1. Unforeseeable result, something within the rules of
the game?
2. You have to have consented to the injury (contact),
but not the harm/offense
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
b. Abuse of authority
i. Employers
c. Taking advantage of a peculiar sensitivity
(with knowledge of said sensitivity)
v. If defendant exploited an advantage, could strengthen
outrageousness
vi. If defendant knew of a peculiar susceptibility of plaintiff,
could strengthen outrageousness
vii. NOT OUTRAGEOUS
1. Mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty
oppressions, trivialities
b. Causes severe emotional distress
i. Severe emotional distress
1. Must be ACTUAL distress suffered by the plaintiff
2. Must be distress that a reasonable person would
experience (objective)
3. Minority view requires an expert opinion that the
distress was severe (to prevent fraud)
a. Courts have generally gotten over the risk of
fraudulent claims
i. No way to define the limits of the
claim (slippery slope)
ii. Worried about liability being
proportional to culpability
iii. Also suggested that there is a sex-bias
(women are more prone to emotional
distress, while men are more prone to
physical injury)
4. Majority view says that the outrageous nature of
the conduct vitiates the need for expert testimony
ii. Types of distress
1. Fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation,
embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment,
worry, and nausea
a. Courts are less sympathetic to anger
iii. Recklessness
1. A conscious disregard of a substantial probability that your conduct will
cause (whatever the tort is about) i.e., severe emotional distress to
plaintiff
a. Awareness- must be aware of the risk
b. High Probability of causing the emotional distress
c. Underestimating the risk CAN be recklessness
iv. Native American Mascot Example
1. Type of harm
a. Their existence despite the protests
b. Reminder of genocide
i. Violent imagery justifies both their existence as mascots
and the genocides which occurred early in history
2. Intent
a. Lots of complaints; the schools certainly have notice to know
this is offensive to some
3. Severe Distress
a. Outrageousness
i. Depends on definition of community...
4. Schools have knowledge of the peculiar sensitivity!
a. That lowers the requirements of intent and outrageousness
l.
ii. If the act would or might probably cause damage, the fact that the
damage it in fact causes is not the exact kind of damage one would
expect is immaterial, so long as the damage is in fact directly
traceable to the negligent act, and not due to the operation of
independent causes having no connection with the negligent act,
except that they could not avoid its results
3. Laureano v. Louzoun
a. Hot water goes out in apartment, woman trying to heat water accidentally
spills boiling water on herself, causing injuries
b. The court said that while the defendants conduct gave rise to the
plaintiffs attempt to provide a substitute supply of heat, the act of boiling
water was not the direct cause of the injuries
i. Those injuries would not have resulted from the failure to supply hot
water alone, and cannot be classified as injuries normally to have
been expected to ensue from the landlords conduct
c. Landlord inspired the accident, but didnt cause it
d. Plaintiffs banging pots together was an intervening cause that was the
actual cause of the injury
v. Foreseeability (majority rule)
1. A cause-in-fact is a proximate cause if the plaintiffs harm was reasonably
foreseeable
2. When a defendants conduct is a cause in fact of a plaintiffs harm, the
foreseeability approach treats the conduct as a proximate cause of the harm if
the possibility of that harm was within the range of risks that supported the
original characterization of the defendants conduct as negligent.
a. Plaintiff must prove that the harm that occurred was WITHIN the risk
created
i. If youre the defendant, you need to define the risk created
narrowly
3. Two types of foreseeability
a. Foreseeability of plaintiff (Duty)
