Torts Outline

Tort: Civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy; to provide a peaceful means for adjusting the rights of wrong parties. Burden of proof merely requires preponderance of proof

Spano v. Perini: Strict liability OK, doesn't stop valuable economic activity in blasting. Suit is about allocating costs. Liability separated from fault at least in this case.

Garrett v. Dailey: minor status does not absolve liability in battery. There has to be:

INTENT: ACTOR KNEW TO A SUBSTANTIAL CERTAINTY THAT harmful/offensive CONTACT/APPREHENSION SHOULD/WILL HAPPEN. PURPOSE to cause harm. (or, what a reasonable person MUST have known to a substantial certainty, etc) NOT intent to act. NEVER say Def. acted intentionally. Cannot be negated by mistake.

Intentional torts: Battery, Assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels. Intentional torts= punitive damages + actual damages
Negligence= only actual damages.

Contrast w/ negligence; what a reasonable person SHOULD have known would cause harmful/offensive contact.
BATTERY: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF A HARMFUL/OFFENSIVE CONTACT WITH THE PERSON OF THE PLAINTIFF

Spivey v. Battaglia, hug resulted in partial paralysis.
Not battery: def. cannot know that these bizarre injuries would to a substantial certainty result. ; or, b/c she was shy, likely to know to be harmful/offensive.

Battery= intent + harmful/offensive contact. Two standards for harmful/offensive; what the actor found harmful/offensive, what a reasonable person would have found harmful/offensive.

Wallace v. Rosen, teacher "pushed parent down stairs"
Accidental/unavoidable touching ? no battery.

Fisher v. Carrousel Motor Hotel
Does not have to be body, can be something attached to body to constitute battery. (plate)

There must be a contact for there to be a battery;
if Bartender puts alcohol in patron's drink who requests a nonalcoholic drink, that's a battery, (argue both ways) Doesn't have to directly touch pl.
Not needed: knowledge of harm likely to result; if battery is found, then you are responsible for ALL damages resulting from.

ASSAULT: Def; acts with an intent to place the victim in an apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact or to make such a contact. Future threats don't count.

attempt to commit a battery; must have created apprehension of imminent battery in reasonable person (has to be possible)
Western Union Telegraph v. Hill, (lustful midget)

False Imprisonment:
Big Town Nursing Home v. Newman;
pl. asked to leave, was refused to do so, kept for 51 days against his will, If the means of escape is not reasonably safe/appropriate, that's false imprisonment. (direct restraint of one person of physical liberty of another w/o adequate legal justification.) Must be aware they are falsely imprisoned: no liability unless the person restrained knows of it or is harmed by it.

Parvi v. City of Kingston

Pl was trying to calm some drunks, picked up by officers, he told them he had no place to go, they let him out on a golf course. Just 'cos you don't REMEMBER doesn't mean you weren't AWARE of it at the time.


continuum of awareness of risk:

Negligence lowest: a REASONABLE person would find it reasonably foreseeable that bad thing likely to result;

Recklessness: highly likely to cause a contact; aware of a significant risk

Knowledge to a substantial certainty most aware of risk, required for intent.

In Battery, intent is transferable; if I intend to shoot Hillary and instead shoot Mitt Romney, I am still liable for Battery. (Talmadge v. Smith) Also works for other crimes; if you intend to commit battery and wind up w/assault.

Ransom v. Kittner

Tresspass to chattels; shot the wrong animal, does not absolve you of liability

McGuire v. Almy (Mr. Rochester's wife)
Mentally ill liable for battery. Can entertain intent.

False Imprisonment:

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

Trespass to Land:

Privileges (defenses):

Consent; implied/express

Self Defense/Defense of others

Defense of Property

Recovery of Property

necessity

Authority of Law

Discipline

Justification

NEGLIGENCE: table with four legs: duty, breach, damage, causal connection btw. conduct/injury. In most cases, element of duty is satisfied.

Elements of Cause of Action

A Negligence Formula

The Standard of Care

The Reasonable Prudent Person

The Professional

Aggravated negligence

Rules of Law

Violation of Statute (Negligence Per Se)

Res Ipsa Loquitur: We don't know what the hell happened. Elements: The thing that caused the accident/damage was under the exclusive control of def; accident would not ordinarily happen w/o negligence on the part of the def.

Ybarra v. Spangard (unconscious patient is one of the exceptions discussed to can't sue > 1 def)

Ybarra sued Spangard for improper treatment: he developed paralysis in arm as result of an operation. We don't know who in the operating room was exactly responsible and obviously no one will own up to it. Normally cannot bring Res Ipsa Loquitur against a bunch of people, but, partially b/c patient was unconscious, we see no other way, except for strict liability and we DON'T want that. All defs. equally liable for caring for pl.

