Study sets, textbooks, questions
Upgrade to remove ads
Terms in this set (84)
Doctrine of Transferred Intent
The transferred intent doctrine allows an intent to commit a tort against one person to be transferred to the committed tort or to the injured person. It applies to (i) assault, (ii) battery, (iii) false imprisonment, (iv) trespass to land, and (v) trespass to chattels.
The prima facie case of battery:
The prima facie case for battery has the following elements: (i) an act by the defendant that brings about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; (ii) intent on the part of the defendant to bring about harmful or offensive contact to the plaintiff's person; and (iii) causation.
The requisite intent for intentional torts is satisfied if:
if the actor knows with substantial certainty that the consequences of her conduct will result.
The prima facie case for assault
The prima facie case for assault requires (i) an act by defendant causing a reasonable apprehension in plaintiff of IMMEDIATE harmful or offensive contact to plaintiff's person, (ii) intent by defendant to bring about in plaintiff apprehension of that contact, and (iii) causation. For there to be apprehension, plaintiff must be aware of defendant's act at the time that it is occurring.
An owner may use reasonable force to recapture a chattels when:
In "hot pursuit" of the tortfeasor. However, force can be used only against the tortfeasor or a third party who knows that the chattel was tortiously obtained because the tort is viewed as still being committed.
The defense does not apply once the tort has been committed.
If an innocent third party has obtained the chattel, the owner is no longer privileged to use force to effect a recapture of the chattel.
The following conditions must be satisfied: 1. There must be a reasonable belief as to the fact of theft; 2. The detention must be conducted in a reasonable manner and only nondeadly force can be used; and 3. The detention must be only for a reasonable period of time and only for the purpose of making an investigation.
Privare Necessity Doctrine
A person may interfere with the real or personal property of another when the interference is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury from a natural or other force and the threatened injury is substantially more serious than the invasion that is undertaken to avert it. No an absolute defense.
A violation of an applicable statute may be excused if:
(i) compliance with the statute would cause more danger than a violation (e.g., a defendant drives onto the wrong side of the road to avoid hitting children who dart into his path), or
(ii) compliance with the statute would be beyond the defendant's control (e.g., a blind pedestrian crosses against a light).
What is a licensee
Under traditional landowner liability rules, a licensee is one who enters on the land with the landowner's permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business rather than for the landowner's benefit.
Under the "firefighter's rule," police officers and firefighters are generally treated like licensees, based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds. They cannot recover for a landowner's failure to inspect or repair dangerous conditions that are an inherent risk of their law enforcement or firefighting activity. Even if they are caused by another negligence.
Res ipsa loquitur requires:
1. The accident is of a type that normally does not occur in the absence of someone's negligence; 2. The evidence connects the defendant to the negligence (i.e., this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the negligence of someone in the defendant's position); and 3. The injury was not attributable to the plaintiff or any third person.
A principal can be liable for an independent contractor:
(i) The independent contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities, e.g., excavating next to a public sidewalk, blasting; or (ii) The duty, because of public policy considerations, is simply nondelegable, e.g., the duty of a business to keep its premises safe for customers.
To establish a prima facie case for invasion of privacy involving public disclosure of private facts about the plaintiff:
the plaintiff must show that the publication was of private information about the plaintiff and that its public disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
Trespass to chattels requires
(i) an act of defendant that interferes with plaintiff's right of possession in the chattel, (ii) intent to perform the act bringing about the interference with plaintiff's right of possession, (iii) causation, and (iv) damages.
How can consent be given?
Consent may be implied from custom, conduct, or words, or by law.
Sets with similar terms
PA Bar Exam - Torts
Torts Overview for Bar Review
Other sets by this creator
Conflicts of Law
Agency and Partnership
Other Quizlet sets
Dental Materials Test 1
CAPÍTULO 12. - TIMONES Y APARTADOS DE GOBIERNO
The glorious revolution