Torts Outline

Torts Outline

Chapter 1: Development of Liability Based Upon Fault
· Always have to prove that what happened CAUSED the injury!
· Development of Liability based on fault
· 1466 – liability without fault, if you cause an injury you are liable for that injury fault or no fault
· Weaver v. Ward 1616 Fault is an issue that the defendant needs to prove. The court here says that if it is not his fault he might not be liable
o Someone was injured by an accident that occurred during military training, there was no fault it was an accident.
· Brown v. Kendall – 1850, The burden of proof shifts from the D to the P, P has to show lack of ordinary care for D to be liable. The P and D’s dogs were involved in a fight the D raised a stick to separate the dogs and accidently struck the P. P had to prove that D was acting unreasonably when he decided to use the stick to separate the dog.
o Reasonably prudent person
o Shift of burden of proof D -> P, P prove lack of care
· Cohen v. Petty The burden of proof lies with P, here P failed to establish lack of care by the D, did not make her case. The D was driving a car and fainted was he at fault of injury to the P when he did not know that he had a medical condition.
o If someone fell asleep in the back of the car and kicked the driver’s seat and caused him to have an accident, not at fault because it was unintentional.
o Someone that knows he had epileptic seizures drove an automobile had a seizure and caused an accident would he be liable? Yes because he had knowledge of the seizures.
· Spano v. Perini Corp- D was constructing a tunnel and used dynamite which caused damage to P’s property. The doctrine of strict liability was applied.
o Doctrine of Strict Liability – deals with dangerous but necessary actions if you do them you are strictly liable for any damage you cause
§ Example blasting, even if you were not negligent and there is no trespass you are still liable
§ Conduct that is neither intentional nor negligent but that subjects the actor to strict liability because of public policy
§ Also applies to manufacturers of products when defects in their wares have caused injury
o 3 possible bases of tort liability
§ Intentional negligence
§ Negligent conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm
§ Conduct that is neither intentional nor negligent but that subjects the actor to strict liability because of public policy.

Chapter 2: Intentional Interference with Person or Property
Intentional Interference with person or property
· Intent Jury charge for intent – intent involves state of mind with which an act is done. If a person acts
o voluntarily with a desire to bring about a result he/she is said to have intended that result.
o Although he/she has no desire to bring about the result if he/she does the act knowing, with substantial certainty that the result will follow he/she is also said to have intended that result.

· Garratt v. Dailey – D was 5 years old, and pulled a chair out from under P, and she was injured. Did he act intentionally, did he know with substantial certainty that if he moved the chair the D would be injured?
· If you fall asleep at the wheel; negligent
· If D kicks driver of car’s seat while sleeping and causes an action not negligent, no intent or substantial certainty
· If driving and have an epileptic seizure liable- if you know of the condition
· Spivey v. Battaglia – D tried to tease P by giving her a friendly unwanted hug, P immediately felt a sharp pain in her neck, ear and into the base of her skull, as a result she was paralyzed on the left side of her face and mouth. Was the D negligent in his action or did he intend to touch her – battery? D has to prove his intention, this was an intentional touching not carelessness, a reasonable man c