Sullivan v. Crabtree

Pls. sued for death of son Sullivan, killed when guest in truck which overturned down embankment. Suit against owner dismissed, against driver continues on appeal. Falls under Res Ipsa Loquitur b/c we don't know exactly what caused driver to lose control of truck. Were these circumstances under driver's control? Was there negligence? usually in these cases, yes. For Res Ipsa Loquitur, we need: a warranted inference of negligence: could not have occurred w/o def's negligence; A presumption of negligence- def has burden of refuting. It's for the jury to decide that, it could be or not, and they decided it wasn't and ruled for def.

CAUSATION IN FACT:

Sine qua non

Perkins v. Texas & New Orleans ry. co.

Pl's car hit by train, husband+ another killed, widow sued.

Pl + def rr concede that car driver was negligent. Train also traveling 12 miles over speed limit. Was this a cause of collision? Ok- is it a substantial factor in bringing about that harm? In this case, it was a substantial factor (but for) . If no (but for) not a substantial factor. Even at 25, couldn't have stopped train. So Pls say; If the train had been slower, the car coulda sped up and avoided; ct sez; that's not good enough, there's not enough evidence.

Reynolds v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. It is negligence when the fat lady falls.

Pl & wife sued after she fell down stairs, she was fat and told to hurry up. & she fell. Def sez; she coulda fallen anyway! But ct sez; possibility that it might have happened w/o def's negligence is not enough to break the causal connection. Accident did occur b/c of def's negligence, so fat lady gets $. We dunno what woulda/coulda/shoulda happened.

Tests of causation: "But for" test; injury would not have occurred 'but for" def's negligence

Alternative test: Substantial factor: negligence was a "substantial factor" in bringing about the harm, common for loss of chance cases.

Herskovits v. Group Health, Pl suffered from undiagnosed lung cancer, caused 14 percent reduction in chances of survival, he wouldn't have survived anyway. Loss of chance test. pl can sue.

Scientific Evidence problems: admissibility, does it reflect "scientific knowledge: not necessarily a consensus. Is testimony relevant?

Daubert v. merrill dow, Pl alleged that mother's ingestion of Benedectin caused birth defects. Old evidence test: do most scientists agree, new evidence test, is it scientifically "valid". Pl's scientists have not previously done work in this field, and don't prove that Benedectin causes birth defects.

Hill v. Edmonds; multiple insufficient causes/Concurrent causes
ct dismissed action against owner of tractor who left it parked w/o lights in the middle of the road. Pl was passenger in car which collided w/tractor, ct found driver guilty of negligence- she coulda caused accident. This Ct sez; well, even if she were negligent, but for truck being in the middle of the road, wouldna happened. When separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury, each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it. So remanded and reinstated complaint against truck owner.

Anderson v. Minneapolis ---RR. co.

Fire started in Bog, caused by negligence of def. Merged with another, separate fire, both of which burned over pl's property.
This ct uses Cook rule: One who negligently sets a fire is not liable if another's property is damaged, unless it is made to appear that the fire was a material force in the destruction of the property.
If the fire combines with another of no responsible origin, and after the union of the two fires, they destroy the property, and either fire independently of the other would have destroyed it, then the first person is still liable.

Problems in determining which party caused the harm

Summers v. Tice

Tice and Simonson negligently shot pl. while hunting. Defs say, we're not joint and severally liable! Not acting in concert! We couldna both shot him!
Precedent sez; Well, only one of you coulda dun it, and we dunno who, so you're both in trouble. Y'all figure out which one of you is at fault.

Sindell v. Abbott Labs.
Pl was injured as a result of drug administered to mother during pregnancy. We dunno manufacturer, but can we hold copycat manufacturer liable?
If pls can establish by a preponderance of proof that (item) manufactured by one of the defs, then burden of proof as to causation shifts to all defs. Here we gots too many folks, Also no evidence that defs jointly controlled the risk.

PROXIMATE/LEGAL CAUSE

Cause in fact = "but for"- once you have established cause in fact, then can establish legal liability= proximate cause.

ANY CAUSE WHICH IN THE NATURAL AND CONTINUOUS SEQUENCE, UNBROKEN BY AN EFFICIENT INTERVENING CAUSE, PRODUCES THE RESULT COMPLAINED OF AND WITHOUT WHICH THE RESULT WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED.

Unforeseeable EXTENT of harm: still liable: eggshell pl; def liable for all injuries resulting from a physical injury whether they were foreseeable or not (man goes mad after car accident)

Unforeseeable TYPE of harm: still liable

Unforeseeable MANNER of harm: still liable (rat doused with petrol explodes)

Unforeseeable PLAINTIFF: still liable

Unforeseeable consequences

Ryan v. NYC rr.

