Upgrade to remove ads
NWCU TORTS DEFINITIONS ASSIGNMENT
Basic Terminology (words, phrases and terms of art) You should know the importance of, and be able to describe, define and distinguish from each other the following words, phrases, and terms of art:
Terms in this set (135)
A tort committed by somone acting with general or intentional intent. Can also be termed willful tort. Examples: Battery, False imprisonment, trespass
Threat or use of force on another that causes a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm or danger or offensive contact; act of putting a reasonable fear or apprehension into someone of any immediate battery or threat to commit a battery. Requires intent to cause a physical injury.
Nonconsensual touching or use of force against the person of another w/intent to cause harmful or offensive contact. Also termed criminal, inclusive of aggravated, sexual & simple battery.
Transferred Intent Doctrine
Intent that the law may shft from originally intended wrongful act to act actually committed even as it results in a third party being harmed. Transferred Intent Doctrine: A intends to kill B's, misses and kills C's instead. The process of committing a battery against one person, unintentionally causes the touching of a third person. In such a case, the defendant's wrongful intent is transferred to include the unintended victim. The third person can therefore proceed against the defendant on a battery theory.
Substantial Certainty Doctrine
Assumes the required criminal intent even if the actor did not intend the result, but knew with substantial certainty what the outcome of his or her actions would be. Holds that where the defendant does an act with the realization that it is substantially certain to result in a touching, the defendant is deemed to have intended the result and is liable for the battery.
The restraint of a person without legal authority, justification or consent.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional or Mental Distress
Intentional infliction of emotional distress or mental distress is a tort claim for intentional conduct that results in mental reaction such as anguish, grief, or fright to another person's actions that entails recoverable damages.
Trespass to Land
Trespass/unlawful entry on another person's land that is visibly enclosed, includes entering, remaining on, placing an object on it. An entry upon land in the possession of another, without consent and without legal privilege.
Trespass to Chattel
Trespass to chattel is a particular type of trespass whereby a person has intentionally interfered with another person's lawful possession of a chattel; intentional taking or damaging of personal property in the possession of another, without consent and without legal privilege.
Intentional assumption of dominion and control over the
personal property of another resulting in a substantial interference with the plaintiff's possessory rights, without consent and without legal privilege.
Trespass Ab Initio
Entry upon the land in possession of another under a conferred legal right, and the subsequent abusing of that conferred legal right through the commission of an assault, battery, false imprisonment, or trespass.
A result of an act or conduct by the defendant which unreasonably interferes with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his or her property.
A result of an act or conduct by the defendant which is injurious to the public in general.
Defenses to Intentional Torts
Consent, self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, prevention of crime, recovery of property, legal
authority, and necessity.
Must be voluntary, manifested by word or action or silence in the case where a reasonable person would speak if it was objectionable. Not induced by fraud. Must involve capacity, i.e., mental capacity, not intoxicated or a young child.
The Defense of Self-Defense
Reasonable belief as to necessity; force proportionate and commensurate with to harm threatened. A person who reasonably believes himself to be threatened with immediate bodily harm may use whatever degree of force is apparently necessary to protect himself or herself.
The Defense of Defense of Others
Use of force reasonably necessary; victim has privilege of self defense. The general proposition that a person who reasonably believes another to be threatened with
immediate bodily harm may use whatever degree of force is apparently necessary to protect the personal safety of the other person.
Step-in-Shoes Jurisdiction (Defense of Others)
One acting upon a reasonable belief in the protection of another may use the same amount of force that the person being defended would be entitled to use. In some jurisdictions a person is not allowed to use the defense of defense of others unless the person being defended was not the aggressor and had the right to use self-defense.
Reasonable Appearances Jurisdictions (Defense of Others)
In other jurisdictions a person defending another in good faith and in ignorance of the fact that the person being defended is the aggressor and not entitled to use self-defense is nevertheless justified when acting upon reasonable appearances. Sometimes it is further required that the person being defended is one whom the defender is authorized by statute to protect.
The Defense of Defense of Property
Defense that relates to the general proposition that a person may be privileged to use reasonable force to protect his or her possession of real or personal property against an apparent trespasser.
The Defense of Prevention of Crime
Relates to the general proposition that any person, whether a police officer or a private person, is privileged to use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a crime which is apparently being attempted in his or her presence.
The Defense of Recovery of Property
Defense that relates to the general proposition that a person is privileged to commit an act which would otherwise constitute an intentional tort if he or she is acting for the purpose of regaining possession of his or her property. There are three separate aspects to this particular defense. They are re-entry upon land, recapture of chattel, and the "Shopkeeper's Rule".
