Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

Torts, MBE

Terms in this set (80)

2 essential questions in Torts
1) Can the PLAINTIFF PROVE the ELEMENTS of the claim?
2) Are there ANY Good AFFIRMATIVE Defenses?
INTENTIONAL TORTS
TO PERSONS:
1) BATTERY
2) ASSAULT
3) FALSE IMPRISONMENT
4) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

TO PROPERTY:
1) TRESPASS TO LAND
2) TRESPASS TO CHATTELS
3) CONVERSION
Intentional Torts
1) Don't take into account Plaintiff's Super-Sensitivites
2) EVERYBODY can be liable for an INTENTIONAL tort.
3) a person INTENDS the Consequence of their action if it was their PURPOSE to bring about the consequences, or if they KNOW to a Degree of Certainty that the result will occur.
4) Intent can transfer from Victim to Victim and Tort to Tort
BATTERY
1) HARMFUL or OFFENSIVE(Unpermited) Contact
2) with A Plaintiff's Person: anything connected with the person counts.
-Super-Sensitivites are NOT considered UNLESS D knew of them.
ASSAULT
1) APPREHENSION
2) of an IMMEDIATE CONTACT/HARM
Assault, Apprehension
1) must be a REASONABLE apprehension
2) Apprehension is NOT Fear/Intimidation, it is comprehension.
3) APPARENT ABILITY creates Reasonable Apprehension
Assault, Immediacy
1) WORDS are NOT enough
2) Words COUPLED with CONDUCT can be enough
3) Sometimes Word with Conduct cancel out the Conduct(i.e. while faking a punch, if you weren't my friend i'd punch you)
4) *If BATTERY and ASSAULT Both work on same fact pattern, choose BATTERY.
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
1) SUFFICIENT ACT of RESTRAINT
2) to a BOUNDED Area
FALSE IMPRISONMENT, Sufficient Act of Restraint
1) THREATS are enough.
2) INACTION is enough if: there is an Understanding that the Defendant Would ACT for the Plaintiff's benefit.(ie. expectation that captain would allow passenger of boat, not proving acces to shore=Restraint)
3) The Plaintiff must be AWARE of the confinement
4) the CONFINEMENT's LENGTH of TIME is IRRELEVANT(only important as to damages)
FALSE IMPRISONMENT, Bounded Area
1) A mere INCONVENIENCE is NOT enough
2) an area is NOT BOUNDED if there is a REASONABLE MEANS of ESCAPE of which the Plaintiff is AWARE.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
ONLY Use when Other Tort theories aren't working.
Requires:
1) OUTRAGEOUS Conduct
2) DAMAGE (Proof of SEVER emotional distress recognized by mental health professional)
3) INTENT: Recklessness suffices. TRANSFERRED INTENT generally Unavailable
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Outrageous Conduct
must be VERY OUTRAGEOUS!! ways to make conduct outrageous:
1) Continuous Conduct
2) Type of Plaintiff( Young Child, Elderly People, Pregnant Women
-BUTSuper Sensitivities only considered when D knew of them
3) Type of Defendant: Common Carriers, and InnKeepers AND Plaintiff is a passenger/Guest
Trespass to Land
1) Act of PHYSICAL Invasion (KNOWLEDGE of trespass not required, AND propelling a physical object OVER/ACROSS property counts)
2) Of LAND (Includes airspace above and subsurface below if landowner could make reasonable use of the space)
TRESPASS to Chattels and CONVERSION
1) ACTIVE Invasion
2) of PERSONAL Property
-If minor damage: trespass to chattels, if MAJOR damage: Conversion
-for Conversion, "Damage" can include serious interference with possession
DEFENSES to INTENTIONAL TORTS
1) CONSENT
2) SELF DEFENSE
3) DEFENSE of OTHERS
4) DEFENSE of PROPERTY
5) NECESSITY
6) DISCIPLINE
Defenses, CONSENT
1) Capacity: plaintiff must have CAPACITY to consent
-Following show lack of Capacity: A) Children, B) Mental Impariment, C) Coercion/Force, D) Invalid due to Fraud/Mistake
2) EXPRESS Consent: do _____
3) IMPLIED Consent: arises through CUSTOM and USAGE, OR through a PLAINTIFF's OWN CONDUCT
Defenses, SELF DEFENSE
A person is justified in using REASONABLE FORCE to prevent what she REASONABLY BELIEVES to be an IMMINENT threat of force against her.
1) Reasonable Belief: Reasonable person in the same position would believe he was in danger.
2) Reasonable Force: only allowed to use Degree of Force Reasonably Necessary to AVOID the threatened Harm
A) DEADLY FORCE: reasonable only if being faced with threat of deadly force
B) RETREAT: Retreat REQUIRED unless in your OWN home
Defenses, DEFENSE OF OTHERS
may defend another person in the SAME MANNER and UNDER the SAME CONDITIONS as the person atacked would be able to defend themselves
1) Mistaken Belief: a Defender is not liable if he REASONABLY believed the other person was endangered
Defenses, DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
May use REASONABLE FORCE to defend his real/personal property. DEADLY FORCE NEVER ALLOWED to proetect PROPERTY ALONE.
