Course Hero Logo

Torts_Partlett_2020 (2).docx - Table of Contents for...

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 51 pages.

Table of Contents for Partlett Fall 2022 – Chris ChenI.INTENTIONAL TORTS3A.INTENT3B.BATTERY3C.ASSAULT3D.FALSEIMPRISONMENT4E.INTENTIONALINFLICTIONOFEMOTIONALDISTRESS(IIED)4II.PRIVILEGES TO INTENTIONAL TORTS (DEFENSES)5A.CONSENT5B.SELFDEFENSE6C.DEFENSEOFOTHERS6D.DEFENSEOFPROPERTY7E.RECOVERYOFPROPERTY7F.NECESSITY7G.AUTHORITYOFLAW8H.DISCIPLINE8I.JUSTIFICATION8III.NEGLIGENCE8A.DUTYOFCARE9B.PROOFOFNEGLIGENCE19C.CAUSATIONINFACT20D.PROXIMATECAUSE(SCOPEOFLIABILITY)23E.DAMAGES27F.DEFENSES301.P’SCONDUCT302.LIMITATIONS333.IMMUNITIES33IV.JOINT TORTFEASORS34A.JOINTTORT35B.JOINTANDSEVERALLY(INDEPENDENTACTS)35C.J&S LIABILITYTODAYFORINDEPENDENTACTSCAUSINGINDIVISIBLEHARM:351.SATISFACTIONANDRELEASE362.CONTRIBUTIONANDINDEMNITY363.APPORTIONMENTOFDAMAGES37V.PRODUCT LIABILITY401.EXPRESSWARRANTIES402.IMPLIEDWARRANTIES403.SHIFTTOSTRICTLIABILITYINTORT40VI.GAME LEG43
Missing: Neg – elements of cause of action, neg formula, stndrd of care, rules oflaw, violation of stat., Res Ispa Loquiter, Causation in fact – sine qua non, proof ofcausation, concurrent causes, determining which party Prox or Legal Cause –undforeseeable, intervening causes, public policy, shifting respI.Intentional TortsA.Intent-RULE: either purpose or "knowledge with substantial certainty," that performing an act will leadto invasion of bodily harm.-Purposeto cause the act:Conduct intended (even if result not)OR-Knowledgewith Substantial Certaintythat action would produce a tortious result (Garratt v Dailey5y.o. chair pull)oKnowledge Test– just must know the person’s physical integrity would be invaded, not theactual harm will occuroSubjective– what D thought, not what they should’ve thoughtoConsequences need not be substantially certain, just the act (thin skull, glass jaw liability too)oSubstantial Certainty:D knows that a harmful or offensive contact is “substantially certain” tooccur, the fact that D doesn’t desire that contact is irrelevantsubjective test-Intent to harm irrelevant-Consequences need not be intentional or substant. certain –just the actoLiable for damages caused by mistakesand misunderstanding of facts (Rason v Kitner, shot dog;hugging stranger in store—we allocate the risk of mistake to the actor)oVolitional control is sufficient;mentally incompetent personsliable just like normal people(Mcquire v Almy,caretaker injured)oChildrenare responsible for intentional torts (age may affect their knowledge of act)-Doctrine of transferred intentoThe tort attempted and the tort achieved must be one of the 5 within the original writ of trespass(Batter, Assault, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, & Trespass to Chattel)oOne supplies intent for the others as welloWhen the intention to harm one individual inadvertently causes a second person to be hurtinstead, the perpetrator is still held responsible.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 51 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
KIRK
Tags
Tort Law, The Land, criminal law, assault, transferred intent

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture