-
Intentional Torts
-
Intent: (1) purpose to bring about a certain result OR (2) acting w/ substantial certainty that a certain result will occur.
-
Transferred intent: applies where D intends to commit a tort against one person but instead: (1) commits diff tort against that person, (2) commits same tort as intended but against diff person, or (iii) commits diff tort against a diff person
-
Limitations: this doctrine may be used where both the tort intended and the tort that results are: assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, or trespass to chattels;
-
-
-
Causation – result must have been legally caused by D’s act or something set in motion by D.
-
Prima Facie Cases:
-
Battery – harmful or offensive (not consented to) contact w/ plaintiff’s person with intent and causation. (includes anything connected to P)
-
Contact may be indirect (i.e. placing a trap for P)
-
Offensive – would not be permitted by a person of ordinary sensitivity
-
-
Assault – Act by D creating reasonable apprehension (knowledge) in plaintiff of immediate harmful or offensive contact to P’s person, with intent and causation.
-
Unloaded gun problem
-
Mere words insufficient (need words + overt conduct)
-
Words can neutralize implications or negate immediacy;
-
-
-
False Imprisonment– Act or omission (if duty) that confines or restrains plaintiffto a bounded area with intent and causation.
-
Phy barrier or threats and invalid use of legal authority are sufficient
-
P must know of confinement or suffer harm
-
Reasonable means of escape that P can reasonably discover (it exists, area not bounded);
-
Exceptions: shopkeeper’s privilege/privilege of arrest
-
-
IIED – Extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress, made intentionally or recklessly.
-
Outrageous – exceeds all bound of decency tolerated in a civilized society
-
Mere insults: insufficient UNLESS plus factor:
-
Public
-
Repetitive
-
Fragile class (i.e. children, elderly)
-
Hypersensitive (and D knows of this).
-
-
Bystander IIED:
-
P was present;
-
P is close relative of injured party;
-
D knew P was present and a close relative;
-
-
-
Trespass to Land– Physical invasion of real property with intent to enter particular piece of land, and causation.
-
Physical thing must enter land
-
Land = soil below and airspace above to a reasonable distance;
-
-
Trespass to chattels/conversion– Interference with P’s interest/right of possession in a chattel and there are damages. If great (conversion – pay full value).
-
Conversion = substantial interference; P gets full value (FMV at time of possession) or possession (replevin)
-
Trespass – P gets actual damages or rental value for loss of use
-
Mistaken belief re ownership not a defense
-
-
-
-
Defenses to Intentional Torts
-
Consent – express (unless duress or fraud), implied by law or conduct (obj circumstances);
-
Was the privilege available on these facts?
-
Did P have capacity?
-
Was consent expressly given?
-
Implied by custom and usage OR P’s conduct?
-
Apparent consent – that which a RP would infer from custom and usage or P’s conduct (i.e. body contact sports)
-
Consent implied by law – where action is necessary to save a person’s life or some other impt interest in person/property;
-
-
-
If yes, did D stay within its boundaries? If no, D may be liable;
-
-
Defense privileges – correct timing and reasonable belief issues
-
Self-Defense – Reasonable belief that tort is being or about to be committed on defendant.
-
Reasonable mistake re existence of danger allowed
-
Force must be proportional
-
Duty to retreat b/4 using deadly force if can be done safely, unless own home
-
Not available to initial aggressor
-
-
Defense of others – Tort is in fact being committed or about to be committed on a third party.
-
Actor must reasonably believe that 3p could have used force to defend himself
-
Reasonable mistake allowed as to whether other person is being attacked of has right to defend himself
-
-
Force allowed – Force reasonably necessary to defend, deadly force if threat of death or serious bodily harm.
-
Defense of property – Reasonable belief that tort is being committed or about to be committed on property. Reasonable force allowed. No deadly force.