b. Foreseeability of injury
i. Only general type of injury must be foreseeable, not the exact
manner of the injury
4. Courts often rule that tortious and illegal conduct is unforeseeable...
5. Tieder v. Little
a. A woman was killed when she was pinned between a car and a wall, the
wall collapsing on top of her
i. Experts testified that the walls collapse was probably what killed
her
b. To prove breach:
i. Make a negligence per se argument
1. Building codes are safety statutes; plaintiff is in the protected
class; the injury is of the type the statute seeks to prevent
c. It is not necessary, however, that the defendant foresee the exact
sequence of events which led to the accident sued upon; it is only
necessary that the general type of accident which has occurred was within
the scope of the danger created by the defendants negligence
d. The collapse of a brick wall resulting in the death of a person near
such wall is plainly a reasonably foreseeable consequence of
negligently designing and constructing such a wall without
adequate supports in violation of applicable building codes- even though
the exact sequence of events leading to the collapse of the wall...may
have been entirely unforeseeable
6. McCain v. Florida Power Corporation
d. Physician was held liable b/c he knew or SHK that the wife was
also at risk of contracting the disease and he should have
warned her but did not
4. Situations where there is a special relationship between defendant and
a 3rd party who injured the plaintiff
a. Defendant had some right or obligation to control 3 rd partys
behavior
i. Social host
1. Social hosts dont owe a duty to control 3rd parties
to protect others
a. No legal duty in these situations (no special
relationship)
i. Ex. A host of a dinner party and a
guest who drunk drives home
b. Host has no legal right to control drinking in
his house- no duty
c. Too much of a burden on host
d. The act of drinking made the guest liable
anyhow (some courts say this)
5. Landowner duty
a. Traditional
i. Trespasser
ii. Licensee
iii. Invitee
1. Invited onto land for own profit
b. Modern
i. General duty of reasonable care to everyone on your land
1. Protects trespassers
ii. 2 levels of duty
1. Low duty for trespassers
2. High duty for lawful entrants onto the land
c. Dykema v. Gus Macker Enterprises
i. Man attends outdoor basketball tourney, storm causes
tree limb to fall, injuring man.
ii. Sued claiming defendant had a duty to warn him about
the storm
1. Claimed under special relationship exception
a. Question: whether plaintiff entrusted himself
to the control and protection of defendant,
with a consequent loss of control to protect
himself
i. Balance social interests, severity
of risk, burden on defendant,
likelihood of occurrence,
relationship between parties
ii. Other factors: foreseeability of
harm, Ds ability to comply with
proposed duty, victims inability
to protect themselves, costs of
protecting, and whether p had
bestowed some economic benefit
on D
b. Court found no special relationship
i. P could leave whenever he wanted; he
could see the storm coming; there was
no business dealings creating a special
f.
i. Wrongful birth
1. Parents claim that they would have aborted the pregnancy if they had
received accurate genetic or diagnostic information
2. Used to recover the additional costs that a disabled child costs to care
for
ii. Wrongful life
1. An action brought in the above circumstances by the child (I would be
better off not being born than being born as I am)
2. Also recovery for cost of care, but those extending beyond the age of
majority (care after age 18)
iii. Greco v. United States
1. Doctor failed to diagnose fetal deformities while P was pregnant; would
have provided opportunity for abortion
2. Causes of action
a. Wrongful birth
b. Wrongful life
3. Court says
a. A mother may maintain a medical malpractice action under
Nevada law based on her physicians failure to properly perform
or interpret prenatal examinations when that failure results in
the mother losing the opportunity to abort a severely deformed
fetus.
i. Greco should have been given the right to prove that she
has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the
form of emotional or mental distress and that she has
incurred and will continue to incur extraordinary medical
and custodial care expenses associated with raising
Joshua
b. Declined to recognize wrongful life as a tort
i. Linked to Nevada law requiring parents of a disabled child
to care for them beyond the age of majority...(not all
states have this law, could effect outcome)
iv. No claim for wrongful pregnancy
1. You cant recover for a healthy child, even if you cant afford them.
v. Offset rule
1. Damages for emotional distress should be offset by the countervailing
emotional benefits attributable to the birth of the child. (not uniformly
adopted, just an example from Idaho) Harm Benefit = damages
a. Criticism: the usual joys of parenthood would often be
substantially overshadowed by the emotional trauma of caring
for the child in such a condition, so that application of the
benefit rule would appear inappropriate in this context.
Primary Assumption of the Risk
i. An alternative expression for the proposition that the defendant was not
negligent, that is, there was no duty owed or there was no breach of an
existing duty
ii. A type of argument a defendant may use to rebut a plaintiffs claim or
evidence of duty or breach
iii. Clover v. Snowbird Ski Resort
1. Woman injured when ski area employee jumped off a rise and collided
with her
2. She settled with the employee but sued Snowbird for negligent design
and maintenance of its ski runs
3. Court says
a. Ski law was a statutory enshrinement of primary assumption of
the risk