· Battery= to establish a prima faciae case for battery, the following elements must be proven
1) Intent 2) Act from the D to bring about harmful or offensive contact onP’’s pers 3) Causation (for direct or indirect contact. 4)w/o consent of P.
· Assault= 1) Intent 2) Act by D creating a reasonable apprehension in P of immediate harmful or
offensive contact to P’s person. ( reasonable person test) 3) Causation
· Trespass= intentional act of physical invasion of P’ real property by D.
Intent to trespass is not required, intent to enter onto the land is sufficient
Self defense ( when a person has reasonable belief that he or is about to be attacked, he may use a reasonable force for protection against a potential injury)
Defense of others: ( when a reasonable belief that the person being aided would have the right of self defense)
Non intentional Harm : NEGLIGENCE
To establish a prima faciae case for negligence, P must prove the existence or a DUTY on the part of D, the BREACH of that duty by the defendant, the breach of that duty was the ACTUAL and PROXIMATE CAUSE of the P’s injury and the DAMAGE to the P’s person or property.
Ø DUTY : A general duty of care is imposed on all human activity. Legal duty to act as an ordinary prudent reasonable person (RPP) . It is presumed that an RPP will take precautions against creating unreasonable risks of injury to other persons.
No duty is imposed on a person to take precautions against events that cannot reasonably be forseen.
Ø No duty to act: In most situations, we have no affirmative duty to act in situations where someone has already been placed in danger before we arrive on the scene.
Exception: 1) we have duty to act if we caused the situation resulting in the danger to the other person= duty to aid
2)if we begin to give aid, we have duty to continue to give aid
3)when we have a certain relationship to the harmed person
Ø Duty to third party:
Ø BREACH: Hand formula B<PL ( the D has breached if the burden B of preventing harm is less than the probability of the harm P times the severity of the loss L) This formula reflects the reality that the decision about what D should have done to act reasonably to prevent harm to someone like the P is usually balancing factors.
Battery = D commit an act which intented to cause and did cause an offensive contact with no defense
Assault=D commit an act that was intented to and cause the apprehension of an immediate battery w/o Defense
Intentional infliction of severe ED: D commit an Xtrem and outrageous act which was intent to and cause a SED.
*Civil suiteà bring back party to same situation before,monetary damages
*The traditional goal of tort law has been to restore P to the equivalent condition prior to the harm (by monetary damages)
1 Intentional Harm
Intent: a) acts with the purpose of producing the consequences OR;
b) acts knowing that the consequence is substantially certain to result, to occur
(/speak about risk,=about consequences)
Recklessness: a)knows of the risk of harm created by the conduct or Knows the facts +
b) precaution< risk—demonstration of the person’s indifference to the risk
Negligence: Failing to exercice reasonable care under all circumstances
Absolute Liabiliy: chelle voici la reponse enfin a mon courriel recu auj dimanche. Bisou.
B) Cause of Aspen: Cause-in –fact: Pla must prove D intentional tortious conduct=actual cause of the harm
C) Proximate cause: Interest of V in attaining full compensation is placed above the interest of the D
D) I,R >N: An actor who intentionally or recklessly causes physical harm is subject to
liabilityfor a broader range of harms than the actor who only acted negligently
E) Intent and insanity: Defendants insanity doesn’t establish a defense to liability (except if acts=under
Influence of insanity)
F) Parents : NOT generally liable for the torts of their children only when
-are on notice of the child’s tendancies+
-should know that an occasion has arisen calling for their exercice of control
** insurance—exclusion for intentional conduct
H) Battery = Intent. harm (intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another)
-Touching (/ necessary physical harm, /injury required)
-Intent to touch ( knowledge with certainity that touch will occur) (reasonable person / required)
-w/o consent or privilege
-reasonable person not required here
Garrat v. Dailey SC 1955 ( chair)
Not a battery : Intentional infliction of a harmful bodily contact upon another.
2) Strict Liability ( act=predicated) (accident)
* Pla need only to establish that D caused the injury+ defect product+ PLA own conduct
Hammontree v.Jenner CA California 1971
-Personal injury and property damages arising out of an automobile accident
-D became unconscious during an epileptic seizure, losing the control of his car
-instruction to jury about negligence and not about absolute liability
-Strict liability: a manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article was placed on the market, knowing that it is to be usedwithout inspection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes injury to a human being.—theory of assumption of risk…important because if not, it will put a hold on the social progress.
– California Supreme Court refused to apply SL to automobile drivers
– DMV liable only if negligently performed a mandatory duty= immune for discretionary decision
-Only the driver affected by a physicial condition which could suddenly render him unconscious and who is aware fo that condition can anticipate the hazards and forsees the dangers in his operation of a vehicule
-Absolute libability: Pla need to establish that D product caused the injury + defect product+ Pla own conduct.
3) Litigation Process
* Settlement, claim (alleged facts,conclusion, damages,other remedies-injonction -retractation)
* motion <demurrer> : / legal theory even the facts all
significance of his condition) Roberts
Emergency doctrine, jury can consider it but not emphaisis on it.
2) -Children except if involved in an adult activity (court will apply then the adult standards) ( Reas. Care due to their age) ( not fair for kids to hold a higher standard.Goss
-Negligent only if his actions fall short of what may be reasonably expect of chidren same age in similar activity.
3) Same rule Men Women Old person
3) Persons with special abilities (higher standard)
D) Role of judge and jury
· Unintentional act ( failure to take precaution or failure to act)
· Want of ord care ( DUTY= JUGE / BREACH = JURY –facts)
· Harm ( some cases not compensable)
· Causation : between the breach of duty of care and causation harm.
Goodman ( driver died)
-Contributory negligence case of the driver.
-Up to the defendant to prove contributory negligence.
-standard of conduct = juge decide / question of due care= left to the jury
-Goodman felt short of the legal standard of duty.
-Contributory negligence / What reasonable conduct is up to the jury to decide
-Possible cases distinguished on facts.
-Pla hit in the eye by a ball
-not every case is for the jury
-School fulfilled its duty of <reasonable care> so NO question of negligence remained for the jury consideration. (NO BREACH)
-P hair bleached- cigarette caught fire in cotton and P was injured
-Jury Question: determine that D had failed to act upon a risk which was foreseeable for him
-Pla summary jgt. P burden but D admit….Question as a matter of law.
Andrew ( briefcase-airline)
-Quest of jury ( standard of care doesn’t insure passenger safety)
– P injured, briefcase fell from overhead compartiment, Not know who opened the compartiment
-in California, Common carrier = high standard of care, standard of a very cautious person
– application of B>PL if > there is no negligence
– Common carrier =higher duty, small risks should be eliminated, airline need to take adequate precautions
– Jury decide duty to united to de more than a warn.