1) may only use force to defend/recapture property when you are in HOT PURSUIT
2) Store may only detain for a RASONABLE TIME AND in a REASONABLE WAY
*NC RULE: Shopkeeper needs PROBABLE CAUSE*
Defenses, NECESSITY
1) Necessity used ONLY in Conjunction with INTENTIONAL Torts to PROPERTY.
2) PUBLIC Necessity: is an UNLIMITED PRIVILEGE to protect a lot of people(destroy homes to stop fire)
3) PRIVATE Necessity: a QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE to protect a limited # of people
Defenses, DISCIPLINE
Reasonable force allowed to discipline a child
DEFAMATION
1) DEFAMATORY statement that turns out to be FALSE
2) OF and CONCERNING the PLAINTIFF
3) PUBLISHED to a 3rd person
4) DAMAGES
Defamation, DEFAMATORY STATEMENT
a Defamatory Statement is one that INJURES the PLAINTIFF's Reputation
1) Defendant bears the BURDEN of proving TRUTH. TRUTH is a Defense to a defamation claim
Defamation, "OF and CONCERNING"
the D's statement must REASONABLY be understood to refer to the plaintiff
Defamation, PUBLICATION
statement must be COMMUNICATED to a 3rd PERSON.
1) 3rd Person must be CAPABLE of UNDERSTANDING it
2) Publication must be NEGLIGENT or INTENTIONAL
Defamation, DAMAGES
1) when Defamation is spoken(SLANDER) the plaintiff must prove SPECIAL DAMAGES.
2) When defamation is written or broadcast(LIBEL) juries may PRESUME DAMAGES.
EXCEPTION: plaintiff can recover Presumed DAMAGES in cases of SLANDER PER SE, which is:
A) statements which impugn P's trade/profession
B) statements which accuse P of committing serious crime
C) statements which imply P has Loathsome Disease
D) Statements which impute unchastity to a woman
*NC Rule: abandoned imputing unchastity of a woman*
Defamation, DEFENSES
1) TRUTH: but Defendant must PROVE that its true
2) Absolute Privileges(applies no matter how badly the Defendant Acts): A, B, and C:
A) statements made in course of JUDICIAL proceedings,
*NC RULE: applies to quasi-judical proceedings as well*
B) Statements made in LEGISLATIVE proceedings
C) Communications between SPOUSES
3) Qualified Privilege:(privilege lost if statement is false, malicious) A)person has qualified privilege during course of legitimate public debate, or B) to serve the purpose of the person receiving the statement
Defamation, CONSTITUTIONAL Limitations
1st Amendment protects speech on MATTERS of PUBLIC CONCERN. in such speech:
1) the Plaintiff must PROVE the Statement was FALSE,
2) Plaintiff must prove some level of FAULT.
2A) Public Persons(govt offcials & public figures): a public plaintiff must prove ACTUAL MALICE:(that D KNEW statement was FALSE or Reckless Diregard of Truth)
2B) Private Persons: a private Plaintiff must prove fault amounting to NEGLIGENCE
DAMAGES: ALL plaintiff's must PROVE ACTUAL MALICE to recover Presumed or Punitive Damages
Invasion of Right to Privacy
1) Appropriation
2) Intrusion
3) False Light
4) Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Invasion of Right to Privacy, APPROPRIATION
1) USE of the Plaintiff's name or picture for commercial advantage without permission.
2) LIMITATION: Plaintiff's likeness must be used for advertising, promotional, or labeling purposes.
Invasion of Right to Privacy, INTRUSION
1) Interference with a Plaintiff's seclusion in a way that would be HIGHLY Offensive to a Reasonable Person.
2) Limitation: Plaintiff must be in a place where she has EXPECTATION of PRIVACY
3) Fallback Position: Possibly Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. argue this if not in a place where you could expect privacy.
Invasion of Right to Privacy, FALSE LIGHT
1) the Widespread dissemination of Information that is in some way Inaccurate and that would be Highly Offensive to a REASONABLE PERSON.
*NOT RECOGNIZED IN NC*
Invasion of Right to Privacy, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS
1) the Widespread dissemination of factually accurate Information that would normally be confidential, and the disclosure of which would be Highly Offensive to a REASONABLE PERSON.
2) NEWSWORTHY DISCLOSURES are NOT actionable.
*NOT RECOGNIZED IN NC*
Invasion of Right to Privacy, DEFENSES
1) Consent
2) Absolute and Qualified Privileges (only apply to false light and Public Disclosure)
FRAUD
1) Affirmative Misrepresentation (silence won't suffice)
2) Fault (SCIENTER must be shown, D must have known statement to be false)
3) Intention to Induce Reliance (statement must be MATERIAL)
4) Justifiable Reliance (normally justifiable to rely on the OPINION of one who has SUPERIOR SKILL or KNOWLEDGE in the subject matter of transaction)
5) Damages (if no damages, then NO FRAUD can be found)