Re-entry Upon Land Aspect
Relates to one's privilege to use force to re-enter land only if the taking of the land was tortious or wrongful and the re-entering party is entitled to immediate possession. Ordinarily, a demand must be made for the occupier to vacate unless such a demand would be a total exercise in futility. Only force not likely to cause death or serious bodily harm may be used.
Recapture of Chattel Aspect
Defense related to recovery of property relates to one's privilege to use reasonable force to defend against chattels being taken from his or her possession if such force is not likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.
Shopkeeper's Rule Aspect
Defense of recovery of property relates to a limited privilege in some jurisdictions that allows shopkeepers to detain suspected thieves i.e., shoplifters or embezzling employees, for the purpose of investigating the shopkeeper's claim to the goods, even though it may be determined that no wrongful taking has been committed.
Relates to the requirement that a person recapturing a chattel
or a shopkeeper detaining a suspected thief must do so without unreasonable delay after promptly discovering the loss.
The Defense of Legal Authority
Relates to the proposition that one is privileged in committing an otherwise tortious act if it is done under legal
process or is otherwise authorized by law. It is a defense that is usually used by police officers or private persons who have made an arrest either with or without a warrant and who are now facing charges of false imprisonment in relation to their having made the arrest.
The Defense of Necessity
Relates to the proposition that a person may be privileged to commit an act which would otherwise be tortious if that person is acting in an emergency situation to protect himself or others from a threatened injury to person or property. The person claiming necessity may act on appearances. A reasonable mistake is permitted.
Concept that permeates all of the defenses to intentional torts. It is the standard by which the amount of force used and/or the time and manner of a re-entry, recapture, or detention is judged.
Requires 1) a duty of due care owing by the defendant to the plaintiff, 2) a breach of that duty by a failure to exercise due care, 3) a causal connection between the breach and the harm to the plaintiff in terms of actual and proximate negligence action. That is, damages must be proven.
Elements of Negligence
The elements are duty, breach, causation, and damages.
Concept that everyone owes a duty to exercise due care so as not to subject others to unreasonable risks of harm.
Cardozo Rule on Duty
The majority opinion expressed by Justice Cardozo in the
landmark case of Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. Held that the defendant owes a duty of due care only to those persons to whom the defendant can reasonably foresee some injury to by reason of said defendant's negligent act. Therefore, according to the rule, there is no duty owing to the plaintiff who was in a position of apparent safety when the tortious act occurred. This is the so-called "orbit of danger" test.
The Andrews Rule on Duty
Dissenting opinion that was expressed by Justice Andrews in the Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. case rejected the concept that no duty is owing to the unforeseeable plaintiff and adopted a rule of unlimited duty. Therefore, according to the Andrews view, if a defendant can reasonably foresee that his/her conduct is such that it endangers someone, anyone, then that defendant owes a duty of care to the "whole world". The Andrews view has had substantial support and has been applied as the majority opinion in other cases. Both the Cardozo view and the Andrews view are used today in different jurisdictions.
Owner Liability Statues
Certain statutes impose liability upon owners of vehicles for the
tortious acts committed by persons whom the owner intentionally furnishes the vehicle to.
Duty Owed to a Guest Passenger
A driver of a motor vehicle, in the absence of a statute otherwise, owes to persons riding in the vehicle a duty of driving with due care. However, a number of jurisdictions have statutes that provide that a guest passenger in an automobile cannot recover from the owner or operator of the automobile unless the owner or operator is guilty of willful misconduct, recklessness, or intoxication.
Duty Owed to Those Injured by Drunk Driver
A person who serves alcoholic beverages to one who is intoxicated is not, in the absence of a statute stating otherwise,
liable for the damages done by the drunkard. However, under statutes traditionally referred to as Dram Shop Acts, an owner, a bartender or other persons serving alcoholic beverages to persons who are intoxicated can be held liable for the foreseeable damage caused by the drunkard.
Family Purpose Doctrine
A parent who furnishes a vehicle to the members of his or her
family for customary convenience, assumes liability for the tortious acts committed by those persons when the car is being driven for a family purpose.
Duty Owed to a Rescuer
A plaintiff rescuer may proceed against a defendant on a
negligence theory when the plaintiff is injured by reason of the fact that the plaintiff engaged in an act of rescue and the negligent act of a defendant created the situation that
necessitated the rescue.
