Harmful or offensive contact - would not be permitted by a person of ordinary sensitivity

to the plaintiff's person (anything holding or touching)

intent

causation

Act by defendant creating a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff (not fear)

of immediate harmful or offensive contact to plantiff's person (apparent ability, not words alone)

intent

causation

Act or omission that confines or restrains P (must know or be harmed by confinement)

to a bounded area (no reasonable means of escape known)

intent

causation

An act amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct

intent or recklessness

caudation

damages - severe emotional distress (transcends decency)

[only intentional tort that requires it]

1) continuous

2) directed toward certain type of plaintiff (elderly, children)

3) committed by a certain type of defendant (common carrier or innkeeper)

physical invasion of real property (person or object, air above or surface below)

intent (need not be aware of boundary, or that land belongs to another)

causation

In conversion, interferance with P's right of possession is so serious as to warrant that D pay the chattel's full value

Both require intent to do the act that brings about the interferance

Damages  trespass allows recovery of actual damages, conversion requires damage award of fair market value (forced sale) or possession (replevin)

1) was there a valid consent? (eg no fraud)

2) did the defendant stay within the boundaries of the consent? (eg using a gun at a boxing match)

1) mistake - if D knew of and took advantage

2) fraud - goes to essential matter (not collateral)

3) duress - present threats, not future

1) apparent consent - reasonable person would infer from cusom and usage or P's conduct

2) consent implied by law - when action is necessary to save a person's ife

1) proper timing - D must act while threat in progress or when threat is imminent

(NOTE:  privilege supersedes defense)

2) reasonable belief that threat is genuine (reasonable mistake does not defeat defense, unless mistake is regarding whether entrant has privilege)

3) force is reasonably necessary to respond to threat

One may use force to defend another when the actor reasonably believes that the other person could have used force to defend himself.

The defender may use as much force as he could have used in self-defense if the injury were threatened to him.

When another's possession began lawfully (eg conditional sale) one may use only peaceful means to recover the chattel.

Timely demand required, can only recover from wrongdoer, reasonable force must be used

Property torts.

1) public - when the act is for the public good

2) private - when the act is solely to benefit a limited number of people.  actor must pay for injury he causes (unless at was to benefit property owner)

police officer can make a reasonable mistake

citizens may make a reasonable mistake regarding the identity of the felon, but not regarding whether the felony occurred

1) defamatory language (not mere insults, reflecting character trait, maybe opinion, specifically refers to D)

2) of or concerning the plaintiff

3) publication thereof by defendant to a third person

4) damage to plaintiff's reputation

Depends on if defamation is libel or slander.

Libel - written or printed publication of defamatory language.  P doesn't need to prove special damages and general damages presumed

Slander - spoken defamation.  P must prove special damages, unless statements are special:

1) adversely reflect on one's conduct in a business or profession

2) one has a loathsome disease

3) one is or was guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude

Slander - spoken defamation.  P must prove special damages, unless statements are special:

1) adversely reflect on one's conduct in a business or profession

2) one has a loathsome disease

3) one is or was guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude

Libel - written or printed publication of defamatory language.  NOTE:  includes radio broadcasts.

P doesn't need to prove special damages and general damages presumed

1) falsity of the statement, and

2) fault on the part of the defendant

Actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity)

vs

at least negligence as to statement's truth or falsity

Unauthorized use of plaintiff's picture or name for defendant's commercial advantage.

Liability oiited to ads or promotions for product or services.  Mere economic benefit to D not sufficient

Where one attributes to plaintiff views he does not hold or actions he did not take. DOES NOT REQUIRE FAULT.

Must be something highly offensive to a reasonable person under the circumstances.  For liability to attach, there must be publicity.  

If matter is in the public interest, malice on D's part must be proved.

Widespread dissemination of confidential information about plaintiff that would be highly offensive to reasonable person.

Unlike false light, underlying information is true, but intimate

Exceptions:  newsworthiness, carrying over information between social circles

1) misrepresentation of a material fact (no duty to disclose and opinion not actionable unless rendered by someone with superior skills in the area).  Generally affirmative.

2) Scienter - when D made statement she knew or believed it was false

3) Intent to induce P to act or refrain fro acting in reliance upon the misrepresentation

4) causation (actual reiance)

5) justifiable reliance (generally, reliance only justifiable as to statement of fact, not opinion)

Duty on the part of D to conform to a specific standard of conduct for protection of P against an unreasonable

a Breach on the duty by defendant

the breach is the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff's injury

Cardozo - majority - P2 can only recover if she can establish that a reasonable person would have foreseen a risk of injury to her under the circumstnaces; i.e., she was located in the foreseeable zone of danger

Andrews - minority - everyone is foreseeable - P2 may establish existence of a duty extending from D to her b a showing that the D has breached a duty owed to P1

Yes, where D negligently put himself or a 3rd party in peril (danger invites rescue).  

