Term
|
Definition
| A CIVIL WRONG INDEPENDENT OF CONTRACT AND CRIMES. |
|
|
Term
| 3 MAIN CATAGORIES OF TORT LIABILITY |
|
Definition
1.) INTENTIONAL TORTS
2.) TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
3.) LIABILITY WITHOUT FAULT |
|
|
Term
| THE TWO DAMAGES IN THE REALM OF TORTS ARE PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND COMPENSATORY DAMAGES |
|
Definition
1.) PUNITIVE DAMAGES- DESIGNED TO PUNISH AND DETER.
2.) COMPENSATORY DAMAGES 0- DESIGNED TO RETURN THE PLAINTIFF TO HIS OR HER PRE-INJURY POSITION.
WHEN A PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHES A PRIMA FACIA CASEE (AT 1ST VIEW), A JURY IS ENTILTED TO AWARD WHATEVER COMPENSATORY DAMAGES IT THINKS IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE INJURIES SUFFERED.
EXAMPLE: FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF BATTERY, THE JURY AWARDS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR HARM AND OFFENSE
FOR THE INTENTIONAL TOR OF ASSUALT, THE JURY AWARDS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR APPREHENSION (FEAR).
FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT THE JURY AWARDS COMPENSATORY DAMAMAGES FOR BEING CONFINED AGAINST YOUR WILL.
COMPENSATORY DAMAGES ALONG WITH PERHAPS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED TO THE PLAINTIFF BY THE JURY AGAINSST THE DEFENDANT IF THE PLAINTIFF CAN PROVE THEIR CASSE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.
FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IT'S DIFFERENT, THE PLAINTIFF 'S PRIMA FACIA CASE IS TO SHOW SHE SUFFERED SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND THIS COULD BE DONE IS BY THE PERSON HAVING TO GO INTO THERAPY TO GIVE SOME PROOF THAT THEY ARE IN FACT SUFFERING FROM EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, OR TO SHOW THEIR IS EMOTIONAL TRAUMA, THE PLAINTIF MIGH HAVE SOME TYE OF PHYSICAL HARM.
THE COURTS WANT THE PLIATIFF TO SHOW THA TTHE EOTIOANL TRAUMA IS ENDURING, IT IS SUBSTANTIAL AS OPPOSED TO TRIVIAL OR SHORT LIVED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| STATES ASSUMING EVERYTHING IN A PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT IS TRUE, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ABSENT ALLEGATIONS OF FAULT, THE PLAINTIFF CANNOT |
|
|
Term
| INTENTIONAL TORTS HAVE 5 ELEMENTS TO EACH INTENTIONAL TORT |
|
Definition
1.) ACT
2.) INTENT
3.) CAUSATION
4.) HARM
5.) PRIVILEGE |
|
|
Term
| 1ST ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL TORT IS ACT |
|
Definition
| INTENTIONAL TORTS ELEMENT OF ACT REQUIRES MORE THAN A FREFLECTIVE MOVEMENT. THE ELEMENT OF ACT REQUIRES A VOLUNTARY, WILLED, CONSCIOUS ACT. |
|
|
Term
| 2ND ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL TORT IS INTENT |
|
Definition
INTENTIONAL TORTS ELEMENT OF INTENT HAS 2 BASIS.
1.) INTENT REQUIRES THE DEFENDATE TO DESIRE THE CONSEQUENCES
2.) INTENT REQUIRES THE DEFENDANT KNOW THAT THOSE CONSEQUENCES ARE CERTAIN TO OCCURE. |
|
|
Term
| 3RD ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL TORTS IS CAUSATION |
|
Definition
| INTENTIONAL TORT ELEMENT OF CAUSATION REQUIRES THAT THE INTENT AND THE ACT CAUSED THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFF IF THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN THE PLAINTIFF CAN'T RECOVER FOR AN INTENTIONAL TORT. |
|
|
Term
| 4TH ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL TORT IS THE ELEMENT OF HARM. |
|
Definition
| INTENTIONAL TORTS ELEMENT OF HARM IS WHERE THE JURY CAN AWARD DAMAGES BY ASSUMING THERE HAS BEEN HAMR ONCE THE PLAINTIFF HAS ESTABLISHED THE OTHER ELEMENTS. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
INTENTIONALLY CAUSING HARMFUL OFFENSIVE CONTACT WITH A PERSON OR SOMETHING CLOSELY CONNECTED TO THAT PERSON. CONTACT IS THE KEY TO BATTERY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS TORT IS TO LEGALLY PROTECT ONE FROM OFFENSIVE CONTACT FROM THE DEFENDANT. THE KEY FOR BATTERY IS CONTACT. |
|
|
Term
| BATTERY HAS 3 ELEMENTS THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO ESTABLISH TO RECOVER FOR BATTERY. |
|
Definition
1.) INTENT
2.) HARMFUL OR OFFENSIVE CONTACT
3.) TO THE PERSON OR SOMETHING CLOSELY CONNECTED THERE TO |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 2 PRONGS TO INTENT FOR PURPOSES OF BATTERY |
|
Definition
1.)WHERE THE DEFENDANT DESIRES TO BRING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES (CONTACT).