Duty Owed by a Good Samaritan
A person who embarks upon the performance of services for another, whether gratuitously or for consideration, is under a duty to render those services with due care. This person, however, is under no duty to complete the performance of the services unless abandonment of such performance would prejudice the other party's position. The rendering of aid in an emergency is a form of rendering services and imposes certain duties upon the person who undertakes to render such aid. The rendering of other gratuitous services for other individuals will likewise create certain duties upon the person who undertakes the performance of those services. Some
jurisdictions have enacted statutes designed to encourage the rendering of emergency aid by physicians by limiting the liability that could otherwise be imposed upon them. Generally
speaking, liability can only be imposed upon them for reckless or wanton misconduct.
Omission to Act
Creates no tort liability where the defendant fails to act to prevent injury to the plaintiff unless, because of a special relationship or special circumstance the defendant has an affirmative duty to protect the plaintiff. Such a relationship or circumstance might arise out of the relationship between husband and wife, parent and child, hotel keeper and guest, common carrier and passenger, or by way of a statutory duty such as the duty imposed by hit and run statutes which require drivers of vehicles involved in an accident to stop and aid one
who has been injured. Also called a nonfeasance.
Person who has an express or implied invitation to enter certain business property to do business with the land occupier thereon.
One who enters land, in the possession of another, for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. It is not required that a business purpose be involved.
A person who enters certain property with the express or implied permission of the land occupier. Such entry is not for the purpose of doing business.
Someone who enters the real property of another without
express or implied consent to do so.
Constant Trespasser Upon a Limited Area
A person who enters the real property of another without express consent, however, the land occupier knows or should know of the presence of the trespasser because of the
trespasser's repeated acts of trespassing.
Duty Owed to a Business Invitee
Duty Land occupier owes to the invitee of rendering the premises reasonably safe was to known and discoverable dangerous conditions. This includes the duty of inspecting the premises to discover those defects which a reasonable inspection would reveal.
Duty Owed to Licensee
Duty land occupier owes to the licensee of warning of known dangerous conditions, unless they are obvious. The licensee assumes the risk of obvious dangers and those of which he or she is aware. While the land occupier has the
option of avoiding liability by correcting the dangerous condition, he or she owes no duty to do so and need only give an adequate warning that the condition exists.
Duty Owed to a Trespasser
Duty Land occupier generally owes no duty of care to the trespasser unless the trespasser is a constant trespasser upon a limited area or a child.
Duty Owed to the Child Trespasser
Duty Land occupier owes a child trespasser the same duty as owed to an adult trespasser unless the case is one in which the attractive nuisance doctrine applies.
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Doctrine recognized in most jurisdictions, provides for the imposition of certain duties upon landowners for the
protection of young children whose trespasses are to be anticipated and whose immaturity renders them particularly susceptible to injury from dangerous conditions upon the land. A duty is imposed upon land occupiers to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or to otherwise protect the children when the following elements are present:
1. foreseeability of trespass,
2. foreseeability of serious harm,
3. the child is unaware of the danger, and
4. the utility of the condition is great and the burden of eliminating the condition is slight when balanced against the risk of harm to children.
Duty Owed to Persons Off the Premises
Land occupier owes a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the protection of passersby and occupiers of adjoining premises. This includes the duty of inspection to discover and correct those defects which a reasonable inspection would reveal.
Rowland v. Christian
Landmark case of Rowland vs. Christian eliminated the distinction between business invitee, licensee, and trespasser and found that the land occupier owes a duty to act as a "reasonable man" for purposes of rendering the occupied property safe for others.
Land occupier traditionally owed no duty to others for the care of natural conditions on the occupied property. However, a court in one recent case imposed a duty of reasonable care as to natural conditions, at least in those situations where the condition is known to the landowner.
Res Ipsa Loquitur
Doctrine that is a rule of evidence which aids the
plaintiff in proving the element of breach of duty when the plaintiff is unable to establish by other evidence that the defendant acted unreasonably. The doctrine proceeds upon the theory that the occurrence itself speaks of negligence and it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to show the exact circumstances whereby defendant breached his or her duty of care. The plaintiff must prove that:
1. defendant was in complete control of the instrument that caused the harm;
2. plaintiff is not guilty of contributory negligence;
3. defendant is in a better position to explain what happened; and
4. injuries of this type do not normally occur absent such negligence.
The literal interpretation of 'res ipsa loquitor', a Latin phrase, is "the thing speaks for itself."
