Torts Outline

TORTS OUTLINE
I.                    Development of Liability Based Upon Fault
A.      French for injury or wrong, Latin for twisted.
B.      A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy.
1)     Imposes duties on persons to act in a manner that will not injure other persons.
2)     THREE TYPES OF TORTS:
a.       Intentional
b.      Negligence
c.       Strict (absolute) liability
C.      Major purposes for tort law (determents and remedies):
1)     To provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of parties who might otherwise “take the law into their own hands”, to deter wrongful conduct, to encourage socially responsible behavior, and to restore the injured parties to their original condition (by compensation).
D.     Two common law writs are the genesis of tort law:
1)     The writ of trespass (direct forcible injuries, doesn’t have to be intentional), and (not on FINAL)
a.       5 intentional torts and transferred intent
2)     The writ of trespass on the case (or action on the case)
a.       Anything that the king of courts did not already have on the books and was usually indirect (Old English).
b.      This constitutes most of negligence law.
c.       You must prove damages and must normally have to prove fault and/or intent.
d.      If there is no precedent on your side, you need to plead that it is not fair. When society changes, the tort law changes also.
3)     You did not have to prove that you were damaged in old English law. Dignitary damages/claims did not need proof. It was strict liability. There are still torts today that you do not have to prove damages. This most covers intentional torts.
a.       You don’t need to prove damages on most cases today, but there is more money involved if you show proof.
b.      Dignity doesn’t pay very much, actual damages do.
E.      Burden of Proof:
1)     Beyond a reasonable doubt.
2)     Not every case has burden of proof, but if it does, it has to be 51% more than the other side.
3)     Criminal cases go first since there is a larger burden of proof.
4)     [1616 CE] Burden of proof changed from strict liability but the Δ had to prove that it was not his fault (accidental – without negligence).
a.       By stating that the gun discharged by itself, the action was not his fault; negligence would include the gun being accidentally shot.
5)     [1850 CE] Burden of proof changed over to the π
a.       Π has to prove that the Δ would have had to been shown with some fault, negligence, carelessness, or want of prudence, in order to be guilty.
b.      This gets us further away from strict liability.
1.      Once the population increased, there was more of an expectation that people would increasingly have to interact with others.
2.      The π needs to prove that the action was intentional or negligent (at fault).
c.       Δ is NOT negligent while driving if he:
1.      Suddenly gets sick
2.      Had no reason to anticipate the illness
3.      While driving an automobile where it was impossible for him to control the car.
F.      Strict Liability
1)     Law/Elements:
a.       The activity is dangerous no matter how careful the Δ is, and
b.      The activity caused the damage.
2)     Π does NOT have to prove that the Δ was negligent; the Δ assumes responsibility.
3)     [1969] Strict Liability returned because of dangerously abnormal activities (blasting underground is an excellent example).
G.      You can ask the judge to reconsider the case-judgment notwithstanding the verdict. If the jury that rendered a verdict that was high, the judge could reduce the verdict (motion for remittitur). Low verdict can be asked to add to the verdict (ad remittitur).
·         Remittitur—A procedure under which a court may order the reduction of an excessive verdict; especially: a procedure in which the court requires the π to remit the portion of the verdict deemed excessive in lieu of a grant of a Δ’s motion for a new trial or of a reversal if the court is in an appellate court.
·         Prima Facie—at first appearance; at first view; before investigation.
 
 
II.                  Intentional Interference With Person or Property
1.      Intent Elements:
A.      Purposely/meant to do it (a desire to do it)
B.      Knowledge of substantial certainty (this how you prove the intent when the person will not admit that they meant to do it)
2.      There must be proof that the Δ would have known, with substantial clarity, which harm could result.
A.      A child cannot be negligent under a certain age (Michigan-7 years old)
B.      A child can know right from wrong and do something intentional. They cannot form the requisite knowledge that what they are doing can cause harm.
C.      Knowledge or substantial certainty. Knowledge is the intent to hurt someone. Substantial certainty is a level below in that he did not want to hurt someone.
D.     Intent is voluntary actions.
1.      He knew the actions that were going to follow.
2.      I tell you I did it or tell someone else that I did it.
3.      Intent is the voluntary action that you can prove by evidence or testimony that there was intentional touching.
4.      A child or