2.) WHERE THE DEFENDAT KNOWS THAT THE CONSEQUENCES (CONTACT) ARE CERTAIN TO HAPPEN. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ARISES WHEN THE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY PLACES THE PLAINTIFF IN REASONABLE APREHENSION (FEAR) OF AN IMMENANT BATTERY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS TORT IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DESIRE OF APPREHENSION (FEAR) OF AN IMMENENT BATTERY |
|
|
Term
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT DOCTRINE
(IT APPLIES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE (3) TORTS OF BATTERY, ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT DOES NOT COVER INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS |
|
Definition
A THEORY OF TRANSFERRED LIABILITY
EX:DEFENDANT INTENDING TO KILL A MISSES A AND KILLS B INSTEAD. EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO KILL BE, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE UNDER THE DCOTRINE OF TRANSFERED INTENT, THE DEFEDANT WILL BE LIABLE FOR MURDER EVEN THOUGH SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PERSON HE INTENDED TO KILL SUFFERED INJURY OR DIED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A THEORY UNDER COMMON LAW RULE THAT SAYS JUST BY BEING A PARENT DOESN'T MAKE YOU LIABLE FOR THE TORS OF YOUR CHILD. BUT MANY STATES DO HAVE STATUES THAT DO MAKE THE PARENT LIABLE FOR THE TORS OF THEIR CHILD. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| TERM USED WHEN WE HOLD SOMEONE LIABLE BASED ON THE POSITION THE PERSON HOLDS AND NOT BASED ON THAT PERSON'S WRONGDOING. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When one person is liable for the negligent actions of another person, even though the first person was not directly responsible for the injury. For instance, aN employer sometimes can be vicariously liable for the acts of a worker. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Legal obligation of an individual or business because of own conduct, negligent acts or omissions resulting in bodily injury and/or property. |
|
|
Term
| ASSAULT HAS 3 KEY ELEMENTS THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO ESTABLISH TO RECOVER FOR ASSAULT |
|
Definition
1.)INTENT
2.) REASONABLE APPREHENSION
3.) IMMENENT BATTERY. |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 2 PRONGS TO INTENT FOR PURPOSE OF ASSAULT |
|
Definition
1.) WHERE THE DEFENDENT DESIRES TO BRING ABOUT APPREHENSION.
2.) WHERE THE DEFENDENT KNOWS THAT THE APPREHENSION WAS SUBSTANTIALLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
HAPPENS IMMEDIATELY
EX: THIS MEANS THAT THE BATTERY THAT IS BEING THREATENED MUST BE IMMENENT FOR THE TORT OF ASSAULT TO BE COMMITTED. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE DEFENDANT INTENTIALLY CONFINES THE PLAINTIFF INTO A BOUNDED AREA AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS WILL AND THE PLAINTIFF IS EITHER INJURED OR AWARE OF THAT CONFINEMENT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS TORT IS TO LEGALLY PROTECT THE INTEREST OF ONE'S FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND THE KEY IS CONFINEMENT. |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 4 KEY ELEMENTS FOR THE TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT |
|
Definition
1.) INTENT
2. CONFINEMENT
3. AGAISNT THE PLAITIFFS WILL
4.) PLAINTIFF KNOWS OF THE CONFINEMENT OR IS INJURED BY THAT |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 2 PRONGS TO INTENT FOR PURPOSE OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT |
|
Definition
TO ESTABLISH INTENT, THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW
1ST: THE DEFENDANT HAD A PURPOSE TO CONFINE THE PLAINTIFF
2ND: OR THE DEFENDANT KNEW THAT THE CONFINEMENT WAS SUBSTAIALLY CERTAIN TO OCCUR. |
|
|
Term
| THE 3RD ELEMENT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT |
|
Definition
| IS THE CONFINEMENT MUST BE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS WILL |
|
|
Term
| REASONABLE MEANS OF ESCAPE |
|
Definition
| IS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF DOESN'T HAVE TO SUBJECT HIMSELF TO PHYSICAL INJURY OR REPUTATIONAL HARM |
|
|
Term
| HOW IS A PERSON CONFINED AND WHAT ARE THE TYPICAL MEANS OF CONFINEMENT? |
|
Definition
| THE ANSWER IS FORCE OR THREATS OF FORCE |
|
|
Term
| THE LAST ELEMENT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT IS HARM OR DAMAGE. |
|
Definition
| THE RULE IS THE PLAINITIFF MUST BE AWARE OF THE CONFINEMENT OR INJURED BY IT |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 4 INTENTIONAL TORTS TO PERSON |
|
Definition
THEY ARE
1.) ASSAULT
2.) BATTERY
3.) FALSE IMPRISONMENT
4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED)
EACH OF THESE HAVE INTENT DEFINED THE SAME WAY WHICH IS A DESIRE TO BRING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENSES.
FOR BATTERY THE INTENT IS THE DESIRE TO BRING ABOUT CONTACT
FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT THE INTENT IS THE DESIRE TO BRING ABOUT CONFINEMENT.
FOR ASSAULT THE INTENT IS THE DESIRE TO BRING ABOUT APPREHENSION (FEAR)OR KNOWLEGE TO A SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY THAT CONFINEMENT FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT, APPREHENSIO/FEAR FRO ASSAULT AND CONTACT FOR BATTERY WILL OCCUR
TRANSFERRED INTENT APPLIES TO THE TORT OF BATTERY, ASSAULT AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT |
|
|
Term
| INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) |
|
Definition
IS WHERE THE DEFENDANT HASA DESIRE OT CREATE SEVER EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN THE PLAINTIFF RO KNOWS HER CONDUCT COULD BE CERTAIN TO LEAD TO EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS TORT IS TO PROTECT ONES EMOTIONAL WELL BEING.
