Torts Outline

TORTS OUTLINE

Chapter 1: Development of Liability Based Upon Fault
3 Possible Bases of Tort Liability
o 1) Intentional Conduct
o 2) Negligent conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of causing harm.
o 3) Conduct that is neither intentional nor negligent but that subjects the actor to strict liability because of public policy.
· What is the purpose of tort law?
o 1) To provide a peaceful means of resolution for parties that would otherwise take the law into their own hands.
o 2) To deter wrongful conduct.
o 3) To encourage socially responsible behavior.
4) To restore the injured parties to their original condition, insofar as the law can do this, by compensating the injured party.

Cases:
Anonymous: Absolute liability system. No intent necessary.
If a man does a thing, he is bound to do it in such a way that by his deed no damage or injury is inflicted upon others, even if there was no intent in the injury, the person who committed the injury is responsible. Only causation and injury had to be proven.
Weaver v. Ward (Musket Skirmish Case)
Accidental shooting during an intentional military exercise. New idea emerged; the idea of fault. For tort: Need Causation + Injury + Fault (Acting with intention or negligence). Courts began to shift into separate tort of negligence.
Brown v. Kendall (Dog Stick Eye Case)
Accidental striking of plaintiff, during intentional striking of dogs. For a plaintiff to recover the burden of proof must be placed on him. Negligence emerges. Lack of ordinary care under the circumstances. D is liable only if D failed to use ordinary care and P did use ordinary care. Level of care varies with the circumstances.
Cohen v. Petty (Driver Passed Out Crash)
Negligence now becomes its own tort, separate from trespass. Negligence is a reason to know or anticipate circumstances and lack of ordinary care thereunder. Driver who crashed car because of unknown medical condition is not liable. Defendant not liable if they did not act with volition.
Spano v. Perini Corp. (Blasting Damaged Garage)
Strict Liability. Certain activities are inherently dangerous and therefore require strict liability. Blasting is an extraordinarily dangerous activity. Just need to show causation.

Chapter 2: Intentional Interference with Person or Property
1) Intent
Broadens our view of trespass: Original 5 Intentional Invasions: Assault, Battery, False Imprisonment, Trespass to Land, Trespass to Chattels
All require intent, plus other elements
A) Intent to cause the contact, or apprehension of the contact, or specific intent
B) Knowledge that the contact, or apprehension of the contact is substantially certain to occur or general intent
No bad motive is required, you can even have good motive, as in… you do not have to know the exact consequence, or even that any harm will occur, only that you intend that the contact will occur
Cases:
Garratt v. Dailey (Little Brian Moved Chair)
Specific Intent: Intent to cause a contact, or the intent to cause the person to apprehend a contact… acting with something just a little bit less than intent. Age of defendant is of no significance.
Spivey v. Battaglia (Friendly Hug Severe Neck Damage)
Intent: A reasonable person would have believed that a particular result was substantially certai