*NC Rule: combine Fault and Intent to Induce reliance into one element*
6*) comparison with Negligent Misrepresentation( Liability confined to Commercial Transactions, and to Particular Plaintiff whose reliance is contemplated)
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
1) Inducing BREACH of contract: an INTENTIONAL ACTION that causes a 3rd person to BREACH an Existing Contract with the Plaintiff.
2) Interference with Contratual Relations: a D may be liable if INTERFERENCE with a P's Contractual relations makes Performance More Difficult, even if interference does NOT actually cause breach.
3) Interference with Prospective Economic Advatage: a D may be liable for interfering with a P's expectation of economic benefit from 3rd person, even in abscence of an existing contract.
Wrongful Institution of Legal Proceedings
1) Malicious Prosecution: CIVIL or CRIMINAL brought without Probable Cause or for improper purpose
2) Abuse of Process: claim against someone for Wrongly using ANY form of LEGAL process for improper/malicious purpose.
NEGLIGENCE
1) DUTY
2) BREACH of DUTY
3) CAUSATION(ACTUAL and PROXIMATE)
4) DAMAGES
Negligence, DUTY, owed to whom?
1) owe a DUTY to all people who are FORESEEABLE VICTIMS of your failure to take precautions
2) Rescuers and Viable Fetuses are FORESEEABLE as a MATTER of LAW
Negligence, DUTY, Level of care exercised, POINDEXTER RULE
1) POINDEXTER RULE: must exercise the Amount of Care that would be taken by a REASONABLY PRUDENT PERSON
2) D is expected to use his SUPERIOR SKILL/EXPERTISE
3) D's PHYSICAL DISABILITES are attributed to the Reasonably Prudent Person (but not mental disabilities)
Negligence, DUTY, Level of care exercised, Special Duty Standards, CHILDREN
1) Majority Rule: child must exercise the degree of care that a reasonable child of similar age, inteliigence, etc.
2) Traditional/Minority/*NC Rule*: Rule of Sevens.
A) Incapable of Negligence if under 7.
B) Rebutable presumption that child is incapabable of negligence is 7-13.
C) Presumption that child IS negligent if 14 or older(but rebutable)
3) Adult activities:child engaged in adult activites is held to ADULT standard
Negligence, DUTY, Level of care exercised, Special Duty Standards, PROFESSIONALS
a Professional is required to possess and exercise the knowledge and skill of an Ordinary Member of the profession in good standing.
1) SPECIALISTS are held to the SPECIALIST level of skill/knowledge.
-Medical Malpractice: Informed Consent required to avoid negligence
-Legal Malpractice: Plaintiff must prove CAUSATION: i.e. must prove that lawyer's mistake caused her damages
Negligence, DUTY, Level of care exercised, Special Duty Standards, OWNERS/OCCUPIERS of LAND, two keys
1) SOURCE of the INJURY: result of the CONDUCT of ACTIVITY or the an ENCOUNTER WITH A STATIC CONDITION
2) STATUS of PLAINTIF, either:
A) Undiscovered Trespasser(always loses negligence lawsuit
B) Discovered Trespasser
C) Licensees:
D) Invitees
Negligence, Discovered Trespasser
1) Conduct of Activity: Reasonably Prudent Person Standard(Reasonable Care)
2) Static Condition: Have to Protect against "MAN-Made Deathraps:Artificial, Highly Dangerous, Concealed & Known to the Owner/Occupier of Land