ALSO, THE TRANFERRED INTENT DOCTINE DOES NOT APPLY TO INTENTIONAL INFLICTIONS OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS |
|
|
Term
| 4 ELEMENTS OF (IIED) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS |
|
Definition
1.) INTENT
THE DEFENDANT HAS TO HAVE THE DESIRE TO CREATE SEVER EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN THE PLAINTIFF OR KNOWS HER CONDUCT WOULD BE CERTAIN TO LEAD TO EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
RECKLESSNESS ELEMENT OF MENTAL STATE IS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT CONSCIOUSLY DIREGARDED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM.
2.) EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT EXCEEDS ALL BONDS TOLERATED BY A CIVILIZED SOCIETY.
3.) CAUSATION
4.) HARM SEVER EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (MENTAL STATE) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A LEGAL RULE THAT BARS UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE FROM BEING USED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS |
|
|
Term
| 1ST ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS INTENT OR RECKLESSNESS |
|
Definition
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS REQUIRES THE DEFENDANT TO OHAVE THE DESIRE TO CREATE SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IN THE PLAINTIFF OR KNOW THAT HER OR HIS CONDUCT WOULD BE CERTAIN TO LEAD TO EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
THE DIFFERENCE IN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TORT FORM THE OTHERS IS THAT THE MENTAL STATE HAS BROADEN TO INCLUDE SOMETHING OTHER THAN INTENT BUT ALSO THE MENTAL STATE OF RECKLESSNESS WHICH IS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDED A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF HARM. |
|
|
Term
| 2ND ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS EXTREME OR OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT |
|
Definition
| IS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF MUST SHOW THE DEFENDANT ENGAGED IN CONDUCT THAT EXCEEDS ALL BOUNDS TOLERATED BY A CIVILIZED SOCIETY |
|
|
Term
| 3 EXCEPTIONS THAT BROADEN THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (IIED) |
|
Definition
1.) IS WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS AN INKEEPER OR COMMON CARRIER EX: BUS DRIVER. THIS IS WHERE THE COMMON CARRIER ENGAGES IN CONDUCT THAT IS REASONABLY OFFENSIVE AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BEYOND ALL BOUNDARIES TOLERATED BY A CIVILIZED SOCIETY.
2ND EXCEPTION IS WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF A PARTICULAR SUSCEPTABILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF (EX: D KNOWS THAT C IS HIGHLY SUPERSTISIOUS BUT D SENDS C A BLACK CAT WITH A DOLL THAT HAS STICK PINS IN IT THAT'S PLACED AROUND THE BLACK CAT'S NECK.
3RD EXCEPTION IS WHERE THERE ARE RACIAL ETHNIC SLURS USED IN THE WORKPLACE BY A SUPERIOR TO AN INFERIOR WHICH SHOWS AN ABUSE OF AUTHORITY |
|
|
Term
| 3RD ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS CAUSATION |
|
Definition
| CAUSATION IS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF SHOWS THE SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS SHE'S SUFFERED WAS CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANTS EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT. |
|
|
Term
| AWARDS MADE BY THE JURY FOR INTENTIONAL TORTS |
|
Definition
1.)FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF ASSAULT, THE JURY AWARDS COMPNSATORY DAMAGES FOR APPREHENSION (FEAR).
2.) FOR THE INTENTIONAL TORT OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT, THE JURY AWARDS COMPENSATORY DAMAGES FOR BEING CONFINED AGAINST YOUR WILL.
3.) COMPNSATORY DAMAGES ALONG WITH PERHAPS PUNITIVE DAMAGES CAN BE AWARDED TO THE PLAINITIFF BY THE JURY AGAINST THE DEFENDAT IF THE PLAINTIFF CAN PRROVE THEIR CASE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.
BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS TORT. PART OF THE PLAINTIFFS PRIMA FACIA CASE IS TO SHOW SHE SUFFERED SEVERE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND THAT MEANS THAT SOME JURISDICTIONS REQUIRE SOME SORT OF PHYSICAL HAERM TO SHOW THE GENIOUSNESS OF THIS EMOTIONAL TRAUMA EVEN THOUGH MOST JURISDICTIONS DON'T REQUIRE THIS STILL THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO SHOW THAT THE EMOTIONAL TRAUMA IS ENDURING AND THAT IT IS SUBSTANTIAL AS OPPOSED TO TRIVIAL AND SHORT LIVED. EX: GOING TO THERAPY SHOWS SOME PROOF THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN FACT SUFFERS FROM EMOTIONAL DISRTRESS. |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 2 INTENTIONAL TORTS TO REAL PROPERTY |
|
Definition
THEY ARE:
1.)TRESSPASS TO LAND
2.)NUISANCE |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IS WHERE THE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY ENTERS OR CAUSES SOMETHING TO ENTER THE LAND OF THE PLAINTIFF INTERFERRING WITH THE PLAINTIFFS POSSESSIVE INTEREST. |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 3 KEY ELEMENTS TO TRESSPASS TO LAND |
