100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 41 pages.
1Things to Consider:What type of joint liability? Vicarious, joint and several, indivisible injuries?Specificity of the question – just plain old liability = every type of tort vs. liability for specific tortWhat types of losses are permitted? Only economic, pain and suffering, mental?Res Ipsa Loquitor, nonreciprocal risk and Bexiga Principle apply a lotAssumption of the risk, other defenses will score you points even if arguing against themIf there’s an employee involved, don’t forget about worker’s compensaton (intentional torts are beyond the scope)Torts OutlineI. THEORYOFTORTLIABILITY(37-40)Goals of Tort System1.Shift loss to compensatevictims2.DeterrenceRationale1.Sense of fairness2.Better to have the legal system redress injuries rather than allowing people to take the law into their own handsArguments Against1.Not always fair: sometimes you make a poor person pay for a rich person’s injury2.Deterrence is better served through criminal law rather than tort lawa.In criminal law, you have uniform punishment based on gravity of the crimeb.In tort, you make a haphazard calculation based on amount of injury and degree of culpabilityCommon Law Writs1.Writ of Trespass: whenever you injure anybody directly, you are liable. a.Basis is causation, not fault, so this is strict liabilityb.Damage must be inflicted by force or breach of peace2.Trespass on the Case: if the injury is indirect, you are only liable if there’s faultVan Camp Fault Principle: fault (either intentional or negligent) required to shift the loss, even though injury is direct1.This case fails to achieve compensation goal: P is injured but does not recover2.But 2ndgoal is deterrence: you can’t deter unintentional behaviorII. INTENTIONALTORTS
2Battery: the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact (pg 40-54)1.Intenta.Must be result of a voluntary actb.Transferred Intent: where the actor tries to batter one person and actually causes a harmful or offensive contract to another, he is liable to actual victim (Hall v. McBryde)i.Intent also transferred across trespassory torts: if defendant intends assaultc.Ambiguity: does intent modify the contact element or the harm element?i.Van Campsays it modifies harmii.Cohenseems to say only the contact need be intendedd.If you start a chain of eventsthat you were substantially certain would result in harmful or offensive contact, that is sufficient (Garratt v. Dailey)i.Cohen could be justified on this ground, since nurse knew plaintiff’s religious beliefs made contact offensivee.Intent v. Motive: your motive could be honorable, but it’s still a battery if you intend to cause a contact that you are substantially certain will be harmful or offensivef.Voluntary intoxication or drug use does not negate intent element2.Impact: Contacta.Defendant does not have to physically touch plaintiffb.Does not have to physically injure the plaintiff; can just be offensivec.Defendant does not even have to be present at the time of the contact (setting out