-
Request to desist/leave req’d unless dangerous/futile
-
Not available against one w/ privilege
-
Defense does not apply once tort already committed, unless hot pursuit
-
Mistake allowed as to whether intrusion has occurred or whether request to desist is req’d; Mistake NOT allowed as to whether entrant has a privilege that supercedes defense of prop right;
-
-
-
Reentry to Land, Recapture of Chattels
-
Timely demand to return chattel req’d unless futile
-
Recovery from wrongdoer only
-
Entry on Land –
-
Wrongdoer’s land: entry privileged at reasonable times and manner after first making demand for return;
-
Innocent party: may enter and reclaim at reasonable time & peaceful manner when LO given notice of presence and refuses to return; chattel owner liable for any actual damage caused by entry;
-
Owner’s own fault: no privilege to enter (resort to legal process); i.e. negligently allowing cows to wander;
-
-
-
Privilege of arrest
-
Felony arrest by police – Reasonable belief that felony has been committed, and reasonable belief that person arrested committed it.
-
Felony arrest by private citizen – Reasonable belief that person arrested actually committed felony, and felony actually committed.
-
No mistake allowed re whether felony occurred;
-
-
Force allowed for felony arrest- Force reasonably necessary to make arrest, deadly force if suspect poses threat of serious harm.
-
Misdemeanor arrest – Breach of the peace and committed in the presence of the arresting party. No deadly force.
-
-
Shopkeeper privilege – detain suspected shoplifter if reasonable grounds, detention done in reasonable manner/time, liable for actual damages
-
Necessity (property torts only) – Interference with real or personal property to avoid a greater harm. As long as emergency continues, P cannot expel D from land;
-
Public (to protect community/large grp) – absolute defense/no legal liability;
-
Private –limited defense/ Actual damages or harm only (no nominal/punitive); actor must pay for any injury he causes
-
-
-
Defamation
-
Prima Facie Case
-
Defamatory statementof or concerningP
-
Defamatory = tends to adversely affect reputation
-
Of or concerning – reasonable person would understand it referred to Pl
-
P must be a living person;
-
Corp/partnership/unincorporated association may be defamed (i.e. remarks re fin condition, honesty).
-
-
If statement does not refer to P on its face, extrinsic evidence may be offered to establish that the statement referred to the P.
-
Group defamation
-
Small group – if defame refers to all members of small grp, each member may establish that statement is about him by alleging he is member of that grp;
-
If statement refers to some members of small grp, P can recover if RP would view the statement as referring to him;
-
-
Large grp – no member can prove statement is about him;
-
-
-
Publication to a third party, and
-
Primary publishers (i.e. newspapers and TV stations) – liable to same extent as author/speaker
-
Secondary publishers (i.e. one selling papers or playing tapes) – liable only if knows/should have known of defame content
-
-
Damages to P’s reputation.
-
General damages presumed if slander per se (unchastity, business/profession, crime of moral turpitude, loathsome disease) or libel.
-
Otherwise must show actual damages (economic harm)
-
-
-
Constitutional Issues (if defamation concerns a matter of public concern); P must prove:
-
Falsity of the statement (where statement of public interest is true, no COA for defamation exists)
-
Fault on the part of D.
-
Public figure/official – actual malice (knowledge that statement was false or reckless disregard as to whether it was false). If actual malice shown, damages presumed and D liable for defamation;
-
Private figure/public concern – Actual malice – presumed damages/punitive damages; If neg and actual injury is shown, D liable for defamation;
-
Private person/private concern – no fault as to truth or falsity need to be proved; presumed damages (and punitive where appropriate);
-
-
-
Defenses
-
Consent (complete defense); see above
-
Truth – where P need not prove falsity, truth = complete defense;
-
Absolute Privilege (id of D) – can never be lost
-
Comm b/n spouses
-
Govt official in course of conduct (all 3 branches)
-
Remarks made during judicial proceedings, by legislators in debate, by fed executive officials, and in compelled broadcasts;
-
-
Qualified privilege (circumstance of speech) – can be lost thru abuse
-
3 situations: in connection w/ socially useful context, defame statement relevant to socially useful purpose, statement made in good faith.