|
Definition
1.) INTENT
2.) ENTRY
3.)ON PLAINTIFF'S LAND |
|
|
Term
| WHAT IS THE INTENT ELEMENT TO THE TORT TRESSPASS TO LAND? |
|
Definition
| THE INTENT ELEMENT IS THE INTENT TO ENTER THE LAND |
|
|
Term
| WHAT IS THE INTENT ELEMENT TO THE TORT OF ASSAULT, BATTERY, FALSE IMPRISNOMENT AND THE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL STRESS? |
|
Definition
THE INTENT ELEMENT IS THE INTENT TO BRING ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES
EX: THE DEFENDANT ENTERED THE LAND THINKING THAT IT WAS HER LAND AND IT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE HER LAND BUT SOMEONE ELSES, SHE HAS SATISFIED THE ELEMENT OF INTENT TO LAND |
|
|
Term
| RULE FOR TRESSPASS TO LAND |
|
Definition
| ONCE A PERSON IS TRESSPASSING, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL HARM CAUSED WHETHER AT FAULT OR NOT |
|
|
Term
| WHAT IS THE 2ND ELEMENT TO ENTY ON THE LAND |
|
Definition
| ENTRY WHICH MEANS WHATEVER ENTERS THE LAND HAS TO BE TANGIBLE AND .COULD CAUSE AN INVASION THAT GIVES RISTE TO LIABILITY FOR TRESSPASS TO LAND |
|
|
Term
| WHAT IS THE 3RD ELEMENT TO TRESSPASS TO LAND |
|
Definition
| IT HAS TO BE THE PLAINTIFF'S LAND WHO CAN BRING AN ACTION OF TRESSPASS TO LAND. |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 2 INTENTIONAL TORTS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY |
|
Definition
#1- TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL
#2- CONCERSION |
|
|
Term
| WHAT IS TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL |
|
Definition
WHEN A DEFENDANT INTERMEDDLE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS CHATTEL. THE INTENT TO THE TRESSPASS OF CHATTELIS TO DO THE ACT, IT IS NOT THE INTENT TO COMMIT TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL BUT IT IS SIMPLY THE INTENT TO INTMEDAL WITH THE CHATTEL AND GOOD FAITH DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL.
WHAT CONDUCT WOULD GIVE RISE TO THIS TORT?
EX: WOULD BE WHERE A DEFENDANT BORROWS SOMETHING WITHOUT PERMISSION. OR INTERMEDAL WITH IT OR DAMAGES IT THAT COULD GIVE RISE TO TRESSPASS TO CHATTLE.
EX:JJAY PUTS A VOTE FOR HILLARY ON RUSH LIBAUGH'S CAR. THAT MIGHT LEAD TO TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL.
HARM IS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS THAT HAS TO BE SHOWN THAT THE PLAITNTIFF SUFFERED HARM BECAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFFS ACTIONS. EX: BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT INTERMEDALLED, THE PLAINTIFF WAS HARMED. HARM |
|
|
Term
| THERE ARE 4 ELEMENTS A PLAINTIFF MUST SATISFY FOR THE TORT OF TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL |
|
Definition
1.) INTENT
2.) INTERFERENCE/INTERMEDDALLING
3.) WITH PLAINTIFFS CHATTEL
4.) HARM |
|
|
Term
| WHAT IS THE INTENT TO THE TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL |
|
Definition
INTENT TO TRESSPASS OF CHATTEL IS TO DO THE ACT. IT IS SIMPLY THE INTENT TO INTERMEDDAL WITH THE CHATTEL AND GOOD FAITH DOESN'T MATTER.
IT IS NOT THE INTENT TO COMMIT TRESSPASS TO CHATTEL. |
|
|
Term
TORT RULES OF LAW ARE:
1.) NEGLIGENCE
2.) DUTY
3.) BREACH
4.) CAUSATION
5.) DAMAGES
6.) DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE |
|
Definition
1.) THE PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR NEGLIGENCE REQUIRES:
1.) DUTY IS OWED TO THE PLAINTIFF BY THE DEFENDANT. PROVING THE ELEMENT OF DUTY EXIST MEANS THE LAW DOES RECOGNIZE SOME LEGAL OBLIGATION FROM THE DEFENDANT TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR FORESEEABLE HARM.
2.) THERE WAS BREACH OF THE DUTY
3.)CAUSATION IS THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE HARM TO OCCUR.
4.) AND THE DAMAGES IS THAT THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED HARM. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
DUTY: IN ORDER TO HOLD A DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE, THE DEFENDANT MUST OWE A DUTY OF REASONALBE CARE TO THE PLAINTIFF. TWO ISSUES ARISE IN TERMS OF DUTY OF REASONABLE CARE:
1.) FORSEEABILITY
2.) STANDARD OF CARE |
|
|
Term
| FORSEEABILITY (DUTY UNDER NEGLIGENCE) |
|
Definition
1.) FORESEEABILITY (DUTY): THE DUTY OF CARE MUST BE TOWARD A FORESEEABLE PLAINTIFF.
TEST FOR FORESEEABILTIY. A PLAINTIFF IS FORESEEABLE IF HE WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER CREATED BY THE DEFENDANT.
2.)STANDARD OF CARE (DUTY): THE STANDARD OF CARE THAT THE DEFENDANT MUST EXERCISE TOWARDS THE PLAINTIFF IS THAT OF A REASONABLE ORDINARY AND PRUDENT PERSON IN THE SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
A.) PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: A PERSON WHO HAS GREAT PHYSICAL STRENGTH WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO AN ORDINARY PERSON OF GREAT PHYSICAL STRENGTH. LIKEWISE, A WEAK PERSON WILL BE JUDGED ACCORDING TO A STANDARD OF WHAT AN ORDINARY WEAK PERSON WOULD DO.
B.) AVERAGE MENTAL ABILITY: EVERYONE IS JUDGED AS BEING OF AVERAGE MENTAL ABILITY AND NO ACCOMMODATION IS MADE FOR BEING EXTRAOINARILY INTELLIGENT.
