Torts-Sharkey-Fall06

Torts-Sharkey-Fall06 - Fall 2006 Torts Outline Professor...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Torts Outline Professor Catherine Sharkey Fall 2006 Goals of Tort Law 1. Corrective Justice/Fairness— Defendant is responsible for repairing wrongs to plaintiff. 2. Compensation— Primary concern with compensating injured victims, focused on harm to victims needing compensation 3. Economic Efficiency/Incentives— Manipulating incentives of defendants and victims to take into account cost/benefits of actions before proceeding, thus deterring excessively risky activity. Examines whole system rather than particulars to plaintiff and defendant. The goal is to achieve optimal level of deterrence. o Coase Theorem— Consider where entitlement is placed and transaction costs of reaching effective outcome o Cheapest Cost Avoider— Liability should be placed on party who can most cheaply avoid the loss, not on wrongdoer. o Loss Spreader— Place liability on party best able to spread the cost over the greatest number of people o Hand Formula— Calculates benefit versus loss of prevention. I. Intentional Torts 0. Prima Facie Elements a. Intent (Intent to Act vs. Intent to Harm) b. Act c. Causation (Injury) d. Damages 1. Defenses a. Consent b. Insanity c. Defense of Person/Property d. necessity A. Physical Harms I. Trespass to Person (Battery) a. Intentional and wrongful physical contact with a person, without his or her consent, that entails some substantial certainty/knowledge of injury i. Vosburg v. Putney (boy kicks P under the table lightly; P loses use of leg) 1. If the intended act is unlawful—whether or not it was intended to cause harm—then intended action to commit it must also be unlawful (intent to act vs. intent to harm) 2. Egg/Shell/Skull Rule —You take the plaintiff as you find her when you commit an intentional tort; therefore, defendant is responsible for full result of damages. ii. Garratt v. Dailey (boy pulls chair out from woman sitting under) 1. Substantial Certainty Test —There must be substantial certainty that act will cause injury. (You do not need to know the precise harm but as in this case there was substantial certainty that woman would fall) a. Intentional torts do not generally differentiate between adult and 1
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 children iii. Restatement § 1: Intent 1. A person intentionally causes harm if he brings about that harm either purposefully or knowingly (purposefully—desire to bring about that harm; knowingly—certain harm will occur). Restatement abolishes difference between purpose and knowledge because either one will satisfies requirement of “intent.” iv. White v. University of Idaho (Piano teacher touches student that causes harm) 1. Court holds that restatement is not binding and that even though act was not unlawful or intended to harm it still satisfies intent element.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/04/2008 for the course LAW ALL taught by Professor Multiple during the Fall '06 term at NYU.

Page1 / 56

Torts-Sharkey-Fall06 - Fall 2006 Torts Outline Professor...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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