Torts - Everything for 1st Exam

One commits a false imprisonment when one intentionally causes the confinement of another person, against that person’s will, and when the person is conscious of confinement (at the time).

The plaintiff will have a good claim against the defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress if the plaintiff can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct, and through that conduct intentionally or recklessly caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress.

The plaintiff will have a good claim against the defendant for trespass to land if the plaintiff can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally caused an unauthorized entry onto the plaintiff’s land, including any entry into the airspace in the immediate reaches above the surface of the land, or into the ground immediately below it.

The plaintiff will have a good claim against the defendant for trespass to chattels if the plaintiff can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally intermeddled with a chattel in her possession, causing actual harm to the plaintiff’s possessory interest in the chattel

The plaintiff will have a good claim against the defendant for conversion if the plaintiff can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant intentionally exercised dominion over a chattel in the plaintiff’s possession, so seriously interfering with the plaintiff’s possessory rights as to justify awarding the plaintiff the full market value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion.

Under the doctrine of transferred intent, the intent behind one kind of trespassory conduct can be transferred to any other of the trespassory harms resulting from that conduct

When the plaintiff has freely assented (either expressly or implicitly) to the defendant’s conduct, in full appreciation of the risks that it poses to the plaintiff, the defendant is privileged to engage in that conduct, without fear of tort liability, even though the conduct would otherwise constitute a tort. 

One has a limited privilege to use all force which is, or which reasonably appears to be, necessary to prevent an apparently threatened harmful or offensive bodily contact or confinement

An actor who correctly believes that some third person is the victim of an unprivileged attack, under circumstances in which the third person would possess the privilege of self-defense, may use as much force as reasonably appears necessary to defend the third person from a threatened battery or confinement.

The possessor of land may use reasonable force to prevent a threatened imminent unauthorized entry onto his land, or to terminate a continuing unauthorized entry on his land.

Under the privilege of recapture of chattels, or recaption, as it is sometimes called, a person whose property has been taken by force or by fraud, who immediately (or at least promptly, in the exercise of reasonable diligence) discovers the wrong, and who takes immediate steps to recover possession (goes in fresh pursuit) is privileged to use reasonable force to retake the property.

A merchant is privileged to use reasonable force to detain on the premises, for purposes of conducting a reasonable investigation, someone reasonably suspected of shoplifting. (Reasonable Time, Manner and Good Cause)

One is privileged to use reasonable force to invade the property interests of another to avert a reasonably apparent threat to the entire community or to some substantial part of it. Public necessity is a complete bar to any recovery by the plaintiff.

One is privileged to use reasonable force against the property of another, even it that other has not threatened one, to protect one’s person and one’s property. This privilege is incomplete; the person exercising it may not be prevented from its exercise, but must pay for any damages caused to the property against which he has employed his force.

null

null

The law recognizes that in certain relations—the relations of teacher and student, parent and child are prime examples—the party in a superior position has the right, and often the duty, to impose disciplinary control over the other party (the one in a subordinate position). 

null

null

Minors and voluntary intoxicated persons are not privileged to commit intentional torts.

null

To show actionable negligence, the plaintiff must convince the trier-of-fact by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s breach of duty, meaning the breach of an applicable standard of care, has been the legal cause of compensable damages.

1. Child - the Ordinary prudent Child (unless engaged in adult activities)

A professional is held to the degree of skill, intelligence, judgment and training customarily possessed and exercised in similar cases by members of her profession in good standing

The doctrine of negligence per se provides that the unexcused violation of a statute intended to protect a class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member from the type of harm the plaintiff suffered is negligent per se. 

Whenever (1) the accident is a type of accident that usually would not happen unless someone had been negligent, and (2) the agency or instrumentality that caused the accident was within the defendant’s exclusive control, the jury may draw an inference from those facts that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident (and therefore caused the plaintiff’s injuries). 

If the Defendant commits an intentional tort, the defendant is liable for all the damages caused bu that tort, even if most of those damages were not intended.

null

MAJORITY - Rsble DR.