C.) SAME KNOWLEDGE AS AN AVERAGE MEMBER OF COMMUNITY: PRESUMED TO HAVE COMMON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT KNOWN DANGERS IN THE COMMUNITY.
D.) PROFESSIONALS: PROFESSIONALS ARE JUDGED ACCORDING TO OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN SAME COMMUNITY.
E.) CHILDREN: CHILDREN ARE JUDGED ACCORDING TO CHILDREN OF SAME AGE, EDUCATION, INTELLIGNECE AND EXPERIENCE. |
|
|
Term
| BREACH OF DUTY (UNDER NEGLIGENCE) |
|
Definition
BREACH OF DUTY (UNDER NEGLIGENCE): IN ORDER TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE THE ACTION BY PLAINTIFF MUST FALL BELOW STANDARD OF CARE.
BREACH OF DUTY IS THE FAILURE TO ACT AS A REASONABLE PRUDENT PERSON WOULD ACT UNDER SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES
THE PRIMARY ISSUE IS WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE AS TO THE STANDARD OF CARE. FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DRAWING THE LINE ARE:
1.) CUSTOM IN THE COMMUNITY
2.) VIOLATION OF STATUE IS (NEGLIGENCE PER SE)
VIOLATING A STATUE CREATES A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION OF NEGLIGENCE. DEFENDANT IS PRESUMED TO BE LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE IF HE BREAKS A LAW AND CAUSE HARM TO THE PLAINTIFF BUT HE CAN REBUT THAT PRESUMPTION BY SHOWING THAT THERE WAS A CUSTOM TO BREAK THE LAW.
3.) RES IPSA LOQUITUR
IS LATIN FOR "THE TING SPEAKS FOR ITSELF". THIS DOCTRINE DRAWS AN INFERENCE OF LIABILITY BECAUSE THE THING THAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT WAS IN THE EXCLUSI8VE CONTROL OF THE DEFENDANT. IN OTHER WORDS, IT COULDN'T BE ANYONE BUT THE DEFENDANT WHO CAUSED THE HARM. |
|
|
Term
| CAUSATION (UNDER NEGLIGENCE) |
|
Definition
THE DEFENDANT CAUSED THE HARM TO OCCUR. THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF CAUSATION
1.) ACTUAL CAUSATION
2.) PROXIMATE CAUSATION |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ACTUAL CAUSATION ASK, "DID THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY CAUSE THE HARM TO OCCUR? THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT TESTS YOU CAN USE.
1.) "BUT FOR TEST": ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION, "FUB FOR THE DEFENDAN'TS ACTIONS, WOULD THE PLAINTIFF'S HARM HAVE OCCURRED?"
OR YOU CAN USE
2.) "SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST: IF SEVERAL CUASES COULD HAVE CAUSED THE HARM THEN ANY CAUSE THAT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR IS HELD TO BE LIABLE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
PROXIMATE CAUSATION IS A SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO GRASP CONCEPT BUT IS ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE ON MOST EXAMS. I JUST NEED TO USE THE FOLLOWING TEST:
FORESEEABILITY TEST IS IF HARM IS UNFORESEEABLE, THEN DEFENDANT IS NOT HELD LIABLE BY REASON THAT THERE IS NO PROXIMATE CAUSATION.
OR
FAMOUS PROXIMATE CAUSE CASE: THESE CASES I CAN GIVE AS EXAMPLES:
PALSGRAF V. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
THE JUDGE WAS JUDGE CARDOZA.
IN THIS CASE THE RAILROAD GUARD PUSHES MAN WHO DROPS PACKAGE. PACKAGE CONTAINS HIDDEN FIREWORKS THAT EXPLODE AND CAUSE SCALES TO FALL HARMING PLAINTIFF. THIS CASE SHOWS THAT HARM WAS NOT FORESEEABLE BY GUARD AS TO PLAINTIFF SO NO PROXIMATE CAUSE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
UNDER DAMAGES THE PLAINTIFF MUST SUFFER SOME HARM. THE TWO ISSUES THAT ARISE ARE:
1.) WAS THERE ACTUAL HARM?
2.) DID PLAINTIFF ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE THE HARM?
ACTUAL HARM OR INJURY. CAN BE SHOWN BY THE FOLLOWING WAYS:
1.)PERSONAL INJURY
2.) PROPERTY DAMAGE
PLAINTIFF GETS COST OF REPAIR OR FAIR MARKET VALUE
3.) PUNITIVE DAMAGES
EXTRA DAMAGES BEYOND ACTUAL DAMAGE IS AVAILABLE IF THE DEFENDANT'S BEHAVIOR WAS WANTON AND WILLFUL, RECKLESS OR MALICIOUS
DUTY TO MITIGATE: PLAINTIFF MUST NOT ACT IN A MANNER THAT MAKES DAMAGES WORSE-I.E. NOT GOING TO THE DOCTOR TO GET WELL. DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES WHERE PLAINTIFF DID NOT MITIGATE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
IF A DEFENDANT IS FOUND LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE, THEY CAN ARGUE TO BE RELIEVED OF OR SHARE LIABILITY BECAUSE OF A VALID DEFENSE.
NEGLIGENCE DEFENSES INCLUDE:
1.) CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
WHICH IS WHERE THE PLAINTIFF CONTRIBUTED TO THE NEGLIGENT ACT. THE DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THE PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT USING THE NEGLIGENCE TEST ABOVE.
