Rules

Question 1

Battery

Answer 1

1. Intent
   
   • single intent (simply to contact)
   • dual intent (contact + harm or offense)
   • subject to transferred intent
2. Contact
   
   • actual touching
   • intimately connected
   • by setting in motion
3. Harm or offense
   
   • Reasonable victim standard
   • informed subjective-ness
   • bodily injury

Question 2

Assault

Answer 2

1. An act
2. Intent to cause or threaten harmful contact
3. Apprehension of imminent contact

• cannot be done by words alone, words must be accompanied by some act.

Question 3

False Imprisonment

Answer 3

1. Intent to confine
2. Confining of another to a limited area for an appreciable time
   
   • –thru threat (implied or express)
   • –assertion of false authority
   • –duress
3. Without lawful privilege
4. Against the other’s consent
5. With awareness by the other or actual harm

Question 4

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Answer 4

1. Extreme and outrageous conduct (beyond all bounds of decency)
   
   • repeated
   • position of power
   • directed at vulnerable person
2. Intent or reckless causing
3. Severe emotional distress

Question 5

Trespass to Land

Answer 5

1. P has ownership or possessory interest in land
2. Tangible invasion or intrusion onto land
3. That is intentional
   
   • –whether or not the trespasser knows they are trespassing

Question 6

Conversion of Chattels

Answer 6

1. Intentionally
2. exercising substantial dominion over a chattel
   
   • Assertion of rights
   • Harm done
   • Expense or inconvenience caused
   • Duration of dominion
   • Good faith acts
   • Extent of dominion
3. of another

Question 7

Trespass to Chattel

Answer 7

1. Intent
2. No justification or consent
3. Physically interference of use of property
4. Harm to plaintiff

Question 8

Self Defense

Answer 8

1. Actual or reasonable threat to safety.
   
   • provocation not applicable,
   • Mistake not applicable to defense of others in
     some jx;s
2. Force employed proportional to threat.

Question 9

Self Defense Initial Aggressor

Answer 9

1. Withdrawal and effectively communicate intent to
   withdrawal
2. Actual or reasonable threat to safety.
   
   • provocation not applicable,
   • Mistake not applicable to defense of others in
     some jx;s
3. Force employed proportional to threat.

Question 10

Defense of Property

Answer 10

1. ONLY the force reasonably necessary to overcome
   resistance and expel the intruder
2. NEVER to use any force calculated to cause death or
   serious bodily injury where only property is
   threatened
3. BUT can use self-defense if threat of death or
   serious bodily injury to self or others

Question 11

Arrest and Detention

Answer 11

1. Misdemeanors that breach the peace (but only if
   actually occurred, not just mistaken belief
2. Felonies that actually occurred or the defendant
   reasonably believed occurred

Question 12

Shopkeeper’s Right to Detain

Answer 12

1. Reasonable cause that the plaintiff has taken goods
   without paying, BUT ONLY IF;
2. Limited to questioning or summoning police; and

3 Carried out in a reasonable manner and for a
reasonable length of time.
- Proportionality applies here. Cheap item less force
allowed.

Question 13

Consent

Answer 13

ELEMENTS
implied or express manifestation of assent to another’s conduct.
very fact specific.
Generally, would a reasonable person think that the P consented?
(verbal/nonverbal communication, revocation, asymmetry of info, power imbalance, coercion, etc.)
Bright line rules
1. Position of power
2. Mental competency
3. Age

Question 14

Duty

Answer 14

Reasonably prudent ___ in the same or similar circumstances.

Question 15

Breach

Answer 15

Conduct
- direct evidence
- circumstantial evidence
- lay opinion
- expert opinion
Risk foreseeable
- notice and opportunity to cure
- internal policies
- custom
How a reasonable person would act different.
- notice and opportunity to cure
- internal policies
- custom

Question 16

Hand Formula

Answer 16

B< P x L
Burden< Probability x Extent of injury

i) Circumstances (Indiana Consolidated)
ii) Potential risks (Indiana Consolidated)
iii) Knowledge of actor (Stinnett)
iv) Knowledge of victim (Stinnett)
v) Obviousness of risk to victim (Stinnett)
vi) Seriousness of potential injuries (Bernier)
vii) Likelihood of risk (Bernier)