*NC Rule: landowner owes NO DUTY to protect Discovered Trespassers against Dangerous Conditions*
Negligence, Licensee
people you like
1) Conduct of Activity: Reasonably Prudent Person Standard(Reasonable Care)
2) Static Condition: Have to Protect against ANY CONCEALED condition KNOWN to the owner

*NC Rule: Licensees and Invitees are the same,apply INVITEE Rule*
Invitee
ANYone who comes onto land held open to the public at large
1) Conduct of Activity: Reasonably Prudent Person Standard(Reasonable Care)
2) Static Condition: Duty to Protect if condition is CONCEALED AND you KNEW about it or Reasonably Should have Known

*NC Rule: Licensees and Invitees are the same, so apply INVITEE rule *
Owners/Occupiers of land, general tips
1) in a Static Condition question , landowner can meet her legal obligation by WARNING them of the condition
2) If involving CHILD trespasser, use the Reasonably Prudent person standard
3) If injured by OPEN and OBVIOUS condition, entrant will ALMOST ALWAYS LOSE
Negligence, Duty of Care, Negligence Per Se
1) Test: Class of Person, Class of Risk. Class of person that the statute is protecting. Class of Risk: type of risk/harm which would be Expected to occur
2) EXCEPTIONS:
A) No Negligence Per Se when Compliance with statute is MORE DANGEROUS than violating the statute
B) no Negligence Per Se if Compliance is IMPOSSIBLE under the Circumstances
Negligence, Duty of Care, Affirmative Duty to Act Rule
1) There is NO DUTY to RESCUE.
EXCEPTIONS:
A) DUTY to act if Defendant put the Plaintiff in peril
B) Duty to Act if special relationships: (close family relationships, Common Carrier/Innkeeper, Invitor-Invitee)
C) Duty to Control 3rd Persons: but D must have ACTUAL ABILITY and AUTHORITY to control 3rd party.
Negligence, Duty of Care, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
1) Generally NO DUTY
EXCEPT:
A) Zone of Danger: If it was a Near Miss of Actual Harm, and there are Physical Manifestations of Emotional Distress
B) Bystander Recovery: Liability if there is a close relationship between the parties
C) Court Liberalizes Rules where D's Negligence creates a GREAT likelihood of Severe Emotional Distress:mishandling of corpses, inaccurate diagnosis of cancer.

*NC Rule: just need to show that it was REASONABLY FORESEEABLE that defendant's conduct would result in emotional distress*
Negligence, BREACH OF DUTY
1) Plaintiff msut point to SPECIFIC CONDUCT
2) Proving SPECIFIC CONDUCT:
A) Evidence of Custom is always ADMISSIBLE, but never Conclussive.(show that EVERYONE does/doesn't observe a certain precaution
B) Res Ipsa Loquitor: plaintiff doesn't know what happened. Must Show 1) The event is one that does NOT normally occur in the absence of Negligence AND 2) the injury-causing instrumentality was Within Defendant's EXCLUSSIVE CONTROL 3) Showing these gets Plaintiff to Jury, but Jury can reject res ipsa loquitor.
Negligence, Causation, CAUSE IN FACT
1) the BUT FOR test. a D's conduct is the CAUSE IN FACT of an injury when the injury would not have occured BUT FOR the D's conduct
2) Substantial Factor Test: Use in cases with Multiple Defendants in a Commingled Cause.
3) Burden Shifting: Use in cases with Multiple Defendants, and UNKNOWN CAUSE
Negligence, Causation, PROXIMATE CAUSE
1) Proximate cause is a LIMITATION on the D's LIABILITY. A Person is liable only for those HARMS that are WITHIN THE RISK of the activity
2) Direct Cause fact patterns: If the result of the D's negligent conduct is FORESEEABLE, the D is liable.
3) Indirect Cause fact patterns: Defendant's act, intervening act, then Plaintiff's injury
Negligence, Causation, Proximate Cause, INDIRECT CAUSE
1) If Foreseeable Result and Foreseeable Intervening ACt: Defendant Liable.
2) if Unforeseeable Result and Unforeseeable Intervening Cause: Defendant NOT liable.
3) Otherwise: IT DEPENDS
Negligence, Causation, Proximate Cause, INDIRECT CAUSE, LIABILITY almost NEVER Cut off.
1) Subsequent Medical Malpractice:
*NC Rule: it is a jury question *
2) Negligent Rescue:
3) Reaction Forces: reactions of 3rd parties due to D's act
4) Subsequent Diseases or Accidents
Negligence, Causation, Proximate Cause, INDIRECT CAUSE, LIABILITY Not cut off if Defendant can Anticipate the Intervening casuse
1) Negligence of a Third Party
2) Criminal Conduct
3) ACTS of GOD: if they are foreseeable to defendant
Negligence, DAMAGES
Plaintiff must Prove damages as part of her prima facie case. typical elements in Persoanl Injury award are:
1) PAST and FUTURE Medical Expenses
2) PAST and FUTURE Lost Income
3) Plaintiff's PAIN and SUFFERING

