| Term | Definition |
|---|
| intentional negligence | assault and battery, trespass to land, false imprisonment, nuisance, defamation |
| negligence | inadvertent, careless conduct that causes injury to another, 1duty to exercise care: misfeasance,nonfeasance 2. breach of the standard of care (what would a reasonable person have done in the circumstances? actions that fall below socially aceeptabl standard create liability for damages 3. causation- the act that caused the injury, but not test, direct result of the careless conduct 4. damages victim suffered a loss |
| Tests | reasonable test, resonable forseeability test, we owe a duty to anyone we can reasonably anticipate might be harmed by our conduct, remoteness test- whether the specific type of injury suffered was reasonably foreseeable, application of annscase test |
| remedies | damages (general and punitive), injunction, restitution, accounting for profits |
| defenses | consent(informed), self defense,(reaonsable force) note, accident but not mistake, contributoy negligence(negligence act now allows court to apportion responsibility. |
| product liability | strict liability (manufacturers are liable for injuries caused by defective products)- plaintiff must establish that the manufacturer was negligent, was the product put on the market with this effect |
| product liability 2 | breach of manufacturers duty can be implied from circumstances, manufacturesr must warn of dangers associated with product, note privity problem with contracts (which states that an injurered person can sue the negligent person only if she was a party to the transaction ith the injured person) in other words, a defendants duty of reasonable care arose only from the contract, and only a party to that contract could sue for its breach. this meant that a negligent manufacturer who sold a product to a retailer, who in turn sold it to the plaintiff, was effectively insulated from a liability; courts created exceptions- avoid denying an injured plaintiff a remedy.. eg. seller frauduently concealed the defect or where the products were inherently or imminently dangerous to human life or health |
| ryan and jose | intentional tort issue |
| mr batemans lawyer response | was there an offer and counter offer, the issue is whether it is capbale of being an offer, because finacning term is not specific,due consideration, there is no option agreement here, since the consideration given to hold the offer open, due consideration is not specific enough to be any form of consideration , which is necessary in order to have an option - if there is no option, then the offer can be revoked before Friday noon, which is what mr chase tried to do. |
Combine with other sets
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace