Wrongdoings recognized by law as grounds for a lawsuit that involve conduct that is below some legal standard. 

• The branch of law dealing with such wrongs 
• The set of rules regarding liability and compensation for personal injury, death and property damage that one party causes to another.  It is about the rules for shifting losses from injured voctims to those causing the injuries
• Tort law = state law

1. Vindicating Individual Rights
2. Redressing Private Harms 

1. Neglegence:  any conduct that creates unreasonable risk of harm to others. It is actionable as a tort when that risk comes to fruition in actual harm
2. Intentional Torts: deliberate acts of harm to another person; may be civil or criminal (example assault and battery)
3. Strict Liability (aka absolute liability; liability without fault): Liability that does not depend on actual neglegence or intent to harm but that is based on the breach of an absolute duty to make something safe. Most often applies to ultrahazardous activities or in products liability cases (example: lemon law)

A claim against the person who committed the tort.

1. Physical Injury
2. Threat of Physical Injury
3. Intangible Harm (such as that of a reputation)
4. Commercial Harm 

1. What conduct counts as tortious or wrongful?
2. Did the conduct cause the kind of harm the law will recognize?
3. What defenses can be raised against liability if the defendent has committed a tort?

1.  Moral Responsibility: the defendent in some important way, wronged the plaintiff.  Liability is only imposed when and ONLY WHEN it is "right" to do so.
2. Social Responsibility (or Social Utility): the "good for all of us" view. Provides a system of rules that OVERALL works toward the good of SOCIETY.

1. Individual Fairness
2. Social Utility
3. Administrative Efficiency
4. Compensation
5. Loss Internalization
6. Deterrence
7. Support Economic Activities
8. Support Environmental Protection

1. Common Law Practice of Tresspass: Direct action ("harm"); this became intentional torts
2. Tresspass on the Case: Indirection action ("harm"); this became neglegence 

1. Lost wages or lost earning capacity
2. Medical expenses
3. Pain and suffering (incl mental and emotional pain)
4. Any special or particularized damages that do not fit in neatly within these other categories 

1. Injunctive Relief: the relief or award granted to the party that obtains the injunction, for example, preventing the other party from disclosing information to a newspaper
2. Restitution: the measure of recovery is usually based not on the plaintiff's loss but on the defendent's gain
3. Damages: Money claimed by or ordered to be paid to a person as compensation for loss or injury

1. Compensatory: An award of money to compensate the injured person for the harms caused by the defendent's tortious conduct
2. Punitives: Awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendent (tortfeasor)acted with recklessness, malice or deceit; intended to punish and thereby deter blameworthy conduct. They are measured by what will punish the particular defendent given the seriousness of the wrongdoing.
3. Nominals: A trifling sum awarded when a legal injury is suffered but there is no substantial loss or imjury to be compensated

The doctrine that if an injured party receives compensation for the injuries for a source independent of the tortfeasor (defendent), the payment should not be deducted from the damages that the tortfeasor must pay, example insurance proceeds

• A jury's award is excessive
• A fine, jail term or other penalty is disproportionate to the crime
• A jury's award may be subject to revision or reversal if it is so excessive or inadequate as to be the result of passion, predjudice, mistake or some other means not appropriate in the record

1. Additur: A trial court's (judge's) order to increase the jury's award of damages to avoid a new trial on the grounds of inadequate damages; may also refer to the increase itself, the procedure or the court's power to make the order
2. Remittitur : An order awarding a new trial or a damages amount lower than that awarded by the jury and requiring the plaintiff to choose between those two alternatives; may also refer to the process by which a court lowers a damages amount or retries the case.
3. New Trial: A postjudgement retrial or reexamination of some or all of the issues determined in an earlier judgement

• Help to draw parallels to other cases
• Influence the rules
• May be an explicit part of the case or an implicit part of the judge's reasoning

1. Motion to Dismiss
2. Motion for Summary Judgement
3. Motion for Directed Verdict
4. Evidentiary Decisions
5. Jury Instructions
6. Motions for Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict 
7.  Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law (J.N.O.V)
8. Motion for New Trial

A request that the court dismiss the case because of settlement, voluntary withdrawl or procedural defect; a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the case or a defendent may ask the court to dismiss the case based on one of the following defenses:

• lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction
• improper venue
• insufficiency of process
• the plaintiff's failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted (even if all the allegations are true, they would not be legally sufficient to state a claim on which relief might be granted)
• failure to join an indispensible party 

A party's request that the court enter a judgement in its favor despite the jury's contrary verdict because there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find for the other party.

• Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this procedure has been replaced by the provision for a Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law, which must be presented before the case has been submitted to the jury but can be reasserted if it isd denied and the jury returns an unfavorable verdict. 

1. Pleading Stage
2. Pretrial Stage
3. Trial Stage
4. Post Trial Stage

Filing a complaint and the defense's motions:

1. Filing a complaint: the official engagement of the plaintiff with the defense regarding the proposed "injustice" caused by the defense. This is a formal document submitted by the plaintiff to the court having jurisdiction over the complaint. 
2. Summons: Notification by the court in which the complaint is filed as an action being brought against the defense. Service of the summons typically requires a response from the defense within a 30-day period. No response from the defense can trigger a default judgment for the plaintiff.
3. Motions to Dismiss: These are the defense's response or answers to the plaintiffs complaint. The responses are typically filed as motions and are intended to dismiss the claims expressed in the complaint.
4. Motion for Judgement: Following the defendants response to the plaintiffs claims, the parties can either choose to settle or request a judgment based on the evidence presented, or the court can decide to continue toward resolving conflict at trial. If there is no judgment made, the case proceeds to the pre-trial stage.

Discovery process, finding of facts

1. Two aspects of discovery: (a) Interrogatory Questions: posed by the plaintiff's attorney to the defendent's attorney (b) Deposition: witnesses' sworn testimony 
2. Motion for Summary Judgement: At the conclusion of discovery, the court will typically review the facts of the case and determine if there is sufficient merit to proceed to trial or to encourage the parties to settle. If the finding of facts determines the case to be frivolous or non-substantiated, the case is dismissed.
3. PreTrial Order: If a substantial basis for the case is determined, the court will meet with and notify the parties of the trial schedule.

Seating of the jury, testimony on behalf of the plaintiffs and testimony on behalf of the defendents

1. Jury Selection: individuals are questioned in a process known as voire dire to determine suitability to serve as impartial juror in the specific case. The judge and counsel for both parties are involved in voire dire process, with each party trying to impanel individuals who may be sympathetic to their cause.
2. Opening Statements:  Statements to the jury made first by the plaintiffs' attorney and then by the defense attorneys setting up the circumstances and rationale of the legal complaint (plaintiffs) and the reasons for dismissing the claim (defense).
3. Plaintiff Testimony: The first part of the actual trial proceeding consists of the plaintiffs presenting their witnesses and experts to present the arguments and justifications for the complaint. The defense is permitted to cross-examine each witness in an attempt to dismiss, discredit, or disprove the witnesses statements.
4. Defense Testimony: Same process as the Plaintiff's testimony
5. Redirection and Recall: At the discretion of the judge, each witness can be redirected after cross examination by either the counsel. If critical information is not divulged during the initial testimony, counsel can request to recall a witness to the stand for additional questioning and cross examination.
6. Closing Arguments: Counsel for the plaintiffs and defense summarize their clients positions to remind the jurors of the facts presented in their case and to convince the jurors of veracity of their cause. Closing arguments are typically intended to be dramatic and pointed for effect.
7. Charge to the Jury: The judge orally provides the jury with specific instructions regarding its evaluation of the case. The jury is then dismissed to deliberate, in private, the outcome of the case.
8. The Verdict: The jury presents their finding to the court
9. Judgement: Following the receipt of the verdict, the court can rule and concur requesting final judgment, or determine if a new trial is required, or if the case should be dismissed.

"To speak the truth"

A preliminary examination of a prospective juror by a judge or lawyer to decide whether or not the prospect is qualified and suitable to serve on a jury

Appeals: the party that the court ruled against has the right file an appeal for the case to be heard in a court at a higher venue

"a case good on the face of it" or at first look. 

The plaintiff has the burden of proof on a prima facie case

1. Battery
2. Assault
3. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
4. False Imprisonment
5. Trespass to Chattel
6. Conversion
7. Trespass to Land  

1. (The purpose to) bring about harmful or offensive contact  
2. Knowledge with substantial certainty that such contact will result (the Substantial Certainty Test)

• Intentional, unconsented to contact with another;
• A person is subject to liability for battery when (s)he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact and when a harmful or offensive contact results 

• Contact which is offensive to a reasonable sense of personal dignity;
• Lack of apparent consent to touch

Battery is an act with:

• Intent to touch AND Intent to harm or offend, with the result of touching AND some form of harm or offense

• he acts intending to cause harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or a third party;  OR imminent apprehension of such a contact
• a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other party directly or indirectly results

1. For trespassory torts, they are presumed to flow from the tort itself
2. Nominal damages: A plaintiff who suffers only trivial harm or offense may still be entitled to monetary damages
3.  Economic damages: If the plaintiff suffers medical expenses, lost wages or future lost wages (earning capacity) those are recoverable upon proper proof.