Sparks from engine set woodshed afire, 130 feet from house, burned pl's house & several others. Judgment for def, affirmed. We have to limit this at some point; pl can claim for ppty on which sparks directly fell, but can't be found negligent for next house and so forth. We have Cause in Fact but not Proximate Cause.

Bartolone v. Jeckovich

Pl had car accident, defs liable, minor injuries resulted in complete psychotic break. Jury returned verdict for pl, ct gave jnov. This ct overturns citing precedent; you can go crazy from car accident, or car accident can aggravate your underlying insanity. Cause in fact = proximate cause.

Rule: Def must take pl as he finds him.

Polemis v. Furness, Withy & co., Furness W chartered vessel to polemis, plank fell into hold, igniting petrol vapours, ship blew up, owners sued polemis for value of ship. Ct decided: there was negligence, just 'cos not foreseeable, does not mean lack of negligence. (Unforeseen type of harm; no one expected the dropping of plank to create spark to explode ship but it did)

Overseas Tankship v. Morts Dock & Engineering, Wagon Mound 1) not liable

Overseas Tankship v. Miller Tankship (Wagon Mound 2) Accident foreseeable, they coulda stopped the oil from leaking out and that was a bad thing. So reversal for ship's owners

Palsgraf v. LI rr co. Pl hit by scales after def pushed passenger onto train, dislodging package which promptly exploded. Ct decided there's no negligence related to pl, negligence maybe towards package carrier,

Yun v. Ford Motor Co, etc. Tire fell off conversion van, dad gets out to retrieve, is squashed flat. Yun sues everyone in the entire world, apparently, including: !Precious! the driver, Ford, Miller, the manufacturer of the tire assembly, Universal, converter, Castle, the dealer, and Kim's mobile service center, which told her tire might fall out. Pls must prove that alleged defect in spare tire caused injuries sustained by Chang. Was Chang's conduct reasonably foreseeable? NO, you cross parkway, you smash flat. Ct sez; his highly extraordinary and dangerous actions in crossing parkway constitute a superseding and intervening cause of his own injuries

Intervening Causes:

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Co.

Def Felix digging up street, pl was sealing a gas main, Dickens came along and had a seizure and hit pl who landed in boiling enamel who then ignited into a fire ball. Pl alleged that def was negligent in insuring safety. Def sez; this is freakish accident, Dickens' fault, When the acts of a third person intervene between the defs conduct and the pls injury, the causal connection is not automatically severed. Liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by def's negligence. Here an obvious possible result of def's negligence is that a driver will come in and injure a worker, and driver's negligence/recklessness does not insulate def from liability. Foreseeable, normal, and natural result of the risk created by Felix was the injury of a worker by a car entering the improperly protected work area. Def liable.

Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge &rr co

Tank car full of petrol derailed, valve broken, petrol ran all over the place. Duerr either set it on fire by dropping match accidentally, or by doing it deliberately. We dunno. If it was accidental, they're liable, if it was malicious, no. Explosion likely to result from spilt petrol, but can't foresee or deem it probable that malicious actor will blow it up. Criminal conduct frequently breaks liability chain.

Fuller v. Preis Pl got jury verdict for 200K, Appellate div. set aside, dismissing complaint, appeals. Dr. Lewis committed suicide 7 months after car accident which left him epileptic. Is suicide an "irresistible impulse" caused by traumatic organic brain damage? we dunno, but it could be, and that's what the jury said.

McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Co

McCoy rescuer after Suzuki swerved off road and rolled. McCoy hit while walking on side of road, sued: driver for negligent driving, passenger for negligently grabbing wheel, State for negligence of trooper, Suzuki for defective car. Suzuki said: rescue doctrine doesn't apply to product liability, and McCoy must and cannot prove Suzuki proximately caused his injuries. TC said rescue doctrine does apply to product liability BUT Suxuki not proximate cause of MCCoy's injuries. Appeals ct said, injured rescuer need not prove def proximately caused the injuries, only that def proximately caused the danger.

Rescue doctrine: injured rescuer can sue party which caused the danger requiring the rescue in the first place.

Factors: (1) def negligent to person rescued and this negligence caused the peril or appearance of peril to the person rescued (2) the peril or appearance of peril was imminent (3) a reasonably prudent person would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril existed (4) the rescuer acted with reasonable car in effectuating the rescue.

Suxuki sez: we have a product liability statute, go away with your rescue doctrine. Ct sez, no.

Ct sez; rescue doctrine means pl must show def's negligence proximately caused injuries- is that so? let the jury decide.

Public Policy

Kelly V. Gwinnell