Actual Cause or Cause in Fact
Cause which starts, ignites or makes possible the act which follows and that which satisfies the "but for" or
"substantial factor" test.
Act which in a natural and continuous sequence of events, unbroken by unforeseeable, independent, intervening acts, causes injury to the plaintiff, without which the injury would not have occurred.
Independent Intervening Act
Act which would have occurred even in the absence of the original negligence. The act must be foreseeable, otherwise it breaks the chain of causation.
Dependent Intervening Act
Act which would not have occurred in the absence of the original negligence and is a normal reaction to the negligent act. A dependent intervening act does not break the chain of causation unless it was highly unforeseeable.
The "But For" Test
Used for purposes of establishing actual cause. According to this rule, the defendant's negligence must be an essential ingredient in producing the plaintiff's injury. To apply the test in negligence questions after having
established duty and breach, you must ask "but for" the defendant's negligence, would the plaintiff have been injured? If the answer is no - that the plaintiff would not have been injured if the defendant had not be negligent - then the defendant is deemed to be an essential contributing factor to the plaintiff's injury even though other factors also contributed.
The "Substantial Factor"Test
Used for purposes of establishing actual cause. The defendant is said to be an actual cause of the plaintiff's injury if the defendant is a substantial factor in bringing the injury about. This means that the defendant's negligent act must contribute to the happening of the plaintiff's injury to more than a trivial degree. This test should be used in addition to the "but for" test because sometimes it is more workable, especially when involved with questions related to the combined effect of more than one fire, explosion or similar condition. "But for" the one fire
or explosion the plaintiff's property might have burned anyway by reason of the other fire or explosion. However, using the substantial factor test it is clear that the negligence of each fire or explosion has contributed to the plaintiff's damage to more than a trivial degree. Therefore, since the damages are not capable of being apportioned, both parties can be held liable for the entire amount of the damage.
Negligence Per Se
Use of the defendant's unexcused violation of a statute or an ordinance to prove the elements of duty and breach of duty, if it can be established that the statute in question was designed to protect this class of plaintiffs from this type of injury.
The Doctrine of Avoidable Consequence
Last Clear Chance Doctrine
Assumption of the Risk
D not charged with personal fault or wrongdoing can be held liable for the tortfeasors act because of special relationship to tortfeasor (e.g. employer, joint venturer, car owner, bailor, parent). D vicariously liable may see indemnification from the actual tortfeasor.
..Two or more persons join together to commit a tortious act. Each is vicariously liable for acts done by the other in furtherance of the common design.
1. two or more persons
2. join together to commit tort
3. vicarious liability imposed
Two or more persons not acting together but whose acts combine produce a single indivisible injury. Some jurisdictions impose joint and several liability. Majority apportion damages using comparative fault. Vicarious liability does not apply.
A successive tortfeasor is one whose negligence follows an initial injury and adds to, or aggravates, the existing injury
Joint and Several Liability
Joint and several liability is imposed upon joint and concurrent (but not successive) tortfeasors. This means that each is responsible for the full amount of the plaintiff's injury and the full amount of a related court judgment. Judgments for the full amount may be obtained against each tortfeasor, but satisfaction from one will discharge the liability of the other.
Claim by one concurrent tortfeasor against another requesting reimbursement of the other's proportional share of a court judgment. Typically, after joint and several liability has been found and one D has had to pay P more than his pro rata share of damages.
D secondarily or vicariously liable who has paid a judgment may obtain full reimbursement from the party primarily liable. Some jurisdictions [CA] have rule of "partial indemnity" on basis of relative fault.
Share only a short, specific purpose, such as a trip or single transaction, generally vicariously liable for each other's torts in furtherance of the venture.
Meaning "let the superior answer" or the master speaks for the servant; the physician, supervisor, or employer may be liable in certain cases for the wrongful acts of employees or subordinates. Applies to employment to hold employer vicariously liable for employee's torts committed in scope of employment.
Scope of Employment
Employee acting with intent to further employer's business interests, even if indirectly or unwisely, even if employer forbade the act.
At common law, husband-wife immunity prevented one spouse from maintaining an action against the other. It was argued that such suits between spouses would disrupt domestic tranquillity. Modernly, husband-wife immunity does not exist in most jurisdictions.
Traditionally parent-child immunity has been applied so that a parent and minor child are immune from suits against each other in tort action. However, suits involving interference with property interests have been freely allowed. Many jurisdictions have abolished parent-child immunity.
Prevents suits against governmental entity without the entity's consent. Many jurisdictions have abolished immunity of municipal governments. Several states have terminated immunity of the state government.
Traditionally prevented non paying recipients from suing a charity. Modernly, trend is to abolish immunity and hold non-profit organizations liable as other tortfeasors.
Wrongful Death Statutes
Intentional or negligent act causes the death of a person, surviving members family can bring an action to recover for their loss. Common law - no action.
When Decedent involved in lawsuit at time of death, the suit may continue. At common law the death of either party terminated all tort causes of action except torts involving personal property.
Usually claim of negligence against a physician or lab related to failure to inform parents re potential birth defects or claimed negligence in failure to prevent birth by contraception, abortion or vasectomy.
At common law, pre-natal injuries could not be the basis of a suit by a child against a tortfeasor. It is now generally held that the child, if born alive, should not be denied a cause of action merely because the injury occurred prior to birth. However, in some jurisdictions, the child must have been viable at the time of the injury, that is, capable of living independently of the mother.
Statute of Limitations for Personal Injury
If not specified is two years for tort actions from time of injury or time of discovery of injury.
Liability without fault, no intentional wrong or unreasonable act. Traditionally relates to keeping dangerous animals or abnormally dangerous activities (e.g. explosives).
Rylands v. Fletcher
Landmark case strict liability. Land occupier brings something non-natural onto his land likely to cause injury if it escapes - strict liability is imposed.
Manufacturer or seller who releases unreasonably dangerous product into the stream of commerce is liable for harm caused by product. Must be proven (1) product was defective in design, manufacture or warning and (2) one of four theories must be asserted - intentional, negligence, breach of warranty or strict liability.
Product was produced as intended by the manufacturer but the design creates an unreasonable danger to consumers. Defense may exist that the product is "unavoidably" unsafe and benefits outweigh dangers.
Product is not made as intended. Error in production caused a defect.
Product design and production are as intended but product poses a danger that is not apparent to reasonable consumer.
MacPherson v. Buick
Landmark case eliminated the requirement of privity of contract in products liability cases, extended manufacturer's duty of care to include the actual consumer of the product.
Later cases extended duty of care to all persons and property likely to be endangered by product's probable use - "all who could be foreseeably harmed."
Products Liability (Intentional)
Manufacturer, distributor, supplier or retailer knew product would cause harm at the time the product was released into stream of commerce.
Products Liability (Negligence)
Duty, breach, causation and damages required. Under McPherson v. Buick duty of care is extended to all foreseeable user. P must show product failed to meet ordinary commercial expectations. Damages limited to personal and property.
Products Liability (Breach of Warranty)
Manufacturer or seller may be liable based upon buyer's reliance upon an express or implied warranty that product is merchantable qualify or fit for intended purpose.
Products Liability (Strict Liability)
Manufacturer or seller of a defective product, unsafe for anticipated use or failure to warn consumer of danger of intended or foreseeable use may be strictly liable.
1. D is manufacturer, distributor, supplier, or retailer of the product
2. product was defective
3. product and is defective aspects were the actual or proximate cause of injury
4. defect existed when product left D's hands
Damages - Products Liability
Property damage - recoverable under negligence and strict liability but not under breach of warranty in some jurisdictions unless personal injury.
Intangible economic harm - not recoverable under negligence or strict liability unless combined with personal or property injury. Recoverable by direct purchaser (not a remote purchaser or non-purchaser) under breach of warranty, including consequential damages and lost profits.
Knowingly passing along false information to a client. Making false promises with the intent to influence, persuade, or induce.
Material false statement knowingly made with intent to induce P reliance. P justifiably relied on statement causing damages.
the action or practice of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth
D breached duty to exercise due care in acquiring and transmitting information and made a material false statement with intent to induce P reliance and P justifiably relied causing damages.
False and defamatory statement published intentionally or negligently to a third person who understood the statement applied to P and which caused damage to P. P must show a demand for retraction given equal publicity has been made and refused.
holds one up to hatred, contempt, disgrace, ridicule or causes shunning or damage in occupation.
Inducement and innuendo
Inducement is the extrinsic facts necessary to understand the defamation. Innuendo is the connection between the inducement and the defamation which explains why the statement is defamatory.
Offer of extrinsic evidence to explain the defamatory sense of the D's statement. Included in a complaint when a statement is not defamatory on its face.
Defamation published in writing.
Libel Per Se
Written statement is clearly defamatory on its face - inducement and innuendo not required. Proof special damages is not required. General damages are presumed.