-
I.e. letters of rec, evaluations by former creditors, statements to police
-
-
Qualified privilege for: reports of official proceedings; statements in interest of publisher or recipient, or both;
-
-
-
-
Misc. Intentional Torts
-
Invasion of privacy torts – consider IIED. (4 privacy torts – Ads Introduce False People); Note: for privacy torts, emotional distress and mental anguish are sufficient damages;
-
Appropriation – unauthorized use of P’s name or likeness for D’s commercial advantage (name used for trademark, advertising, on packaging)
-
Newsworthiness exception
-
-
Intrusion on Seclusion – Invasion by D of P’s seclusion in a way objectionable to avg person.
-
Place where P has reasonable expectation of privacy (photos taken in public place not actionable)
-
Physical entry not req’d
-
Act of prying or intruding must be objectionable to RP
-
-
False Light – Widespread disseminationof a major misrepresentation concerning P’s activities/beliefs that would be objectionable to reasonable person. (recovery for emotional harm)
-
Publicity required for liability to attach
-
Intent not req’d (liable even if good faith)
-
If matter of public interest, malice must be proved
-
-
Public Disclosureof Private Facts– Widespread dissemination of private info objectionable to avg person. (not public records); may be liable even if true;
-
Academic records, financial info, medical records
-
Newsworthiness exception (of public interest)
-
Dual life fact pattern (info must be confidential)
-
-
Defenses – Consent, Defamation privileges, Truth defense for false light, newsworthy exception for disclosure.
-
-
Wrongful Institution of Legal Proceedings
-
Malicious Prosecution –
-
Institution of criminal proceedings
-
Termination in favor of P
-
Absence of probable cause for prior proceedings (insufficient facts for RP to believe P guilty)
-
Improper purpose, and
-
Damages
-
-
Abuse of process –
-
Wrongful use of legal process for ulterior purpose +
-
Threat or act against P to accomplish ulterior purpose.
-
-
-
Fraud Torts.
-
Intentional misrep (fraud/deceit) –
-
Misrep of a material fact,
-
scienter (D knew/believed it was false or no basis),
-
Made with intent to induce reliance,
-
Which does induce reliance (causation),
-
Justifiable reliance (only as to statement of fact)
-
Damages (actual pecuniary loss)
-
-
Negligent Misrep – misrep by D in a business/professional capacity, breach of duty, causation, justifiable reliance, and damages
-
Generally confined to misreps made in commercial setting
-
-
-
Business Torts.
-
Interference with business relations – (1) Interference with known, valid contractual relationship or business expectancy, (2) D knows of relationship/expectancy, (3) intentional interference by D inducing breach/termination, and (4) damages.
-
Obtain business or protect interest → D’s conduct may be privileged;
-
Prospective business may be privileged.
-
-
-
-
Negligence – breach of duty of care that is actual and proximate cause of P’s injuries
-
Prima Facie Case:
-
Duty.
-
Foreseeable P’s
-
Cardozo (maj)– w/in foreseeable zone of danger,
-
Andrews (min) – everyone is foreseeable, duty owed to all
-
Rescuer (always foreseeable), 3p beneficiary, prenatal injury
-
-
Standard of Care – Owe amount of care that would be exercised by RPP acting under the same or similar circumstances (obj standard);
-
Children – Child of like age, education, intelligence, & experience, unless engaged in adult activities (subjective std)
-
Superior knowledge – std of another w/ same knowledge
-
Physical characteristics – built into RPP if relevant
-
Professional – Knowledge and skill of member of profession in good standing in same or similar community. Must offer expert testimony; custom of profession sets std of care.
-
Owners and occupiers of land.
-
Undiscovered trespassers: no duty
-
Discovered/Anticipated trespassers:
-
Activities– duty of reasonable prudence under circumstances;
-
Conditions– known man made death traps (artificial, highly dangerous, concealed/hidden, D knew about it)
-
-
Licensees: one who enters land w/ permission for her own purpose or business (social guest); includes police/fire fighter;
-
Activities– Duty of reasonable prudence under the circumstances;
-
Conditions– All known traps (concealed from licensee and known in advance by LO).