However, firefighters and police officers barred from recovering

hypothetical reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances

Defendant's mental deficiencies and inexperience are not taken into accound.

BUT reasonable person is considered to have the same physical characteristics as D (but that person should keep in mind their handicaps)

A hypothetical child of similar age, experience, and intelligence acting under similar circumstances.  NOTE - this standard is subjective!

Children under 4 do not owe a duty of care

Duty arises for unreasonably dangerous artificial conditions or structures abutting adjacent land (incudes branches of trees on land who hit those off land).

One must carry out activities on property so as to avoid unreasonable risk of harm to others outside property.

If trespasser known - known, manmade, deathtrap

If undiscovered, no duty owed.  If discovered or anticipated, landowner must 1) warn of or make safe concealed, unsafe, artificial conditions known to the landowner involving risk of death or serious bodily harm, and 2) use reasonable care in the exercise of "active operations" on the property

1) dangerous condition on the land that the owner is or should be aware of

2) owner knows or should know children frequent the vicinity of the condition

3) the condition is likely to cause injury (ie, dangerous because of the child's inability to appreciate the risk, and

4) the expense of remedying the situation is slight compared with the magnitude of the risk

Licensee has permission to enter, but does not get economic benefit.  Includes social guests, solicitors girl scout cookies).

1) warn of known dangerous conditions that create an unreasonable risk of harm, 2) exercise reasonable care in conduct of "active operations" on property

Invitees enter onto land in response to invitation by landowner - can be business or not.  

Same duties as licensees (warn of known dangerous conditions, exercise reasonable care wrt operations) + duty to make reasonable inspections to discover nonobvious dangerous conditions and fix them (make them safe)

General public who is allowed to use land for recreational purposes without being charged a fee.

Not liable for injuries suffered, unless willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity. 

class of person, class or risk

1) he is a member of the class of persons that the statute is trying to protect

2) injury which occurred is in the class of risks that the statute is trying to protect

1) P must be within the "zone of danger", AND

2) the P must suffer physical sumptoms from the distress

When 

1) the P and the person injured by D are closely related

2) the P was present at the scene of the injury, and

3) the P personally observed or perceived the event 

1) accident causing the injury is of a type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent, and

2) the negligence is attributable to defendant (ie this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the negligence of someone in defedant's position).

If res ipsa loquitur established, then P has made prima facis case and no directed verdict may be given for the defendant.

Negligence can still be rejected by the trier of fact

Actual cause (causation in fact):

1) but-for test:  would injury have occurred but for the act? [several acts combine to cause injury]

2) joint causes (merged causes) - substantial factor test - D's conduct was a substantial factor in causing injury

3) alternative causes - 2 acts, don't know which caused injury - each must show that his negligence is not the actual cause

Proximate cause (think:  fairness):

general rule:  have to pay for foreseeable consequenes, but not for unforeseeable consequences

1) negligence of rescuers

2) efforts to protect the person or property of oneself or another

3) subsequent medical malpractice

4) injuries caused by another "reacting" to D's actions

5) subsequent diseases causes by weaked condition

6) subsequent accident substantially caused by original injury

both economic and noneconomic damages.

key phrase:  one takes one's P as one finds him

liable for negligence.

1) known of the risk, and

2) voluntarily proceeded in the face of the risk

1) activity must create a foreseeable risk of serious harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors, and 

2) the activity is not a matter of common usage in the community

1) nature of defendant's activity imposes an absolute duty to make safe

2) the dangerous aspect of the ctivity was the actual and proximate cause of the P's injury, and

3) the P suffered damage to person or property

contributory:  no

most comparative negligence states:  yes

1) a defect

2) existence of the defect when the product left defendant's control

1) D is a mercant who routinely deals with goods of this type, 

2) the product is defective, AND

3) the use of the product is foreseeable

A substantial, unreasonable interference

with another private individual's use and enjoyment

of property that he actually posses or to which he has a right of immediate possession

In trespass, there is an interference with the landowner's exclusive possession by a physical invasion.

 In a private nuisance, there is interference with use or enjoyment.

1) force is authorized in the employment (eg bouncer)

2) friction is generated by the employment (eg bill collector)

3) employee is furthering the business of the employer, e.g., removing customers from premises if rowdy

1) independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activity

2) because of public policy considerations, duty is nondelegable (eg duty to use due care in building fence around excavation site)

When 2 or more negligent acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury, each negligent actor will be jointly and severally liable (ie liable to plaintiff for the entire damage incurred).

If the injury is divisible, each D is liable only for the identifiable portion