UNDER COMMON LAW, IF BOTH PARTIES ARE NEGLIGENT, THEN THE ONE WITH THE LAST CLEAR CHANCE TO PREVENT THE ACCIDENT IS LIABLE, OTHERWISE BOTH PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT SHARE LIABILITY.
2.) ASSUMPTION OF RISK
IS IF PLAINTIFF KNEW THE RISK AND VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED THE RISK BY ENGAGING IN THE BEHAVIOR THEN THE PLAINTIFF WILL BE DENIED RECOVERY.
3.)EMERGENCY DOCTRINE
ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT TO LOWER STANDARD OF CARE BECAUSE AN EMERGENCY REQUIRED THEM TO ACT RASHLY IN ORDER TO AVOID A GREATER HARM FROM OCCURRING.
4.) CUSTOM
CAN BE USED TO SHOW THAT BEHAVIOR WAS IN LINE WITH THE BEHAVIOR OF EVERYONE ELSE, THUS RESULTING IN NO BREACH. EX: EVERYONE DRIVES AT 50 MPH ON THAT PARTICULAR STRETCH OF THE HIGHWAY EVEN THOUGH IT IS POSTED AT 30 MPH. |
|
|
Term
| 5TH ELEMENT OF INTENTIONAL TORT IS WITHOUT PRIVILEGE. |
|
Definition
| INTENTIONAL TORTS ELEMENT WITHOUT PRIVILEGE IW WHERE THE PLAINTIFF ESTABLISHES PROOF AND THENTHE DEFENDANT HAS THE ABILITY TO ASSERT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Defenses are also known as privileged to intentional torts |
|
Definition
There are 7 defenses to intennal torts
After the plaintiff has proven their prima facia case (at 1st view) of the elements required to establish the tort, now, itss the defendant that comes up and says, I have a defense because now the burden of proof is on the defendant. The defendant says if I ca prove this defense, then I should be able to escape liability. |
|
|
Term
Defenses for torts are:
1.) self defense
2.) defense of others
3.) shopkeepers priviledge and arrest
4.) defense of prperty
5.) discipline
6.) consent
7.) necessity |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| the 1st two defenses are self-defense and defense of others |
|
Definition
| the defense of self defese means the defendant has to show she reasonably she believed that the force she used was necessary to avoid imminent harm and that she used reasonable/appropriate force to respond. if the defendant can successfuly show self-defence then the defandant will escape libility for the intentional tort. |
|
|
Term
TORT OF NEGLIGENCE
WHAT ELEMENTS DOES THE PLAINTIFF HAVE TO PROVE ON THE PROPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT |
|
Definition
1ST ELEMENT IS DUTY- THE ELEMENT OF DUTY IN NEGLIGNENCE FOCUSES ON WHETHER THE LAW RECOGNIZES A LEGAL OBLIGATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES.
2ND ELEMENT IS STANDARD OF CARE.
STANDARD OF CARE IS THE MEASURE OF THE DUTY OWED.
3RD ELEMENT IS BREACH OF DUTY. BREACH OF DUTY IKS FALLING BELOW THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD OF CARE.
4TH ELEMENT IS CAUSE IN FACT OR ACTUAL CAUSE. CUASE IN FACT OR ACTUAL CAUSE TIES THE DEFENDANT'S BREACH OF DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFFS INJURIES.
5TH ELEMENT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE ALSO KNOWN AS LEGAL CAUSE. PROXIMATE CAUSE/LEGAL CAUSE LOOKS AT WHETHER THERE IS SOME KIND OF POLICY REASON TO CUT OFF THE SCOPE OF LIABILITY.
6TH ELEMENT IS THE PLAINTIFF MUST PROVE DAMAGES AS PART OF HER PRIMA FACIA CASE.
ONLY AFTER ALL THESE ELEMENTS ARE ANALYZED CAN THE DEFENDANT TRY TO SHOW DEFENSES TO THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION. |
|
|
Term
| STANDARD OF CARE IS THE MEASURE OF THE DUTY OWED |
|
Definition
THERE ARE 4 STANDARDS OF CARE THAT APPLY IN NEGLIGENCE
1ST STANDARRD OF CARE THAT APPLY IN NEGLIGNECE IS THE REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND MOST TIMES THIS WILL BE THE RELEVANT STANDARD OF CARE.
2ND STANDARD OF CARE THAT APPLY IN NEGLIGENCE IS THE STANDARD OF CARE THAT APPLIES TO CHILDREN.
3RD STANDARD OF CARE IS THE NEGLIGNECE PER SE OR THE STATUTORY STNADARD OF CARE.
4TH STANDARD OF CARE APPLIED TO NEGLIGNECE IS PROFESSIONALS.
BROKEN DOWN IN PIMLIER WAYS THE 4 STANDARDS OF CARE ARE:
PERSON
CHILD
STATUTORY
PROFESSIONALS
BREACH OF DUTY IS THE FAILURE TO MEET THAT SPECIFIC STANDARD OF CARE SHOWN ABOVE. |
|
|
Term
| 1ST STANDARD OF CARE IS THE PERSON- THE REASONABLE PRUDENT PERSON UNDER SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD OF CARE IS AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF CARE. |
|
Definition
WHAT DOES AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF CARE DO?
AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD LOOKS AT THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT & COMPARES THAT CONDUCT TO AN EXTERNAL STNADARD IN JUDGING WHETHER ITS APPROPRIATE WHETHER REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSONS STANDARD OF CARE IS A REFLECTION OF WHETHER A COMMUNITY BELIEVES IS AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CONDUCT.
THE JURY AS MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY DETERMINE WHAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HAVE DONE UNDER THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS DEALING WITH. IT IS THE LEVEL OF CONDUCT IN WHICH WE WOULD EXPECT A REASONABLE PERSON TO COMPORT\BEHAVE LIKE. THIS IS PURELY OBJECTIVE. WHAT SORT OF THINGS ARE RELEVANT TO DETERMING WHAT A REASONABLE PRUDENT PERSON WOULD DO UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTNACES. WE CAN'T TAKE ALL FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT UNDER A REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD OF CARE EX. KNOWLEGE; SKILL BECAUSE IF WE DO THAT WE ARE NO LONGER USING AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. |
|
|
Term
| EX: OF A QUICK LOOK AT WHAT WE MEAN BY OBJECTIVE STANDARD. |
|
Definition
EX: DELORES IS 30 YRS. OLD. SHE GREW UP IN NY & NEVER DROVE UNTIL SHE FINDS HERSELF BEING TRANSFERRED TO LA. SHE TAKES THE DRIVER TEST & PASSES. & IT IS HER 1ST DAY OUT DRIVING. SHE RUNS A STOP SIGN. PINKY SUES DELORES FOR NEGLIGENCE. DELORES SEEKS TO PUT ON EVIDENCE THAT SHE IS A BRAND NEW DRIVER FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER AND THEY SHOULD CONSIDER THIS FACT IN DECIDING IF SHE ACTED UNREASONABLY AND IF SHE WAS NEGLIGENT.
THE ? IS, WILL THAT EVIDENCE OF HER BEING A NEW DRIVER BE ADMITTED? THE ANSWER-NO! BECAUSE UNDER THE OBJECTIVE REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD, THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS DRIVERS TO RISE TO SOME LEVEL OF COMPETENCE THAT IS SHARED BY THE COMMUNITY. IT'S IRRELEVANT THAT DORIS IS A NEW DRIVER. IT'S NOT ADMISSABLE AND WON'T BE CONSIDERED BY THE JURY IN DECIDING IF DELORES ACTED REASONABLY. |
|
|
Term
| preponderance of evidence |
|
Definition
| A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the defendance negligence was the cause of the plaintiffs harm. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| HOW TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENT OF BREACH OF DUTYPROOF OF BREACH IS HOW THE PLAINTIFF GOES ABOUT PROVING THE UNREASONABLNESS OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE EACH ELEMENT OF HER PRIMA FACIA CASE (AT FIRST GLANCE CASE) MEANING (DUTY), (STANDARD OF CARE) (BREACH OF DUTY), (CAUSE IN FACT), (PROXIMATE CAUSE) AND (DAMAGES). |
|
|
Term
| HOW DOES THE PLAINTIFF ESTABLISH THE ELEMENT OF BREACH OF DUTY, SHOWING THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE IN HIS CONDUCT? |
|
Definition
| THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO PROVE THAT BY A POOPONDEROUNTS OF EVIDENCE, MEANING ITS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE. THE PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT THE DEFENDANTS ALLEGED UNREASONABLE CONDUCT WAS. THE PLAINTIFF CAN ALLEDGE WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID WRONG OR UNREASONABLE BUT IF THE PLAINTIFF CAN'T PROVE WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID WAS WRONG OR WAS UNREASONABLE THEN SHE CANNOT WIN IN A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BEAUSE SHE CAN'T PROVE THE ELEENT OF BREACH OF DUTY. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| IS FAULT BASED LIABILITY. THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE BECAUSE HE ACTED WITH FAULT. |
|
|
Term
| IF THE PERSON HAS A PHYSICAL DISABILITY SUCH AS BLIND OR HAS ONE LEG UNDER THE STANDARD OF CARE |
|
Definition
THE STANDARD OF CARE WILL BE THE REASONABLE PRUDENT BLIND PERSON OR THE REASONABLE PRUDENT 1 LEGGGED PERSON.
EX: IF THE BLIND PERSON IS DRIVING A CAR, THE JURY WOULD SAY A REASONABLY PRUDENT BLIND PERSON WOULD NOT BE DRIVING A CAR. |
|
|
Term
| STANDARD OF CARE THAT APPLIES TO CHILDREN |
|
Definition
CHILDREN ARE COMPARED TO OTHER REASONABLE CHILDREN, SAME AGE,INTELLIGENCE AND EXPERIENCE.
THIS MEANS THAT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF CARE AND A SUBJECTIVE STANDARD OF CARE ARE BOTH USED.
ITS OBJECTIVE BECAUSE WE ARE COMPARING THE CHILD TO OTHER REASONABLE CHILDREN AN EXTERNAL STANDAR. BUT ITS ALSO SUBJECTIVE BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKIING AT THIS CHILDS AGE, THIS CHILDS INTELLIGNECE AND THIS CHILDS EXPERIENCE.
SO FOR AN ADULT , WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE, THE ADULTS AGE OR INTELLIGNCE BUT FOR CHILDREN WE DO TAKE IT IN CONWSIDERATION TO OTHERS THE SAME AGE, EXPERIENCE AND INTELLIGNECE.
