Torts_Outline_updated

Torts_Outline_updated - 1. Introduction i. 90% of torts ACT...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon

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

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

Unformatted text preview: 1. Introduction i. 90% of torts ACT REAONABLY 1. Aristotle when a person harms another through blameworthy conduct they should compensate the person to the extent of the blameworthiness 2. Torts: compensate them to the extent of the harm ii. 3 approaches to tort law 1. Traditional: corrective justice, coherent set of principles to decide whether this plaintiff was entitled to compensation , policy not withstanding 2. Shift from having to show good cause to explaining why liability should not be imposed 3. Economic Theory: social control with greater interests at hand than the individual (KUKLINs Fave) iii. Look for the situation sense iv. Conflict in approaches 1. Fact issues 2. Value issues (what type of liability should apply 3. Invoke history, policy, it aint right 2. Intentionally Inflicted Harms a. Physical Harms i. Intent 1. Act : State of mind (intent to contract a muscle) 2. Intent Proper : Consequences of an act or omission (intended finger movement aware that it is around a trigger Required in Modern Torts) 3. Motive : Having in mind a belief or knowledge that consequences are certain (motive not required in tort law) 4. If there is no intent to cause harm and no physical harm; offense can suffice 5. Dobbs: must infringe a reasonable sense of dignity (not the germ freak) b. Trespass to Person i. Assault 1. Act, Intent to cause Imminent Contact, Reasonable apprehension 2. RST: imminent apprehension; it is enough for the actor to believe actor is capable of immediately inflicting contact 3. P&K: Apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with the person; must be aware of the threat; must be able to carry out threat 4. Words do not constitute and assault; courage/fear irrelevant 5. Intent can transfer 6. Offensive assault (emotional/dignitary harm) 7. Tuberville v. Savage : damages allowed in this case of dignitary harm to prevent fuelling and disruption of order, battery was the result of this assault 8. Allen : pointed gun at ; didnt matter that knew it was unloaded 9. Policy: evidentiary diffictulty; slippery slope, attempts to induce settlement ii. Battery 1. Act, Intent, Harmful or offensive conduct, contact (direct or indirect) 2. RST: an actor is subject to liability if: a. Acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person or a 3 rd personl or imminent apprehension of such contact b. And harmful contact directly or indirectly results 3. P&K:A harmful or offensive contact with a person resulting from an act intending to cause the or a 3 rd part harm; act must cause and be intended to cause an unpermitted contact 4. Extends to any part of the body or anything attached; need not be consious 5. Intent element satisfied not only if intends contact, but also apprehension that contact is imminent 6. Context is important 7. Eggshell : must take the victim as he finds him 8. Vosburg v. Putney : boy kicks another, held responsible for damages not intended 9. Transferred Intent a.a....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 12/05/2009 for the course NA NA taught by Professor Kuklin during the Fall '08 term at Brooklyn Law School.

Page1 / 38

Torts_Outline_updated - 1. Introduction i. 90% of torts ACT...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

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