Common law dictates that parents are not vicariously liable for the torts of their children simply by virtue of being the parents; there are some statutes that do impose liability on parents for their children's torts but they are limited in 2 ways:

1. Must be proven that the tort was committed willfully or wrongly
2. Any damages that may be ontained are limited  

1. The defendent intends a tort on one person and commits on another
2. The defendent intends one kind of assault and ends up commiting a battery

An act with the:

Intent of harmful or offensive touching or apprehension of touching with the result of apprehension of immediate battery

1. Threats or Demands: When confinement is by implicit or explicit threats or duress, ex: one female being surrounded by 6 burley men
2. Assertion of Authority: Example: submission to an officer's assertion of arrest under colorable legal authority is sufficient to show confinement
3. Duress of Goods: Example: the defendent grabs the plaintiff's pants from a dressing room and refuses to return them; the plaintiff wants to leave but cannot without their pants

• As false imprisonment is a trespassory tort the plaintiff can recover damages even if no actual hard is sustained.
• Actual harm is required to support a claim where the plaintiff was not aware of the confinement at the time it took place.
• Damages will be presumed if they were aware of the confinement; if they were not aware of the confinement, damages will be awarded based on the harm sustained.

1. Trespass to Land
2. Trespass to Chattles
3. Conversion of Chattles (or "conversion") 

1. Nominal Damages: even if there is no physical harm done.  When the defendent's trespass physically causes damages to the land, the palintiff can recover damages measured by the cost of repair or by the diminuition in the value of the premises resulting from the tort. In addition, upon proper proof, the plaintiff may also be awarded compensatory damages for the loss of the use of land and for emotional distress or annoyance caused by the tespass.
2.  Injunctive Relief: where damages are inadequate or as where trespass is continuing or will be repeated, the plaintiff may be entitled to an injunction to stop the trespassing or to force a trespassor to leave or remove something placed on the plaintiff's land.
3. Punitive Damages: May be awarded if the trespass is deliberate or "malicious."

• An act with the intent to exercise dominion over chattel AND that seriously interferes with the Plaintiff's right of possession
• The defendent must intend to exercise substantial dominion over the chattel, but there is no requirement that the defendent be conscious of wrong doing.  A mistake is not a defense.

1. Extent and duration of control over the chattel
2. The intent to assert a right to the property
3. The Defendent's good faith
4. The harm done
5. The expense or inconvenience caused

• Conversion is the interference of a chattel that there will be a need to replace the entire chattel; whereas
• Trespass to Chattel is minimal interference where you'd only have to repair a ding in a car, for example, and not the whole car

• The defendent must act under color of state law, meaning that the defendent must have exercised power made possible by state law (ex an officer)
• The plaintiff must prove not that the defendent committed a common law tort but rather that the defendent subjected the plaintiff to a deprevation of Federal rights, usually those right guaranteed by the US Constitution 

1. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process or Equal Protections Clauses: A plaintiff must prove that the defendent's actions "shock the conscience of the court."
2. The Fourth Amendment's Protections Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: The test is whether the defendent's search or seizure was "unreasonable"which normally means search and/or seizure without a warrant or without probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, or involving an unreasonable use of force.
3. The Eight Amendment which Prohibits Cruel or Unusual Punishment: This violation turns on the court's interpretation of the term "cruel and unusual." This may also be found to mean where conditions of confinement are especially harsh, or where necessary medical attention is denied to a person in custody

• Protects govement officials from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct doesn't violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person might have known."
• This immunity is usually raised by Summary Judgement motion, then the plaintiff has the burden of presenting sufficient facts to show that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right and it must also be established that the constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation.
• Ascertaining whether a right violated was clearly established involves looking first at US Supreme Court precedent and where that does not exist, all relevant case law.  This is important because even if there was a violation, if that law was not previously clearly established, the plaintiff will not prevail.
• BOTTOM LINE: The Qualified Immunity will protect all BUT the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violated the law