Libel Per Quod
Written statement not defamatory on its face but is defamatory when viewed in light of circumstances - inducement and innuendo required. Requires proof of special damages in some jurisdictions.
Defamation by spoken word. Requires proof of special pecuniary damages that flow directly from the defamation before general damages are recoverable.
Slander Per Se
Slanderous statement sufficiently serious to allow P to recover without proof of special damages - alleged criminal behavior, loathsome disease, unchastity, or improper business practices.
Pecuniary related to specific costs incurred. Must be specifically claimed and proved for example lost wages, medical expenses.
As it relates to defamation - damages of a pecuniary nature such as loss of a job, customers, or business.
For P to recover damages for defamation P must prove a demand for retraction given equal publicity has been made and refused.
Complete immunity from liability for defamation even if maliciously, knowingly false. Privilege exists :
(1) during judicial Proceedings, (2) during legislative proceedings, (3)during executive government functions which are official statements of government officials, (5) between spouses, (6) broadcast under the equal time doctrine.
Immunity from liability for defamation if acting for socially desirable purposes to: (1) protect D's own interests; (2) protect the interest of others; (3) protect a common interest; (4) protect a public interest; (5) offer an opinion within the Fair Comment Privilege.
Qualified immunity may be lost if the statement was irrelevant, made with malice, a bad faith belief, or was excessively publicized.
Fair Comment Privilege
The Fair Comment Privilege is a common law rule derived from the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press. The privilege applies to statements of opinion which have been made in good faith on matters of public interest. Covered by this privilege are opinions about newsworthy persons, events, products, art, works, etc.
New York Times v. Sullivan
US Supreme Court Case
Public official cannot recover damages for defamation bearing upon qualifications for a position without proof by clear and convincing evidence the statement was made with actual malice. Decided in 1964, later cases extended the rule to public figures.
Actual Malice (defamation)
In defamation, publication was made with either knowledge that statement was false or reckless disregard of whether or not it was true.
Invasion of Privacy
Interfering with a person's right to be left alone based on one of four theories: (1) appropriation of likeness; (2) intrusion upon seclusion; (3) public disclosure of private facts or; (4) false light.
Appropriation of Likeness
Unauthorized use of plaintiff's name or likeness. Most commonly, to promote a business or product, but most jurisdictions do not require a commercial use.
Intrusion upon Seclusion
Intentional and unreasonable interference with plaintiff's private affairs or an invasion of a location in which plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Publication of information relating to P not of legitimate concern to the public in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
P must prove D interfered with privacy through the publication to the public of offensive, untruthful or misleading information about P. In California, publication of false statement action comes under defamation; publication of false implication comes under false light. Theory of false light not recognized by some states as separate from defamation.
P previously sued with malice and without probably ending in favor of D. D may bring cause of action for malicious prosecution.
Abuse of Process
Initiating legal proceeding with an ulterior motive and for an improper purpose.
Trade libel - publication of an untrue or misleading statement about another's business or product in an attempt to influence a person not to deal with the business.
Interference with an Economic Relationship
A cause of action for intentional interference with one's business relationships including interference with one's contractual relationships, expected commercial relationships, and intimidation of employees, clients etc. P must prove D intentionally and unlawfully interfered with P business or enterprise causing commercial or economic harm.
Interference with Contractual Relationship
A form of interference with economic relationship. An intentional inducement to breach a contract between P and a third party resulting in damages to P.
Interference with a Prospective Advantage
Form of interference with economic relationship. No contract necessary. P only needs to prove a current or potential business relationship which D had knowledge. D intentionally disrupted that relationship causing economic harm to P.
Non pecuniary presumed incurred based on the tort, need not be specifically claimed or proved such as pain, suffering, and inconvenience.
Punitive or Exemplary Damages
Awarded to punish the D for malicious or reckless conduct.
Out of Pocket Damages (Misrepresentation)
Special damages, pecuniary. For misrepresentation calculated by difference between what P paid and value of what P received.
Loss of the Benefit of the Bargain
Special damage based on difference between the value of that which was received by the plaintiff and the value which the defendant represented the plaintiff would receive in misrepresentation.
Torts to Property (3)
Trespass to land, chattel, conversion.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
BLAW 3430 Engler Test 2 (3,6,7,8,22)
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Criminal Law Ch. 12
Criminal Law Ch. 11
Criminal Law Ch. 10
Criminal Law Ch. 9
OTHER QUIZLET SETS
Pre Algebra (Ms. Brown)
Exceptional Learners Final Exam Study Guide
A More Perfect Union Chapter 7