Torts I

Everyone has the duty to act as a reasonable prudent person (RPP) under the same/similar circumstances to avoid exposing others to unreasonable and foreseeable risks of harm.

Civil wrong, other than breach of K, for which a court will provide a remedy

1. Compensatory (General and specific) 2. Nominal (awarded for vindication of a right, where no real loss or injury can be proved. 3. Punitive (ONLY IF compensatory damages have already been awarded. Very rare, only in cases of wilfull/wanton).

1. Act 2. Intent 3. Purpose

1. Duty 2. Breach 3. Causation 4. Damages

When D intends to commit trespassory tort on A but instead ends up committing tort to B. The intent is transferred from A to B. D still liable.

Young person may be guilty of tort. Must appreciate the resulting harm. Age matters. 9 year old different from 2 year old.

Not necessary to prove

Nominal available

When D intends to cause physical harmful or offensive touching on P via physical invasion. Must intend the touching and touching must occur.

Judged by community standards at time and place of touching

Direct body contact not always required. Example: throwing a rock = extended personality of actor

Nominal and Compensatory and punitive, unless D raises mistake defense

Defense to battery, can negate intent.

D intends to, and with purpose, place P in apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical harm required.

D intentionally and unlawfully confines P against P's will and within the bounds set by D. Negated if P has reasonable escape routes.

Unlawful and intentional detainment of P by taking them into custody under asserted authority.

D's act of extreme and outrageous conduct that invades the mental faculties of the P and causes mental or physical distress.

• Strangers: Must witness the act, D must know they are there, must have physical manifestation of severe distress.
• Family members: Same as above, however, can recover if D knew with substantial certainty that it would transfer to 3DP.

Unpriviledged, intentional entry to land of another or refusal to leave land when permission to enter has been revoked. Interference with another's possession of land.

Intentional dispossession of another's personal property, depriving them of use and enjoyment. No damage necessary.

Intentional, unprivileged exercise of dominion and control over another's personal property. There needs to be a substantial interference.

Not a defense to intentional tort. Can be used to negate intent and destroy P's prima facie case.

Defense. Express or Implied.

Available when victim has priviledge of self-D. Used when intentional tort was necessary to save another from serious harm.

Deadly force not allowed. Only allowed to prevent commission of a tort.

The privileged right to enter land and interfere with chattles in possession of another or even inflict personal injury, IF such action reasonably appears necessary to avert imminent public disaster.

Privilege to take and use another's personal property; when not taking property would create greater risk. Superior privilege of necessity

When one has a duty to provide reasonable care to others, breaches that duty, the breach causes harm or injury, and damages occur.

RPP

"But for" test or substantial factor (only for when we have multiple actors).

Should D have realized that P was in a class of risk due to D's breach and that the harm was foreseeable?

Subjective test with objective overlay. Take child of like age, intelligence and experience under same or similar circumstances.

B < P x L. If the product of the probabilty of harm occurring and the level of foreseeable harm is greater than the burden of the actor not engaging in that conduct, then negligence.

When decreasing the risk of one activity raises the risk of another activity. Activity A: P x L = Y, Activity B: PxL=Z. If Z is higher than Y, we decrease risk of activity B and vice versa.

Violation of safety statute, unless excused. Shuts the door on negligence. The statute must be relevant (designed to protect class of citizens from a certain class of harm). Criminal = courts have discretion whether to apply. Civil = courts MUST apply.

Physicans = same or similar community std. Specialists = National std. Can set the std via expert testimony or Material risk std (P entitled to disclosure of material risks before deciding on treatment).

1. That the act could not have occured absent another's person's negligent act. 2. Was caused by instrumentality was within the exclusive control of the D or had the right to control. 3. The harm was not solely due to the voluntary action or contribution of P or other 3rd parties.

Concurrent: 2+ Ds + their consecutive negligent acts cause P's harm. Apportion by time/amount. Concurrent: 2+ Ds + their neg acts that happen at the same time and both cause harm to P. Joint and several. Preemptive: Neg of 1 D prevents (and causes harm to P) neg act of another D from causing its harm. second D is off scott free.

But for [med professional's] failure to inform P of risks, would P have avoided the treatment and thus the injury?

Risk Rule: D = liable ONLY for injuries within the class of risk whose foreseeabillity made him negligent in the first place. Intervening Causes?: intentional or reckless (criminal/suicide), negligent (was it foreseeable and did it intervene or supersede?), or act of God.

P voluntairly encounters a known and apparent risk of harm from negligence of D's conduct.

Risks can't be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care. Irreducible risks of an activity or condition. By engaging in activity, P is deemed to consent to risks that are inherent in activity or sport.

• Like contrib. negligence. - subjective prong: did P know and appreciate danger of the risk compared with D's negligence?
• If so, and P voluntarily encountered known risk of D's conduct, then P was unreasonable.