TORTS FINAL OUTLINE – PROF. UTZ (FALL 2017)
**PRODUCTS LIABILITY QUESTION**
Torts has four main categories:
Intentional Torts
Negligence
Strict Liability Activities
Products Liability
Difference between intentional torts and negligence = depends on the kind of intent required
Intentional Torts
Situations where one person intentionally:
Contacts another in a harmful/offensive way
Makes another feat that a harmful or offensive contact will occur
Causes another person severe emotional distress
Basic Aspects of unintentional torts of negligent & reckless behavior:
Carelessness injures another
Injured party may recover damages if careless person had an obligation of care to the injury person or failed to be reasonably careful
Policy limitations:
When one person owes a duty to another
When the causal connection between conduct and harm is close enough to support liability
May avoid or reduce liability by:
Proving a defense
Showing that defendant is entitled to immunity
Stages of Tort Litigation:
Complaints and Initial Responses
Complaint is first step and alleges that certain facts are true
seeking damages or relief
Two options for defendant:
1.) ask judge to dismiss the claim b/c even if the allegations are true, plaintiff would have no legal right to recover damages
2.) file an answer to complaint à admitting or denying the allegations
Summary Judgment
Usually after discovery is completed
Removes the need for trial (no genuine disputes about the facts)
Trial
Parties present info in the form of testimony and physical material
Trier of Fact
Either jury or bench trial (judge) à determines what is true & applies legal rules to facts
Jury instructions specify what result is required and decide amount
Judgment as a Matter of Law
“Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” or J.N.O.V.
Each party may ask the judge to rule in its favor on the ground that, even if the opposing party’s evidence is accepted as true, the opposing party should still lose
Directing a verdict
The court can enter into this judgment in favor of def. if pltf. fails to offer sufficient evidence to support an essential element of case
Judgment
Judgment for plaintiff = damages or relief
Judgment for defendant = depends on the verdict
Judge can decline to enter judgment and may remand case to be tried again
Appeal
Party that loses at any stage of the litigation may be entitled to an appeal
Will treat the facts the jury found as true the same (as long as there was any reasonable basis in the evidence for the jury’s conclusion)
Functions of Tort Law
Allows plaintiffs to obtain compensation for injuries inflicted by defendants or to obtain court orders that stop ongoing or anticipated injuries
Categories of Tort Law
Intentional Torts: plaintiff must prove that defendant intended to affect the plaintiff in an illegal manner in order to recover damages
Types:
Battery
Assault
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Unintentional Torts: plaintiff may recover without proof that defendant meant to cause a prohibited effect (careless conduct)
Two main types:
Negligence
Recklessness
Strict Liability Torts: plaintiff may recover for an injury without proving:
That the defendant meant to cause harm
That the defendant’s conduct lacked some required degree of carefulness
Battery
Liable for any action with the intent to make unpermitted physical contact with another person if the action cause the injury
Protects a person’s bodily integrity
right to be free from intentionally inflicted contact that is harmful or offensive
Defendant does not need to intend the specific injury caused
Nature of action can show that it was intended to be unpermitted
Causes of Action for Battery:
Intentional act by defendant
Resulting in harm or offensive contact
Without consent
Causing injury
Questions to Analyze:
What did the def. do to interfere with plaintiff’s bodily integrity?
Defendants conduct
What characterizes the conduct to be considered a battery?
Why does the court think that defendant’s conduct fits these requirements?
Polmatier v. Russ: def. bet father-in-law with beer bottle and then shot him twice leading to death à def. was then found naked half a mile down the road with the baby and rifle
Court found that def.’s conduct did not constitute as an act à act and the intent are joined to determine the culpability of the offender (def. found to be insane)
Two-pronged Analysis:
Whether def. intended the act which produced injury
Whether def. intended the resulting injury
Waters v. Blackshear: def. placed firecracker in sneaker of pltf. who were both minors – pltf. suffered burn injuries and it was known that def. had been lighting firecrackers for 10 mins. à battery case (based on negligence) and held that def.’s conduct was intentional leading to harm
Intending Contact that is Harmful
Nelson v. Carroll: Nelson owed Carroll money and Carroll struck Nelson in the head with the gun and then accidentally shot him in the stomach à committed battery when he struck him in the head
Intending Contact that is Offensive
Andrews v. Peters: pltf. tapped on the back of def.’s knee causing the knee to buckle – claims intentional assault and batt
s house who shot at the house and when he returned fire he injured neighbor (pltf.) à intention follows the bullet
Relevant Point of View
Intent to cause a harmful contact (battery) is from defendant’s POV
Intent to cause an offensive contact is reckoned from society’s or the victims POV
Whichever is more sensitive
Conditional threat is never an assault à contact threatened can be avoided by the person targeted
The outrageousness of intended emotional distress may be reckoned from either the defendant’s or the victim’s POV
Examples:
A intends to strike and injure B but only grazes B and causes B no apprehension à A is still liable to B for battery
A intends to give B a slight push in jest and B considers such a push to be offensive à A is liable for battery
A intends to make B fear that A will shoot B with a gun and accidentally shoots B à A is liable to B for battery
Defenses to Assault and Battery
Consent
Self-Defense Proportional to conduct of plaintiff or third-party
Defense of self, others, and property
Consent
Person voluntarily relinquishes the right to be free from harmful or offensive contact or imminent apprehension of such contact = affirmative defense
Implied Consent à agreeing to play contact sport
McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts: paper clip shooting game when pltf. stopped playing but did not communicate this to others and was hit in the eye à he consented to the infliction of the injury by participating and pursuing the others (defs. could not reasonably assumed that his consent was still operative)
Hogan v. Tavezel: def. infected pltf. with genital warts while def. knew of the condition and failed to warn pltf. à concealment of information bars def. from relying on pltf.’s consent to avoid liability for battery
Consent usually judged from defendant’s point of view
Richard v. Mangion: when a person voluntarily participates in an altercation he may not recover for the injuries in which he incurs unless force is in excess and not reasonably anticipated (both boys were willing to engage in fight)
Defense of Self and Others – “The Proportionality Principle”
Proportionality is central to the defense of assault and battery à danger must be imminent
