Torts Outline

TORTS
REISS
Fall 2016
 
 
Torts- Set of rules for liability and compensation of personal injury, death and property damage that one party causes to another
 
Goals of the tort system: “DCAFE”
•Deterrence & Prevention
•Compensation
•Administrative Efficiency
•Fairness
•Economic Concerns
 
Duty: Does defendant have an obligation to exercise some level of care to avoid the risk of harm?
 
Breach: Did the defendant’s care fall below the standard owed? Was it unreasonable in the circumstance?
 
Cause: Did breach cause harm? Did unreasonable conduct lead to the damages?
 
Scope of Liability: Should the defendant be liable for the harm? Or is this harm too incidental, too removed from the original negligence? 
 
Damages: Was there legally recognizable harm? 
 
I. Vicarious Liability – Negligence imputed to the employer- Respondeat Superior
Two Elements of vicarious liability: principal-agent relationship & scope of employments 
Principal-agent relationship: The existence of an employer-employee relationship 
Employee: The extent of control by agreement the employer may exercise over the work 
Does employer have control or right of control over how the job is done: the “methods or means used”?
independent contractor: one who, in the course of an independent occupation or employment, undertakes work subject to the will or control of the person for whom the work is done only as to the result of the work and not as to the methods or means used 
Right of control- main factor in distinguishing an employment relationship from that of an independent contractor (skills required for job, length of time of work, method of payment, instrumentalities)
Scope of employment: Conduct by the employee acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. Generally an employee traveling to or from work outside actual working hours is not in the scope of employment, but an exception exists for employees who are caused by their employers to travel away from a regular workplace or whose travel is at least partly for their employers’ purposes rather than simply serving to convey the employees to or from a regular job site
Kime v Hobbs – Yelli, the driver, was not under the control of Hobbes in how he did his work and therefor was an independent contractor
Scope of conduct: Tests
Pyne v Witmer (majority – drunk driving / frolic & detour) 3 factors
kind of conduct he is employed to perform
occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits 
it is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master 
Restatement: removes purpose to serve the master
kind of conduct he is employed to perform
occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits 
Minority View
Conduct was foreseeable: not unusual or startling
Modern Approach:
act was “reasonably connected” with employment 
Examples: goal to further employer's interest, employment basis for disagreement that led to violence 
Exceptions to needing to prove reasonable connection:
Caregivers
If act was authorized 
Employee was in special position of trust and authority with incentive from job to engage in such behavior 
 Frolic and detour 
Detours: an employee’s deviation from job-related activities is still related to the employment. Detours are considered within the scope of employment.
Frolics: an employee has deviated substantially from employment-related activities. Frolics are not in the scope of employment.
Once frolic is abandoned vicarious liability is present 
Personal business and employer’s business may be combined 
Policy Rational 
Control employees conduct
Accident prevention / deterrence / job training
Cost of doing Business
Assuring Compensation
Fairness – benefit to the employer connotes assumption of responsibility
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
II. Intentional Torts
Intent: legal definitions
Desire/Purpose to cause consequences – subjective 
Belief consequences are substantially certain – objective
Garrett v. Daily – Brian pulls the chair from under the woman, although he didn’t desire to hurt her, he was certain enough that she would fall
Children are liable for intentional torts
Transfer of intent (transferred intent) (Hall V McBride)
The actor is liable for invasion of the interest beyond her expressed intent 
From one party to another (meant to hit one person but got another)
If an act is done with the intention of affecting a third person, but causes a harmful bodily contact to another, the actor is liable to such other as fully as though he intended so to affect him.
From Intended harm to particular harm (meant to hurt but killed)  – Hall v. McBride
If an act is done with the intention of inflicting upon another an offensive but not a harmful bodily contact or of putting another in apprehension of either a harmful or offensive bodily contact, and such act causes a bodily contact to the other, the actor is liable to the other for battery although the act was not done with the intention of bringing about the resulting bodily harm.
Consensus: transfers between assault and battery
Some courts: intent to commit any of 1) battery, 2) assault, 3) false imprisonment, 4) trespass to chattel [harm to property], and 5) trespass to land
Doctrine of mistake
Liable – Mistake of fact does not relieve liability –  if someone mistakes an identity that someone is still liable because he/she intended to