Robertson Torts Cheat Sheet

Robertson Torts Cheat Sheet - Alex More ATTACK Outline I....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Alex More Torts – Robertson ATTACK Outline Fall ‘05 I. PROCEDURE Dismiss – π didn’t state a claim Summary J – no π claim after Δ’s facts MDV#1 – Δ only after π’s case MDV #2 – π or Δ after both sides JNOV – “ + appellate court uses old verdict II. CORE TORTS RATIONALE Administrative Feasibility Fairness – dangerously double-edged Economic Efficiency, Keeping the Peace Authority – procedural and case law III. INTENTIONAL TORTS A. Page One – π’s Prima Facie Case 1. Battery – Unwanted physical contact (1) Touch (person or closely connected) (2) Harmful or ORSD (objective/Δ knows) (3) Intent (desired or KSC 2 or sometimes 1) Transferred Intent – another person, etc. (4) Causation – cause-in-fact 2. Assault – Apprehension of attack (1) Intent (desired or KSD to inflict H or ORSD touching or put π in apprehension) (2) Reasonable apprehension (ability) (3) Imminent bodily harm (4) Causation – cause-in-fact 3. IIED – Pity for π’s of outrageous acts (1) Causation – cause-in-fact (2) Emotional distress, (3) Severe (4) Intentional or reckless (5) Outrageous (Beyond all decency, R 2 nd ) B. Page Two – Δ’s Affirmative Defenses 1. Consent – Manifest (obj), not subjective Harmful contact outside the rules (Robertson: add “and customs”) of the activity = outside the scope of consent. Consent vitiated if product of mistake induced by Δ pertaining to essential nature, not collateral matter (R: vague distinction). 2. Self Defense and Defense of Others Necessary? Reasonable? Deadly force? Liability for excess? Retreat? 3. Defense of Property – ♫Spring-guns♫ No deadly force solely to prtct propRT. Spring-gun (trap) legal fiction intent. IV. NEGLIGENCE A. Page One – π’s Prima Facie Case 1. Breach – Reasonable care not used (1) Substandard Care – B<PL (PoOP) (2) The Reasonable Person Standard (obj.) (a) Subjective standard for physical, but not mental handicaps. Admin Feas. (b) Age/Intelligence/Experience for kids. R: rationales are weak, could just use 2a. (i) Adult activity exception – licensed activities, protects innocent victims. (c) Industry customs ø de facto reasonable (3) Negligence per se – Violation of Statute Legislative intent – Tort? Class? Type? Exceptions common – ex: necessity of vio. (4) Res Ipsa Loquitur – it speaks for itself a few courts make you choose RIL or n. (a) Accident wouldn’t usu happen w/o neg. May require expert testimony (b) Δ had exclusive control l instrument (c) Not due to any voluntary action of π R: kind of a throwaway element. 2. Cause-in-Fact – More probable than not (1) The But-For Test – the primary CIF test (a) Robertson’s Five-Step Approach (i) Identify the “injury in suit” (ii) Identify Δ’s alleged wrongful conduct (iii) Correct it in most legally modest way (iv) Replay the tape to see what happens (v) No injury = CIF OK, if unclear, no CIF. (b)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course LAW 427 taught by Professor Robertson during the Spring '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 6

Robertson Torts Cheat Sheet - Alex More ATTACK Outline I....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online