-
No duty to inspect
-
-
Invitees: enter land in response to invitation by landowner;
-
Activities– duty of reasonable prudence under circumstances;
-
Conditions– All knowable traps (concealed and LO knew or could have discovered thru reasonable inspection).
-
Duty to inspect.
-
Invitee status may be lost (if scope of invitation exceeded) – i.e. goes into closed off area of business he is not allowed too
-
-
-
Attractive nuisance/Children trespassers
-
Dangerous condition on land that owner knows/should know.
-
D knows/should know children frequent area.
-
Condition likely to cause injury (b/c child unable to appreciate risk).
-
Cost of remedying is slight compared to risk
-
-
Innkeepers and common carriers – Heightened duty. Liable for slight negligence.
-
-
Statutory Duty (crim or regulatory statute) – Class of persons, class of risk.
-
A statute’s specific duty may replace CL duty of care if:
-
Statute provides for crim penalty
-
Statute clearly defines the std of conduct
-
P is w/in the protected class; and
-
Statute designed to prevent type of harm suffered by P.
-
-
Exceptions: compliance more dangerous than violation or statutory compliance impossible under circumstances
-
Maj: unexcused stat violation = neg per se (duty and breach)
-
-
NIED –
-
Duty to avoid causing emotional distress breached when D creates a foreseeable risk of physical injury to P, either by:
-
Causing a threat of physical impact that leads to emotional distress, or
-
Directly causing severe emotional distress that by itself is likely to result in physical symptoms;
-
-
Injury requirement – P can only recover when D’s conduct caused some physical injury
-
Exception: physical manifestation not req’d w/ mishandling corpse, reporting death of close relative;
-
-
Bystander recovery –
-
P bystander must be w/in zone of danger created by D’s neg conduct;
-
Modern trend: recovery allowed if P and injured are close relatives, P was present; P observed or perceived the injury.
-
-
-
Affirmative Duty to Act – No legal duty to act, unless:
-
Caused peril;
-
Special relationship (i.e. common carriers/inn keepers);
-
If undertake rescue, must use reasonable care;
-
-
-
Breach – fact + reason
-
Breach of duty: where D’s conduct falls short of that level req’d by applicable std of care owed to P→ breach;
-
P may use the following to prove breach:
-
Custom or usage (can establish std of care but not neg).
-
Violation of statute (P must still prove causation and damages)
-
Res Ipsa Loquitor – Accident does not normally occur absent negligence and accident usually happens b/c of s/o in D’s position. (old std: D had exclusive control over instrumentality).
-
P must establish freedom from fault.
-
BOP shifts to D
-
Effect of RIL: P has made a prima facie case and no directed verdict may be given for D. Case goes to jury.
-
-
-
-
Causation (P must show D’s conduct was cause of his injury)
-
Actual Cause–
-
But for test
-
Substantial factor test (multiple D’s and mingled causation); joint and several liability
-
Where several causes bring about injury and any one alone would have been sufficient, D’s conduct is the cause in fact if it was a substantial factor in causing the injury (2 merging fires)
-
-
Summers v. Tice (multiple D’s and unascertainable cause); use when only 1 D caused harm;
-
Shift BOP to D’s to prove innocence by prepond of evidence; otherwise, joint & several liability
-
-
-
Proximate Cause/Legal cause – D liable for foreseeable risks; D is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and w/in increased risk caused by his acts.
-
Direct cause: if uninterrupted chain of events, D liable for ALL foreseeable harmful results.
-
Indirect cause: intervening force adds to P’s injury
-
D liable for foreseeable results caused by foreseeable intervening forces.
-
D liable→ medical neg., neg rescue, protection/reaction forces, disease or accident (these are always foreseeable), or misconduct matches injury (see if harm is what you’re afraid of).
-
D not liable if intervening force = crime or intentional tort of 3P, acts of GOD
-
-
-
Superseding forces: intervening forces that produce unforeseeable results – Superseding forces break causal connection b/n D’s neg act and P’s injury
-
-
-
Damages
-
Eggshell plaintiff– liable for all damages
-
Personal injury (P compensated for all damages, special and general), property, punitive (willful, wanton, malicious conduct)
-
Duty to mitigate damages.
-
Collateral Source Rule – damages not reduced b/c P received benefits from other sources.
-
-
Attorney Malpractice Negligence – Negligence within Negligence Case – must prove both cases, i.e. if P sues lawyer for malpractice and wants to recover damages for case P would have recovered in, but for lawyer’s negligence, must demonstrate he would have won and recovered damages in underlying action
-
Note: when analyzing atty malpractice bring up breach of k damages
-
-
-
Defenses
-
Contributorynegligence – Partial fault or fails to exercise care.
-
CL– barred P’s right to recovery
-
Last clear chance– person w/ last clear chance to avoid and fails to do so is liable (P’s rebuttal to defense of contrib. neg);
-
-
AssumptionofRisk – P knew of risk & P voluntarily proceeded in face of risk
-
P’s claim completely barred;
-
Rescuing does not equal assuming risk
-
-
Comparativenegligence –
-
Plaintiff fault: std is RPP
-
P’s contrib. negligence is not a complete bar to recovery
-
P’s recovery reduced by jury’s numerical assignment of fault.
-
-
Pure Comparative neg: P’s award reduced by % of fault attributable to her. (apply this on MBE)
-
Modified/Partial comparative neg (maj): if P more than 50% at fault→ absolute bar to recovery;
-
P can recover only if P’s neg was less serious or no more serious then that of D.
-
-
-
-
-
Strict Liability
-
PrimaFacieCase:
-
Absolute duty to make safe, breach, causation (actual and proximate), damages.
-
Remember: no amount of due care will relive D of liability in SL cases
-
-
-
Types
-
Injuries caused by animals (or dogs that already bite)
-
Trespassing animals – owner strictly liable for reasonably foreseeable damage done by trespass of his animals;
-
Domesticated animals – no SL unless knowledge of vicious propensities
-
Trespassing Cattle
-
Wild animals – owner strictly liable as long as injured person did nothing to bring about injury.
-
Trespassers – owner not SL unless neg.
-
-
Ultrahazardous Activities (attempts to prevent are irrelevant); 3 requirements→
-
Activity involves risk of serious harm,
-
Cannot be made entirely safe,
-
Not common in area where conducted (i.e. blasting, manufacturing explosives, radiation, nuclear energy)
-
-
Nuisance (inconsistent land use)
-
GR: D is liable if his activities interfere w/ P’s ability to use and enjoy his land to an unreasonable degree (subj. std.)
-
Can be intentional or SL
-
-
Consumer Products (see below)
-
Strict duty owed by commercial supplier/merchant
-
Breach
-
Causation
-
Damages
-
-
-
-
Products Liability
-
Theoriesofliability:
-
Intentional torts
-
Negligence
-
Implied warranties
-
Express warranties
-
Strict product liability
-
-
Common Elements: liability under any products liability theory requires proof of:
-
A defect, and
-
Manufacturing defect: when product emerges from manufacturing diff and more dangerous that products made properly (the one product is bad)
-
Proof: the product failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect.
-
-
Design defect: when all products of a line are the same, but have dangerous propensities.
-
Proof: safer design, cost effective, practical (D could have made the product safer w/o serious impact on product’s price or utility);
-
-
Inadequate warning: failure to give adequate warning as to risks involved and danger not apparent to users.
-
Proof: warning was not effective, prominent and understandable.
-
-
Govt Safety Stds: product’s noncompliance w/ govt safety stds establishes that it’s defective, compliance is evidence, but not conclusive that product not defective.
-
-
Defect existed when it left D’s control;
-
This is inferred if product moved thru normal channels of distribution.
-
-
-
Liability Based on Intent: D liable if D intended consequences or knew they were substantially certain to occur.
-
Any injured P can sue;
-
Punitive damages available
-
Intentional tort defenses are available;
-
-
Liability Based on Negligence
-
Prima facie case is same as any neg case (duty, breach, causation, damages)
-
Duty of care owed to any foreseeable P;
-
Who can sue? Users, consumers, and bystanders.
-
Commercial suppliers such as manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers can be held liable;
-
-
Breach
-
Proven by: (1) neg conduct of D leading to (2) the supplying of a defective product
-
i.e. failure to inspect or implement quality safety controls
-
Easier to prove for manufacturer, harder to prove for retailers b/c they can satisfy duty through a cursory inspection
-
-
-
Causation
-
An intermediary’s (i.e. wholesaler’s) neg failure to discover defect does not supersede the original manufacturer’s negligence unless intermediary’s exceeds ordinary foreseeable negligence
-
-
Damages
-
Physical injury or property damage must be shown
-
-
-
Liability Based on StrictLiability: any foreseeable P may sue. Prima Facie Case→ (1) strict duty owed by a commercial supplier of a product, (2) breach, (3) causation, (4) damage
-
Defendantmust be merchant who deals in these kinds of goods. (DUTY)
-
Casual seller/service provider→ not a merchant
-
Every party in distribution chain is a merchant
-
-
Product must be defective (BREACH)
-
Manufacturing, design, informational
-
No liability if danger apparent and no way to make safe
-
-
Thedefectexisted when the product left D’s control. (ACTUAL CAUSE)
-
Presumption – if product traveled in normal channel of distribution, inference that defect existed when left D
-
-
Plaintiff must be making a foreseeable use of the product. (not intended use); (PROXIMATE CAUSE)
-
Defenses for SL: comparative neg, assumption of risk
-
Disclaimers: irrelevant in negligence or SL cases if personal injury or prop damage occurs.
-
-
Liability Based on Implied Warranties – 2 warranties implied in every sale of goods that can serve as basis for suit by a buyer
-
Implied Warranties
-
Merchantability – whether goods are generally fit for ordinary purpose for which goods are used;
-
Fitness for a particular purpose – Seller has reason to know particular purpose and that buyer is relying on seller’s skill and judgment in selecting the goods;
-
-
Breach – occurs when product fails to live up to above stds;
-
Causation – same as neg cases
-
Damages – can recover for personal injury, prop damage, AND purely economic loss;
-
Defenses – assumption of risk and contributory neg
-
Who can sue? Only purchaser, her family, household, and guests.
-
-
Liability Based on Representation Theories: D may be liable if product does not live up to some affirmative representation
-
Express Warranty: any affirmation of fact or promise concerning goods that becomes part of the basis of the bargain;
-
Any consumer, user or bystander can sue
-
Breach – P must show that product did not live up to its warranty
-
Causation, damages, and defenses (same as above)
-
-
Misrepresentation of fact
-
A seller will be liable for misrep of facts concerning a product where:
-
Statement was of material fact concerning quality or uses of goods (mere puffery insufficient), and
-
The seller intended to induce reliance by the buyer in a particular transaction;
-
-
Justifiable reliance req’d (i.e. rep was a substantial factor in inducing the purchase)
-
Causation and Damages
-
Actual cause shown by reliance;
-
Proximate cause and damages are same as for SL
-
-
Defenses – Assumption of risk not a defense if P entitled to rely on the rep.
-
-
-
-
Nuisance
-
Private Nuisance – substantial, unreasonable interference w/ another private individual’s use or enjoyment of property that he actually possesses or to which he has a right of immediate possession.
-
Substantial interference – interference that is offensive, inconvenient, or annoying to the average person in the community.
-
Not substantial – result of P’s hypersensitivity or specialized use of his property.
-
-
Unreasonable interference – for nuisance based on intent or neg, severity of inflicted injury must outweigh utility of D’s conduct (balancing);
-
-
Public Nuisance – an act that unreasonably interferes with the health, safety, or property rights of the community.
-
Private party – recovery by private party available only if private party suffered unique damage not suffered by public
-
-
Remedies
-
Damages
-
Injunctive relief – if damages unavailable/inadequate; ct will consider relative hardships, but no balancing where D’s conduct was willful or against an assertion of right by P.
-
Abatement by self help –
-
Private nuisance – self help abatement available after notice to D and his refusal to act. Only necessary force allowed.
-
Public nuisance – only a public authority or a private party who has suffered some unique damage can seek an injunction or abatement.________________________
-
-
-
-
General Considerations
-
Vicariousliability – liability derivatively imposed.
-
Employer – Employee (respondeat superior): Employer will be vicariously liable for tortious acts committed by her employee if the acts occur within the scope of the employment
-
Frolic/Detour:
-
Minor departures w/in scope of employment
-
Major departures NOT w/in scope (i.e. if deviation in time or geographic area is substantial)
-
-
Intentional torts: outside scope of employment unless:
-
Force is authorized in employment (i.e. bouncer),
-
Friction generated by employment (i.e. Bill collector)
-
Servant furthering business of master (i.e. Removing customers from premises b/c they are rowdy)
-
-
-
Independent Contractors: No vicarious liability.
-
Exception: duty is non-delegable (i.e. IC injures invitee), or inherently dangerous activity (blasting)
-
Negligent selection: in respondeat superior and IC cases, employer may be liable for own negligence in selecting the EE or IC
-
-
Auto Owners and Drivers: No liability
-
Unless on task for owner.
-
Negligent entrustment – owner may be liable for own negligence in entrusting car to driver.
-
-
Parent and Child: None (but parent may be liable for own neg); most states, by statute, make parents liable for intentional torts of their minor children up to a certain dollar amount.
-
Partners and joint venturers: each member VL for conduct of other members committed in scope and course of partnership
-
Tavernkeepers:
-
CL: no liability on vendors of liquor
-
ML: Dramshop Acts adopted which create COA in favor of any 3p injured by intoxicated vendee.
-
-
If no vicarious liability, may still be liable for own neg, neg hiring, neg entrustment, neg supervision, etc.
-
-
MultipleDefendantIssues
-
Joint and several liability –
-
When 2 or more neg acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury, each neg actor will be jointly and severally liable (i.e. liable to P for entire damage incurred);
-
If injury is divisible, each D is liable only for the identifiable portion.
-
Where 2 or more D’s act in concert and injure P, each is jointly and severally liable for entire injury, even if injury divisible.
-
-
Contribution and Indemnity
-
Contribution (not available for intentional torts) – allows D who pays more than his share of damages to have a claim against other jointly liable parties for the excess.
-
Methods
-
Comparative contribution (maj): contribution imposed in proportion to relative fault of Ds (out of pocket D may recover from other Ds the % of fault attribute by jury)
-
Equal shares (min): apportionment is in equal shares regardless of degrees of fault.
-
-
-
Indemnity – involves shifting the entire loss b/n or among tortfeasors. Indemnity available:
-
By contract
-
Party held VL is entitled to full indemnity from active tortfeasor
-
A non-manufacturer merchant who has been held SL for defective product can get full indem from manufacturer
-
Where there has been an identifiable diff in degree of fault (i.e. one who is passively neg may recover indemnification from joint tortfeasor who is actively negligent)
-
-
-
-
TortImmunities
-
Government immune while engaging in traditional government functions involving discretionary actions.
-
Look to sovereign immunity.
-
-
-
Survival Acts – at CL, tort action ended at death of victim, but now majority of states allow spouse to bring cause of action from the time of injury to time of death
-
Loss of consortium/wrongful death: COA for uninjured spouse
-
Loss of services – no one to perform household tasks
-
Loss of companionship
-
Loss of sex
-
-
Parent-child –Parent may sue for loss of child’s services but not vice versa.
-