Question 17

Cause in Fact

Answer 17

traditional
- but for [breach] P’s injury would not occur
lost chance
- but for [breach] P would not have lost % of survival
relaxed causation
- was D’s negligence and substantial factor in causing
duty to try
- must try even if zero chance to save (ship captain going back for sailor)

Question 18

Damages

Answer 18

Physical Harm
- Property
- Bodily
Lost Wages
Pain and Suffering
Emotional

Question 19

Negligence Per Se

Answer 19

established when D violates a statute if:

1. statute defines conduct expected.
2. statute intended to prevent this type of harm
3. plaintiff is class of people statute intended to protect
4. violation of statute was proximate cause of injury

yes to all 4 = negligence per se

Question 20

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Answer 20

the things speaks for itself.

1. accident is one that does not typically happen absent negligence
2. other possible causes sufficiently eliminated

Question 21

Elements of Negligence

Answer 21

Duty, breach, damage, cause in fact, proximate causation

Question 22

Proximate Cause

Answer 22

Liability is limited to physical harms that result from the risk that make the conduct tortious. or was the risk of injury part of the reason the defendants act/omission was negligent
Type of plaintiff- Y - foreseeable class of people (palsgraff)
Type of Harm- Y - foreseeable general type of harm (lamp next to sewer case)
Manner of Harm- X - preceise manner of harm not needed (lamp next to sewer case vs molten metal case)
Extent of Harm- X - extent of harm need not be foreseeable (diabetic blister results in amputation case)

Question 23

Separate Injuries

Answer 23

Separate actors separate injuries (two bike rides hypo, one breaks Ethel’s hip other her knee)

Question 24

Divisible Injuries

Answer 24

One actor and negligent Dr. resulting in extended injury

Question 25

Single Indivisible Injury

Answer 25

Separate actors one indivisible injury (bush covering sidewalk case)

Question 26

Preemptive Causation

Answer 26

Separate actors, one causes harm the other would have. But for does not work, use substantial factor. (trucker drops cargo case, 5 previous accidents case)

Question 27

Duplicative Causation

Answer 27

Two actors, simultaneous causation (texas salt water case, merging fires case)

Question 28

Alternative Causation

Answer 28

Two actors, cant identify who caused injury (quail hunting case)

Question 29

Intervening Acts: Criminal

Answer 29

Traditional - A willful criminal act breaks the causal chain and is superseding and destroys proximate cause. ``` Modern Rule (majority) - If a criminal act is a foreseeable outcome of the defendant's negligent act it will not break the causal chain. Courts differ on if the criminal act or harm must be foreseeable. ```

Question 30

Intervening Acts: Suicide

Answer 30

``` Traditional Rule (majority) - Intervening suicide breaks the causal chain except: (1) defendants acts caused mental illness or uncontrollable impulse; (2) special knowledge of suicide risk ``` Modern View - Risk of suicide was within the scope of risk that made defendants conduct negligent.

Question 31

Intervening Acts: Negligence

Answer 31

Basic -Was the intervening negligent act a foreseeable risk the made the defendants act negligent? Intervening Negligence is Superseding - Extraordinary under circumstances not foreseeable - Independent of or far removed from ∆ conduct. - Situation created by defendants negligence had stabilized, plaintiff had reached apparent safety Intervening Negligence is Not Superseding - Normal or foreseeable consequence of situation created by ∆ - Independent intervening acts which operate on but do not flow from original negligence - Subsequent medical negligence in treatment caused by defendants negligence

Question 32

Respondeat Superior

Answer 32

Company liable for negligent actions of their employees while at work

Question 33

Comparative negligence

Answer 33

Negligent acts by the P that contribute to the injury don't bar recovery but amount of damages are reduced on P's share of the fault for the accident. (Majority) Modern rule in many sates including CA.

Question 34

Modified comparative negligence

Answer 34

a P whose fault is more than a certain percentage (normally 50%) responsible for the accident cannot recover anything. A plaintiff whose fault is less than this percentage can recover but the damages are reduced based on the P's share of the fault. Modern rule followed in many states (minority)

Question 35

Pure Contributory negligence

Answer 35

Any negligence by the P that contributed to the injury barred all recovery against D. Traditional rule still followed in only a few states.