EGGSHELL Skull Plaintiff Rule: A Defendant is liable to the FULL extent of the damages he causes, even if the Extent was Unforeseeable
DEFENSES to Negligence
1) Contributory Negligence
2) Assumption of Risk
3) Comparitive Negligence
Defense to Negligence, CONTRIBUTORY Negligence
Contributopry negligence if Plaintiff FAILED to use Relevant Degree of care for their own safety
CONTRIBUTORY= TRADITIONAL
*NC RULE: for contrib negligence purpose only: Plaintiff's with Mental Deficiencies are held to the standard of care of a person with similar mental deficiency*
CONSEQUENCE: plaintiff loses lawsuit and recovers NOTHING
-LAST CLEAR CHANCE Doctrine: Plaintiff can recover despite contributory negligence if D had LAST clear chance to avoid, but failed to do so.
Defense to Negligence, ASSUMPTION of the RISK
1) Express Assumption of the Risk:
A) completely BARS recovery, EXCPET when applying rule whould Violate Public Policy
2) Implied Assumption of the Risk: Plaintiff must have KNOWLEDGE of the Risk and VOLUNTARILY encountered the RISK.
A) the ABSENCE of an ALTERNATIVE DESTROYS voluntariness
B) EMERGENCY SITUATIONS DESTROY Voluntariness
C) Bar to Recovery in Contributory Negligence state., Reduces AMOUNT of Damages in Comparative Negligence State.
Defense to Negligence, COMPARATIVE Negligence
1) Pure Comparitive Negligence: Plaintiff will almost always get SOMETHING
2) Modified Compartive Negligence: Plaintiff's recovery Reduced until his fault level hits 50%, if fault >50%, NO Recovery.
if Compartive Negligence applies, no implied assumption of risk, but D can still show EXPRESS ASSUMPTION of the RISK
Strict Liability, ANIMALS
1) Trespassing Animals: strict liability for foreseeable harmd caused by animals (other than household pets)
2) Personal Injury: A) no strict liability for Domesticated Animals, UNLESS you know of the animal's dangerous propensities in advance. B) STRICT LIABILITY if WILD animals
Strict Liability, Abnormally Dangerous Activites
1) The activity is incapable of being conducted except with HIGH RISK
2) If Harm occurs, it is likely to be SEVERE,
3) the activity must be UNUSUAL, Atypical, Uncommon in the community in which it takes place
4) LIMITATION: The HARM must Still be within the RISK
(i.e. danger of dynamte is explosion, not a broken toe from dropping a case of it)
Strict Liability, Product Related Injury
*NC RULE: NO STRICT LIABILITY for PRODUCTS RELATED INJURY* still can sue in negligence, breach of warranty, etc
1) Defendant must be a MERCHANT Seller
2) Product must be DEFECTIVE( in its Manufacture, or in its Design)
3) the Defect EXISTED when it left the SELLER's Hand. i.e. same condition as when it was purchased.
4) If you can show that product moved in Ordinary Course of Business, presumption that defect existed
5) The Plaintiff made a FORESEEABLE USE of the product
Strict Liability, Product Related Injury, DEFENSES
1) Traditional jurisdictions: conduct that is the equivalent of CONTRIBUTORY Negligence will NOT bar recovery, BUT conduct that is the Equivalent of Assumption of the Risk WILL BAR recovery
2) Comparitve Fault Jurisdictions: compartive fault principles applied in Strict Prodcuts Liability cases, ie. plaintiff's negligence reduces recovery
Strict Liability, Product Related Injury, KEY POINTS
1) if theory is NEGLIGENCE, let wholesalers/retailers off the hook
2) an ADEQUATE WARNING usually insulates a D from Strict Liability
3) if a question refers to a "feasible alternativbe" for making a product safer, it signals that you should find the D liable on a DESIGN DEFECT theory
4) FORESEEABL USE is NOT the Same as INTENDED USE, i.e. as long as it is reasonably foreseeable, liability
5) if Product USE is INCIDENTAL to the PERFORMANCE of a SERVICE, Strict Liability UNAVAILABLE.
*NC Rule: 3 year Statute of limitation, and 12 year statute of repose, i.e. can't sue 3 years after injury, or 12 years after purchase*
PRIVATE NUISSANCE
1) Conduct that Causes a SUBSTANTIAL and UNREASONABLE INTERFERENCE with the USE and ENJOYMENT of LAND.
2) SUBSTANTIAL and Unreasonable Interference
3) Remedies: Courts will WEIGH the EQUITIES of the parties in deciding whther to Enjoin a Defendant's Activity
PUBLIC NUISSANCE
Conduct that causes a PHYSICAL or MORALHarm to the public in general.
1)a PRIVATE PLAINTIFF can maintain a Public Nuissance if shows that suffered a harm that is Different in Nature, OR Different in Character than the public at large.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY, Employer-Employee
Employer-Employee: the Employer is Vicariously Liable for Employees' Torts committed WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT
1) Frolic and Detour Rules: Employers liable for detours(minor departure from course of work), NOT Liable for Frolics(major detours from course of work)
2) Intentional Torts: An Employer is NOT LIABLE for employee's INTENTIONAL TORTS (UNLESS violence is part of the job)
3) NO VICARIOUS liability for General Contractors, EXCEPT: A) if the independent contractor is engaged in an inherently dangerous activity, or B) Public Policy Exception
VICARIOUS LIABILITY, Automobile Owner-Automobile Driver
Generally NO Vicarious Liability
1) CONCEPTUAL Exception: when driver is performing an ERRAND for owner, liability may be premised on AGENCY PRINCIPLES
2) MINORITY RULES: A) FAMILY CAR STATES: Owner is vicariously liable for the torts of ANY household member using the car with the Owner's Permissiion
B) PERMISSIVE USE STATES: Owner vicariously liable for the torts of ANYONE with permission to use the car.