IF THE CHILD ACTS IN A DANGEROUS ACTIVITY OR ENGAGED IN ADULT ACTIVITY, THE SPECIAL CHILD STANDARD OF CARE WON'T BE USED BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY IS VIEWD AS ADULT ACTIVITY. |
|
|
Term
| WHAT DOES THE PLAINTIFF IN AN NEGLIGENCE CASE HAVE TO SHOW? |
|
Definition
THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO SHOW
1) CAUSE AND FACT
2) PROXIMATE CAUSE
3) DAMAGES
THEN ON TOP OF THAT THE DEFENDANT MIGHT ASSERT DEFENSES. |
|
|
Term
| DOES LICENSING STATUES GET USED TO SET THE STANDARD OF CARE |
|
Definition
NO!!!
LICENSING STATUES ARE NOT USED TO SET THE STANDARD OF CARE BECAUSE THE LACK OF THE LICENSE ITSELF IS NOT UNREASONALBE CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT.
EX: JOE IS DRIVING AND INJURES PAM. PAM SUES JOE AND LEARNS THAT JOE'S LICENSE EXPIRED A WEEK ABELRE THE ACCIDENT AND SEEKS TO USE A STATE LAW THAT SAYS ANYONE DRIVING W/O A LICENSE IS GUILTY OF A MISDEAMNOR AND IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF $500. WILL A COURT USE THAT STATUE AS A STANDARD OF CARE IN PAM'S NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAINST JOE. THE ANSWER IS NO!!!!
THE FACT THAT JOE LET HIS LICENSE EXPIRE AND DIDN'T HAVE A CURRENT ISN'T EVIDENCE OF HER LACK OF ABILITY IN DRIBING SO LICENSING STATUES IS NOT USED TO SET THE STNADARD OF CAR. PAM COULD STILL SUE JOE IN NEGLIGENCE AND THE STANDARD OF CARE WOULD BE IN THIS CASE, A REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON UNDER THE SAME OR SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES STANDARD OF CARE. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| TORT OF CONVERSION COMES ABOUT WHEN THE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY EXCERCISES DOMINIION AND CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFFS CHATTEL TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT IT LEADS TO A SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE. |
|
|
Term
TORT OF CONVERSION ELEMENTS
THIS INTENT IS NOT TO CONVERT BUT IT IS THE INTENT TO EXCERCISE DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY THAT TURNS OUT TO BE THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER
EX: DALE TAKES THE JEAN JACKET THAINKING THAT IT BELONGS TO HIM WHEN REALLY IT'S TERRY'S JEAN JACKET. IF DALE LOSES THE JACKET, TERRY WILL BE ABLE TO RECOVER FROM HIM FOR THE TORT OF CONVERSION. DALE INTENEDED TO EXCERCISE DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE JACKET.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS HIS OWN AND HE DID SO IN GOOD FAITH BUT THAT IS IRRELEVANT AND BY LOSING IT, IT CLEARLY INTERFERS SUBSTANTIALLY WITHTHTE RIGHTS OF ITS TRUE OWNER, TERRY.
AND DALE WOUL.D HAVE TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THAT JACKET TO TERRY. |
|
Definition
1) INTENT
2) DOMINION AND CONTROL
3) SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE |
|
|
Term
NEGLIGENCE
NEGLIGENCE TEST: #1- IF THE BURDEN OF AVOIDING A HARM
#2- IS LESS THAN THE PRODUCT OF A PROBABLILITY OF HARM
#3- X THE MAGNITUDE OF THE LOSS
#4-YOU'VE GOT UNREASONABLE CONDUCT |
|
Definition
| THE CREATION OF UNREASONABLE RISK. |
|
|
Term
| PROPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE |
|
Definition
| PROPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS THE PLAINTIFF HAS TO SHOW MORE LIKELY THAN NOT, THE DEFENDANCE NEGLIGNECE WAS THE CAUSE OFTHE PLAINTIFFS HARM. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE PLAINTIFF TO PROVE EA. ELEMENT OF HER PRIMA FACA CASE MEANING #1- DUTY, #2-- STANDARD OF CARE, #3- BREACH OF DUTY, ##4- CAUSE IN FACT, #5-PROXIMATE CAUSE AND #6- DAMAGES.
TO ESTABLISH THE ELEMENT OF BREACH OF DUTY, THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE, THE PLAINNTIFF HAS TO PROVE THAT BY A PROPODERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE, MEANING ITS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THE DEFENDANT WAS UNREASONABLE. TO DO THIS THE PLAINTIFF NEEDS TO BE SPECIFICE ABOUT WHAT THE DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED UNREASONABLE CONDUCT WAS. IF THTE PLAINTIFF CAN'T PROVE WHAT THE DEFENDANT DID WRON OR WAS UNREASONABLE THEN SHE CANNOT WIN IN A NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE SHE CANT' PROVE THE ELEMENT OF BREACH OF DUTY. |
|
|
Term
| STANDARD OF CARE JUDGE MADE RULE OF LAW |
|
Definition
| STANDARD OF CARE JUDEGE MADE RULE OF LAW IS WHERE SOMETIMES JUDGES THEMSELVES DICTATE WHAT REASONABLE CONDUCT IN A GIVEN SITUATION. |
|
|
Term
| STANDARD OF CARE NEGLIGENCE PER SE. |
|
Definition
| STANDARD OF CARE NEGLIGENCE PER SE IS WHERE A CRIMINAL STATUE OR REGULATION OR SOME SORT OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW BECOMES THE STANDARD OF CARE |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| THE PROPERTY HAD TO BE TAKEN FROM THE POSSESSION OF ANOTHER |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| EX: J WOULD HAVE TO SHOW "BUT FOR" D VIONS OF STATUE, J WOUULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIT BECAUSE THE MUSIC WAS SO LOUD |
|
|
