BUS Exam 3
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview
The flashcards below were created by user
on FreezingBlue Flashcards
. What would you like to do?
wrongful conduct by one person towards another and monetary compensation is sought
Types of Torts:
- Strict Liability
intent to engage in conduct that results in harm, not intended to harm.
(negligent, accidents, carelessness)
liability without fault, everything is done to make it safe and someone gets hurt
injury can be compensated by money
intentional deceit for personal gain.
confining someone to a limited area, usually for an unreasonable amount of time for an unreasonable amount of questioning.
false statements of facts that tend to injure people in their reputations
Invasion of Privacy types:
- False light
- Public Disclosure of Private Facts
using someone's name or likeness (face, voice, signature) forcommercial purposes without their consent
an intrusion into an area where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy
falsely attributing beliefs, attitudes, memberships, etc. to someone and holding them out in a false light
Public Disclosure of Private Facts:
someone says something about another person that is true, but it doesn't need to be known by the whole world.
(intentional torts, defamation) written defamation, or recorded
(intentional torts, defamation) oral or verbal defamation
- (no punitive damages!) failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances.
- (no injury= noliability for negligence)
Special Negligence cases:
- Res Ipsa Loquitur
- Good Samaritan Laws
- Dram Shop Laws
Res Ipsa Loquitur (the facts speak for themselves):
presumption of negligence; plaintiff usually isn't negligent, when something doesn't usually happen (like a sack of flour randomly falling fromthe sky on your head), if the defendant can disprove it then they're off the hook (unlikely).
Good Samaritan Laws:
people try to help others in events of peril; prevents someone from suing the “good samaritan” for saving their lives even though they accidentally injured them somehow in the process.
"Dram Shop" laws:
(a dram is a small drink) when someone comes into a bar or party and get intoxicated and then go out and gets injured or injure someone, the bar owner/host (and owner of house if they weren't there) can be held liable; designed to protect other people from being injured
- -misstatement of material fact
- -known falsity
- -intent to Deceive/induce reliance
- -actual reliance
- -justifiable reliance
- -damages (resulting injury)
Fraud Tort: Misstatement of Material Fact
someone says something not true (including omission of evidence!) about an important piece of information that someone would use in making a decision.
Fraud Tort: Known Falsity
the person knows the statement to be false OR they should know OR they have the reason to know OR they're reckless to not know it.
Fraud Tort: Intent to Deceive/Induce Reliance
intends to make a statement that people will believe
Fraud Tort: Actual Reliance
the person hearing the statement believes it and then takes action based on that belief
Fraud Elements: Justifiable Reliane
relates to the reasonable customer; would a reasonable person have come to the same conclusion had they heard the same statement
Fraud Torts: Damages (Injury)
typically a contract tort where the contract is reversed
How to win a fraud tort?
Prove all the elements!!
False Imprisonment Elements:
- -intentional confinement
- -no justification
False Imprisonment Elements: intentional confinement
intending to put someone in a limited area and injury happened to occur.
False Imprisonment Elements: no justification
no probable cause or belief that someone did something wrong
False Imprisionment Defenses: (the only defense there is)
Consent: if someone agrees to the confinement then it's not false imprisonment unless they revoke their consent during the confinement and they aren't released.
- -false statement of fact
- -defamatory meaning
- -about plaintiff
- -damage to reputation
Defamation Elements: False Statement of Fact
statement is capable of being true or false and the statement is false
Defamation Elemtents: Deafamatory Meaning
statement that tends to injure someone in their reputation
Defamation Elements: About Plaintiff
the statements needs to be about the plaintiff
Defamation Elements: Publication
someone other than the plaintiff has heard the statement (at least one person)
Defamation Elements: Damage to Reputation
injury to reputation
- -the truth
- *absolute privileges
- *qualified privileges (made in good faith? To only people with a need to know? If both are false then it doesn't count)
- -public figuresd
Defamation Defenses: Opinion
what someone thinks and is not able to be proven true or false (it's an opinion if it's false)
Defamation Defenses: Absolute Privileges
people have the privilege to say what they need to in official proceedings and they are protected, even though the statement is damaging to reputation
Defamation Defenses: Qualified privileges
statements that can be damaging, but has to be made in good faith or for a reasonable belief and isn't revealed to a large amount of people.
Defamation Defenses: Public Figures
someone who puts their selves in public light; they are required to prove malice (known falsity, or reckless disregard for the truth) in order to win a case.
Business Torts Elements:
- -Interference with contract
- -Interference with Perspective Economic Advantage
Business Torts Elements: Interference with Perspective Economic Advantage
- •Potential relationship NOT A CONTRACT (A-B)
- •Knowledge (by C)
- •Intentto disrupt (by C for C's advantage)
- •Actual disruption
Business Torts Elements: Interference with Contract
- •Contract (A-B)
- •Knowledge (by C)
- •Intent to induce breach (by C for C's advantage)
- •Actual breach
Cyber Torts info:
- •internet service providers can't be sued for these things because there is way too much information to process
- •companies that aren't service providers (don't change or edit the information) also can't be sued because they also have a crapload of information to process
- -Duty of Care
- -Breach of Duty
- *Proximate Cause
Negligence Elements: Duty of Care
duty to act as a reasonable person under certain circumstances
Negligence Elements: Causation - cause-in-fact
the careless act results in injury (if there was no careless act then there wouldn't be an injury)
Negligence Elements: Causation - proximate cause
you can't recover for negligence if the actor couldn't foresee the possible injury
Negligence Elements: Damages/injury
can only recover for damages IF SOMEONE WAS HURT (physical or emotional or mental or financial)
- -assumption of risk
- -superseding cause
- -contributory negligence
- -comparative negligence
Negligence Defenses: Assumption of Risk
- known risk (normally associated with the event) voluntarily
Negligence Defenses: Superseding cause
- intervening event that is not the defendant's fault or in the
- defendant's control, then the defendant isn't held accountable for those.
Negligence Elements: Contributory Negligence
- involves the plaintiff's negligence, if the plaintiff is negligent
- too, then the plaintiff can't recover anything
Negligence Defenses: Compative Negligence
involves the plaintiff's negligence, if the plaintiff is negligent too (but not as much as the defendant), then they can recover for damages based on how much wasn't their fault in percentages (if it was 70% the defendant's fault, then they get 70% of damages)
- -landowners are expected to exercise reasonable care to protect people who come on the property from harm
- •if someone is harmed and you knew about it and didn't tell them (they fall on a loose stair) then you can be sued. If you didn't know about it, then you can't be sued.
- •non-trespassers: someone invited on the property that are injured
- •trespassers: aren't invited and are injured
- •homeowner should protect against hazards they know about or should know about(no matter what the intentions)
- •you can't defend ONLY your property with deadly force
Business Invitee Cases:
- •storeowner has the responsibility to exercise reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable risks
- •if they know about a hazard or it's been there for a really long time without warning and the hazard is foreseeable, then they are responsible if someone is injured because of that hazard
Duties of Professionals:
- always compares apples to apples
- Ex: ask another doctor what they would
- do in that situation, not a random person
What would you like to do?
Home > Flashcards > Print Preview