*NC RULES: 1) FAMILY PURPOSE Rule: vicarious liability if driver is a member of the same household and using it for a family purpose. 2) Owner-Occupant Rule: Vicarious Liability if occupant/passenger owns the vehicle EVEN if driver does not own it*
VICARIOUS LIABILITY, Parent-Child
NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY
*NC Distinction. Statute makes parents liable for up to $2,000 in damages for WILLFUL/WANTON destruction of property*
Vicarious Liability, KEY POINT
LOOK FOR DIRECT LIABILITY FIRST. MAY BE NEGLIGENTLY LIABLE even if NOT vicariously liable.
Adjustment of Rights Between Multiple Defendants, JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY
applies when EACH Defendant can be liable to the Plaintiff for the Entire Damage incurred. triggered when either:
1) Concert of action: together cause damages
2) Indivisible Harm: single harm, but no way to distinguish who caused what
Adjustment of Rights Between Multiple Defendants, INDEMNITY
PASSIVE Defendant receives FULL REIMBURSEMENT from ACTIVE Defendant.
i.e. 2 people liable, but person who didn't cause harm was sued. he can then sue ACTIVE D for indemnity.
Adjustment of Rights Between Multiple Defendants, CONTRIBUTION
1) Traditional Rule: Paying Defendant recovers PROPORTIONAL SHARES from other Defendants.
*this is NC Rule*

2) Comparitive Contribution: Recovery Based on the RELATIVE FAULT of each Tortfeasor
Wrongful Death Action
Claims brought for the plaintiff's OWN loss of Support and Companionship which would have been provided had he lived.
Survival Action
claim brought by deceased's estate. it is the deceased's claim that he could have brought had he lived.
Immunity, Family
1) Family Immunity: NO FAMILY IMMUNITY
*NC Rule: Immunity Eliminated between paretns and children ONLY in cases with negligent driving, and in cases where the parent has acted worse than negligent(willful/wanton)*
Immunity, Government
1) There is NO immunity when the Govt is engaged in Proprietary functions, i.e. something that a private citizen would normally carry out.

2) Governments RETAIN immunity when engaging in GOVT ACTION, i.e. fire protection, police, etc.
CHARITABLE IMMUNITY
ABOLISHED IN EVERY JURISDICTION
Sets with similar terms